CathInfo.com

That happened after his election to the papacy.  My point was, given Fr. Cekada's assertion that most SVs have rejected the notion that Montini et al. FELL from the papacy, but instead hold that they were never popes to begin with, on account of manifest heresy ... where's the evidence of heresy before his election?

Or was Fr. Cekada wrong?

.

That's an interesting question. Someone should do a study of what Montini was up to before 1963. I asked various people if Roncalli was a heretic, and the answer I got was that there isn't really any proof that he was an unbeliever either before or during his "pontificate". But then I read that fantastic book "Nikita Roncalli", and it tells the story about how Roncalli spent his whole life promoting communism, which is a form of apostasy. So that's how he was a non-Catholic before his "election".

I think the reason people don't know about Montini's past is just because no one has really looked into it. But he must have been a heretic, since otherwise election to the papacy would have turned him from being a Catholic into a raging heretic, which seems contrary to the nature of the papacy and possibly against the promises of Christ. It's sort of a matter of eliminating the other alternatives, to some extent.

I think a lot of the sedevacantist literature focuses on the errors and heresies from Montini during his "reign" in order to prove that he could not have been a true pope, but I've never actually read anyone who really did a study of his activities before his election apart from a few basic facts that we have all heard already, such as his support for communists and things like that. (His sodomitic activities, if that's even true, are not relevant, since that doesn't make one an invalid pope, and we have had a couple of true popes in the past who committed this sin anyway.)

But he must have been a heretic, since otherwise election to the papacy would have turned him from being a Catholic into a raging heretic, which seems contrary to the nature of the papacy and possibly against the promises of Christ. It's sort of a matter of eliminating the other alternatives, to some extent.

Be that as it may, his heresy would have remained occult, and occult heresy doesn't remove one from membership in the Church and therefore would not have precluded legitimate election.  In other words, he would have remained pope until his heresy became manifest.

And I absolutely agree with you that the promises of Christ would prevent a Pope who was legitimate at his election from wrecking the Church, but would either cause him to drop dead or would convert him.

This, IMO, is why the sedevacantist thesis regarding Montini is completely unsatisfactory ... and why I favor the Siri Thesis.  One might also contend that Montini was being blackmailed due to his sodomy, which would render his acts null and void since they wouldn't have been free.

Way too much emphasis is placed on the personal manifest heresy angle by the SVs, and the establishment of manifest heresy must somehow happen a priori to the Pope's Magisterium, because the problem then becomes, "Oh, here's Pope Pius XIII.  He just issued and Encyclical.  It contains heresy.  He's not the pope."  So, in order to reject any teaching of the Magisterium you don't like or decide is heretical, all you have to do is to declare the See vacant.  Old Catholics could have just done the same thing.

We know that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and could not have been the result of legitimate papal authority FREELY EXERCISED.  That's the "dogmatic" aspect of SVism.  BUT, as to what actually caused it or how it happened and what mechanisms were in play?  Only God knows.