Not sure about Wojtyla.  I know nothing about him before his election.  He was widely reputed to have been a Communist sympathizer, but I know of no public statemens of his that would have indicated maifest heresy.  For Ratzinger, there's volumes of material.

But the really problem, since he was behind V2 was Montini.

From the Siri Thesis perspective, since he didn't die until 1989, the elections of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, and Wojtyla were invalid.  Ratzinger and Bergoglio came after Siri had died, but for them one might argue that by then there were no or few legitimate Cardinals left, and that Ratzinger wasn't a valid bishop ... for example.

Oh OK, I see your point about refuting Fr. Cekada. Thanks. But I do wonder if what he was claiming was really true that, "most SVs have rejected the notion that Montini et al. FELL from the papacy". Kind of a hard thing to quantify, because no one really knows what is in the head of the average pew-sitters who make up the majority of SVs. Your position alone is a testament to that as it is unique from what I have read.

Additionally, in the case of Ratzinger, one could follow the +Vigano argument and say that Ratzinger's “intent to be an orthodox pope” is HIGHLY doubtful at the time of his election (and also afterwards).  If one looks at his history of supporting V2 and the new mass and all the heretical books he wrote before his papacy…the guy was not orthodox.  His intent was to “hybridize” the Trads with the modernists.  Which he was highly successful in accomplishing.  Therefore, his papacy was suspect, from the very beginning, for lack of an intent to be a proper pope.

This goes double for Francis.  Take 30min and research his abominable, new age, ecuмenical acts in Argentina.  The guy is a flaming modernist.

Right but the Siri thesis fails for Benedict/Francis.  In their case, you have multiple “doubts” which could apply individually or even all 3 - doubt of orders, doubt of intent and doubt of heresy.  All of these doubts exist both before and during their papacies and are major problems. 

I agree that none can be proven but that’s why they’re called doubts.  But the facts are serious enough to warrant positive doubts in all 3 areas. 

Reading up on the office of Cardinal….there’s no time-honored, set criteria.  At some point in the past, even laymen were picked as Cardinals.  In recent history, even priests have been chosen.

In most cases, if non-bishops are chosen, they are made bishops.  But it’s not a requirement. 

So the question becomes…since the main duty of a Cardinal is of the human/govt realm (ie to elect a pope and govern the Roman Curia offices), then it makes sense that even if a pope were a heretic (ie only holds material/govt power…in the SP view), then he could still rightfully appoint Cardinals being this appointment/office is mostly of a govt function. 

The fact that some may be only priests (or none at all) would not impede their function as pope-voters, but would impede any spiritual functions only.

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?

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.