According to the theory, though, he did accept.  Paul Williams (the former FBI consultant) indicated that he accepted and took the name Gregory XVII in the 1958 conclave.

.

Without opening this entire discussion again, can I suggest that you read a little of that book on Archive (available with a free account) and just get a sense of it? It is not even remotely credible. Paul Williams is a hardcore leftist and is trying to smear the Church for not being leftist enough, basically. He also considers the Church a completely secular institution, and one that is completely corrupt. He considers it basically a large criminal gang (!).

As far as Williams' claim to be traditional Catholic on some level (I think he didn't use that term, but he claims to be something along those lines), it is completely false. Just read a few pages out of the book.

I spent a few minutes reading that book in random places. It doesn't take long to get the point of the book. It's just a collection of anti-Catholic urban legends, basically. The only one I can remember now is the story of some evil Benedictine monk, I think, in Serbia during World War 2 who tortured children during the War because somehow it helped the nαzιs. I don't remember much else than that, but that should be enough to make the point.

People say, "But if he hated the Church, why would he repeat the story about Cardinal Siri getting elected?" I think this story does play into his general theme, which is that the Church is just a huge criminal gang, mostly criminal because it is not leftist enough (before Vatican 2, I mean). So to say that a pope was elected but some other criminal element (leftist, in this case), forced him out of power by threats of violence in the conclave fits perfectly into his mindset.

Even if it doesn't fit some general theme, the book is just a collection of ridiculous stories that make the Church look bad.

Really, all you need to do is spend 5-10 minutes reading the book at different random places and you'll figure out what this guy's agenda is pretty fast. It's pretty straightforward.

What is noteworthy, also, is that Williams doesn't add anything to the Siri thesis. All the information he puts in that section of the book is only stuff that was circulating the world for probably decades before the book was published. You'd think that if he had access to secret FBI records, that he would have information that wasn't publicly known about this supposed event, right? Well, obviously he didn't.

Since so much else in the book was a bunch of malicious lies against the Church, I think it's safe to assume his claim to inside information about Cardinal Siri is a lie as well. Personally, my theory is that he didn't think anyone was all that interested in the Siri Thesis, or didn't realize the extent of interest, when he inserted that part into the book. Because of that, he was careless in how he wrote the fake footnotes supporting this claim, so he made the mistake of writing some rather specific details into the fake footnotes that referred to non-existent FBI docuмents. When sedevacantists tried to track down these docuмents, who had an interest in the Siri thesis that he wasn't prepared for, and found out that these docuмents cited in his fake footnotes don't actually exist, he had to do some damage control. He refused to respond to anyone who asks him why they can't look up the supposed docuмents he references on this, or explain why the FBI says they don't exist. He literally hangs up the phone on people who call him to ask about this, and refuses to respond to emails. He refused to respond to Mario Derksen and Silvio Mattachione who both emailed him about it. In the second edition of his book, he removed these footnotes that he got caught making up, and replaced them with a vague reference to "FBI Sources" that couldn't be verified, so he wouldn't have to worry about this anymore.

Please, just read some of this book. It'll really be an eye-opener for you as far as Paul Williams is concerned.

If Paul Williams hates the Church and is a super-leftist, then his Siri claim is even MORE credible, because he has no Trad-agenda, he doesn't care about V2 or the new mass.  He has no reason to make the Siri facts known, or lie about it.  He is truly a third-party observer, with no agenda...the most reliable type of witness.

And it's even more credible because he seems to mention this in passing and does not put any emphasis on it as being particularly important ... since he doesn't really understand or care about the theological ramifications, viewing the papacy to be similar to any political office.

What makes his claim even more credible is where he adds the detail that Siri took the papal name Gregory XVII.  If he was just making something up, where did he get that particular detail.  Also, Williams was capitalizing on his credibility due to his background, which makes it unlikely that he'd make something up just to mention it in passing that might compromise his credibility.

Nor is Williams the only one who's ever made this claim.  You had the highly-credible and well-connected Scortesco, as well as the (albeit less credible ... hit or miss) Malachi Martin.  Combined with the problems with the smoke signals, evidence that Roncalli was pre-selected up front ... and of course the aftermath of the election of Roncalli et al. ... everything points in this direction.  Scortesco was found burned alive in his bed (in typical mob-hit fashion) shortly after coming out with this information.

Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226): “There will be an uncanonically elected Pope who will cause a great schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)

But who is anti-christ? The dimonds seem to think JP2. And I wonder what exactly it means by shortened days...

But who is anti-christ? The dimonds seem to think JP2. And I wonder what exactly it means by shortened days...

The AntiChrist = end-times Antipope of the Counterfeit Catholic Church = "the man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2) = "the False Prophet" (Apocalypse 13) = "the little horn" (Daniel 7 and 8) = "the eighth" (Apocalypse 17) = "Antiochus Epiphanes" (1 Maccabees) = Jorge Mario Bergoglio

Bergoglio was not canonically-elected according Universi Dominici Gregis, the Church law governing papal elections. You can read the details at www.antipope.com, if you are interested.

As St. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2, there will be "powerful delusion"/"operation of error" which God sends to those "not receiving the love of the truth." That is, Jorge Mario Bergoglio will deceive all those who, thinking he is the actual Pope of the actual Roman Catholic Church, will follow him over the moral and doctrinal cliff into the Abyss. Synodality is the edge of that cliff. "Consenting to iniquity" is to teach that repentance is no longer necessary for those who choose to break God's Commandments. Rather, the Synodalists teach that God wants us to now preach "acceptance" and "affirmation" not repentance. That teaching is AntiChrist, and the pinnacle of that teaching will happen with Bergoglio.

When did Bergoglio fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2 according to you? Also, do you have any evidence he is of Jєωιѕн descent? When did he preach the doctrine of the antichrist?

It makes so much more sense for JP2 to be the antichrist when his main teaching was that every man is Christ.

The apostasy from the Truth has been ongoing in certain degrees since the Modernists, Freemason, and Communists have infiltrated the Church, changing its teaching and Sacraments slowly. But will be completely fulfilled when "the Church" (i.e., the apparent Church, the Counterfeit Church, the Harlot of Babylon, the Synodal Church) officially embraces the doctrine that "acceptance" must replace "repentance."

In that doctrinal context, there is not need for a Redeemer because Sin does not matter. It is not that there is no Sin. No, there is Sin, but they will say "we are all sinners" and the Eucharist is the "the bread of sinners" and "love conquers all." No need to change. God accepts everyone just as they are. So Christ's passion and death was for nothing. That is AntiChrist to perfection.

P.S. the "Jєωιѕн descent" should be understood figuratively. Just as "the Jєωs" rejected and crucified Jesus, so the Harlot Church (the new "Jєωs") will reject and crucify the Mystical Body of Christ in the end times.

Bergoglio was not canonically-elected according Universi Dominici Gregis, the Church law governing papal elections. You can read the details at www.antipope.com, if you are interested.

I'm sorry, but this is getting really old ... pretending that the problems in the Church are due to Jorge, when they go all the way back to Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and (yes) Ratzinger.  I'll give Luciani a pass since he wasn't there long enough to do much damage (not that he was a legitimate pope).

We can top right there at the Major Premise, since it's demonstrably false.
Even Wojtyla mentioned the resignation scenario.

It is demonstrably true that the law of papal elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, requires that the Pope be dead and buried before a new election can take place. 

Yes, it is possible in Canon Law for a Pope to "resign." But according to, Universi Dominici Gregis, the election for a new Pope must wait until AFTER the previous Pope dies.

In the interim (that is, after a resignation but before the death of the Pope), the Curial officials appointed by the Pope run the Church. But they cannot do anything that normally required the Pope's decision or signature. They can "keep the lights on." They cannot change discipline or doctrine in anyway. The Pope has resigned, so he is not doing anything.

All of that is in Universi Dominici Gregis, if you will just read it. I am not making it up.