CathInfo.com

We read these threads and ask the question of whether Francis is the pope, and whether we are able to judge the electoral process, the conclave, which elected him; and whether he, or other popes, were popes, and whether they lost offices through heresy, ad naseam.  My question is, How was John Paul not a valid pope?  He was elected by valid cardinals.  I have not "crunched the cardinals" so to say, but it is safe to say that most of the cardinals in 1978 were heretofore elected by valid popes, making them valid cardinals.  I know the Sede crowd will argue that many of the cardinals were created and appointed by Popes John and Paul VI.  But consider the Cardinal Siri Thesis for a moment:

Cardinal Siri died in 1989; John Paul II was elected in 1978. If Cardinal Siri was the validly elected pope, then the most we can say is that Card. Siri was cowardly for not defending his papacy in light of the usurpers trying to steal it from him.  How is there any other conclusion?  I know the contrarians will argue: "But hold on a minute Bryan, the enemies threatened to kill Siri and start World War III, blah blah."  So what!  Cardinal Siri was still a coward for not standing up and defending the papacy in the face of evil.  Those who promote the Siri thesis must prove us wrong, how is there any other conclusion?  I personally think the Siri thesis to be so laughable, almost beyond belief.  I am surprised that so many people hold it.   

So let me get this straight, from 1978-89 (during the reign of John Paul to the death of Siri) Abp Lefebvre is doing the best he can, flying around the world doing ordinations, et cetera...meanwhile Pope Siri the silent pope, let us call him "Siri the Silent," is apparently being a quiet, persecuted pope.  We hear nothing of him condemning the New Mass, nothing of him coming to the defense of Bp. Lefebvre, nothing of him defending his rightful claim to the papacy- all this in light of the fact that John Paul II is running around as a pretended pope.  If Siri was a valid pope, he was worse than these liberal popes, because he did nothing, absolutely nothing.  And why do we not hold Cardinal Siri to same standard as we hold all these traditional priests and religious who were thrown out of their houses by modernists?   

And it matters not one iota whether we be keyboard warriors or write lengthy tomes in defense of Christendom, the point remains, if Siri was pope, then he did nothing to defend the papacy; if he was not pope, then he still did nothing.  Why is that we all must accept the emotional argument that Siri was persecuted, so he therefore had a legitimate excuse to do nothing.  Cardinal Siri does not get a pass when it comes to God's justice, and he also does not get a pass from those faithful Catholics who must persist in this Great Apostasy.  And besides, I am not so sure that Siri was the orthodox champion his promoters make him out to be.  I have never read that Siri came out publicly against the New Mass; he never rallied any of those conservative bishops to his cause.  It appears that Siri was in the same camp as the majority of bishops and cardinals who went right along with Vatican II, a bunch of do-nothings.  As a matter of fact there is a picture on TIA's website of Cardinal Siri saying the New Mass ad populum.