If Siri's resignation was not valid, then he would have remained pope, since he was canonically elected, correct? Sort of like Benevacantism . . . Sirivacantism.

One would think so.  That seems to be one of the major contentions of the "Siri thesis".

And it would explain a lot.

Some seem to believe so. Even though there's literally no evidence for it outside of the claims of someone, if I recall correctly, in Texas who knows the identity of his purported successor. Why he doesn't just come out and make himself known, given all of the trad clans fighting each other right now, God only knows. Perhaps because he doesn't exist? Maybe.

I wasn't aware the Giuffre says there was a successor to Siri, or claimed to know who it was. I listened to a good bit of those two videos and couldn't find where he says that. Could you give a timestamp or something?

I may have posted the wrong videos. I know he does make the claim in one part of that series, I'll try to dig it up when I have time later.

I was mistaken, I think I misunderstood him in the second or third part when he was talking about Malachi Martin.

It appears he did take an oath of silence when forced to abdicate the Seat.

.
An oath whose purpose is to destroy the Church would obviously not be binding. In fact, it would be a sin to observe it. This is not only common sense, it is something explicitly taught to children in 1st Communion catechism class. To say that a cardinal did not know this is absurd.

This is probably the most difficult angle of the Siri thesis. I don't know of any version of it in which Siri doesn't come out as the worst coward since Pontius Pilate. At least Pontius Pilate could claim he was a simple pagan and didn't know that Christ was God, and was threatened with his life. But Siri was threatened as a cardinal of the Catholic Church and caved in, -- as pope, no less, the vicar of Christ, with the most powerful graces of state of any human being on this planet -- and consented to hand over the reins of the Church to its worst enemies, who were psychopathic mass murderers (if you believe the hydrogen-bomb-over-Rome theory), and allowed them to take over the Church?! A cardinal, who not only had (presumably) the virtue of Faith, and should have believed that God would triumph over His enemies, but also had almost 2,000 years of history behind him to see that the Church had overcome countless such attacks and persecutions and would easily triumph over this one again? How could he think it would be a good idea to allow people threatening mass murder and/or schism to take the papacy from him?

On a certain level, I don't think it matters much whether he or Roncalli won that election. I think either one was just as bad.

And if I had to choose to be in the eternal shoes of either Pontius Pilate or Cardinal Siri, I'd choose Pontius Pilate, since he was less responsible for his actions.

According to Father Luigi Villa's report in Chiesa Viva magazine, Vatican II was a ʝʊdɛօ-masonic coup d'etat that was planned in the 1950s.

There can be no doubt of this; Vatican II has their fingerprints all over it.  I don't believe the line that these papal imposters were well-meaning men with minds that had just been poisoned with Modernism, that they were confused or lost their senses.  This was clearly done by design.  Cui bono?  None other than Satan himself.

There can be no doubt of this; Vatican II has their fingerprints all over it.  I don't believe the line that these papal imposters were well-meaning men with minds that had just been poisoned with Modernism, that they were confused or lost their senses.  This was clearly done by design.  Cui bono?  None other than Satan himself.

The time has long since passed for excusing their actions in this way. If one cannot see that these men are infiltrators and Antipopes, then they are blind. This is the contradiction MHFM pointed out in their video on the SSPX. The R&R position was tenable when there was still the question of them being legitimate, but confused or poisoned by Modernism, but once Assisi happened under the Deuce, and the subsequent spiritual abominations since then with the Rat and Frank Bergoglio, I'm sorry, but, you're just totally blind at this point if you believe these men are anything more than just material occupiers of the papacy.

The time has long since passed for excusing their actions in this way. If one cannot see that these men are infiltrators and Antipopes, then they are blind. This is the contradiction MHFM pointed out in their video on the SSPX. The R&R position was tenable when there was still the question of them being legitimate, but confused or poisoned by Modernism, but once Assisi happened under the Deuce, and the subsequent spiritual abominations since then with the Rat and Frank Bergoglio, I'm sorry, but, you're just totally blind at this point.

Hmmmm….

I agree with Ladislaus that the Vatican II revolution was by design and planned accordingly. Certainly by Satan as the distal cause, but the proximate responsibility was by Modernists who may have been internally well meaning men who tried to reconcile modernity with the Catholic Faith in order to save the Roman Catholic Church, in their view, from being relegated to a place of oblivion in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr of cultural/scientific/philosophical/technological advances.

The post VII Popes are heretics, no doubt. Anti-Popes? Most likely. Time will tell.

However, R&R has nothing to do with this. It’s an ecclesiology built on valid points of view that were never condemned; like Cajetan or John of St. Thomas. It’s not like Archbishop Lefebvre was confused about them being heretics. Neither are +Williamson or classic R&R of the SSPX type. I think Cassiciacuм is the correct PoV though.

In reality, it’s the Dimonds who are blinded that they cannot see the good in anything or anyone but themselves. In this sense, they are mentally unstable nutcases of prideful will who have gone off the deep end into sectarian extremism. They shouldn’t be compared to a great figure like Tertullian because they aren’t worth 1/10000000000000000th of his worth, but essentially they fell into the same trap of zealotry.

In my view, they are schismatics without a doubt and possibly heretics as well by implication of some of their views.