"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." [Matthew 10:14]

I hope that you're not trying to equate your comments on an internet forum with Apostolic preaching.  

Br Peter makes some good points, but also logical flaws.  If one believes Siri was validly elected and then forced to resign (an invalid resignation), then per canon law and logic...he's still the pope.  ESPECIALLY after it happened twice, in 58 and 63.

The logical flaws are to look at the circuмstantial evidence (i.e. he said the new mass, he was a coward, he was kinda-modernist, he went along with Paul VI) to retroactively say "this proves he wasn't a true pope".

Just because Siri was validly elected doesn't mean he would've been an orthodox warrior, like St Pope Pius X.  So people look at Siri following modernism (like 80% of the cardinals in the 60s and 70s) and somehow expect him to be different.  Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII were pretty lukewarm too; they weren't saints and they were certainly valid.

The expectation that a valid election of Siri would make him a Trad-supporting papal warrior is naive, illogical and wrong.  This is a big error I see many people make.  False expectations.

If he wasn't orthodox, then he would fall from the papacy anyway, which is what Br. Peter, and myself, suggested by his adherence to Paul VI as a valid Pope and celebration of the New Mass. That does prove he was no longer a valid Pope, per the arguments proffered by sedevacantism.

The problem with this line of thinking is it's too simplistic.

1.  A pope's personal orthodoxy doesn't affect his office.  Siri never tried to "teach" heresy as pope, so he couldn't "fall from the papacy". 
2.  It seems that Siri never considered himself the pope, so his "adherence" (I assume you mean recognition) of Paul VI would be similar to +ABL's recognition; that is, irrelevant.
3.  Siri's celebration of the new mass has nothing to do with his papal office.  He never imposed anything on the Church at large, so, again, his personal sins don't remove him from office.

Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII were many things, even weak, but they were certainly orthodox, they did not deny any dogma of the Catholic faith. The same cannot be said of anyone who openly accepts Vatican II and the "authentic magisterium" of the post-conciliar Antipopes.

Arguably, anyone who rejects Pius XII's Holy Week changes (most sedes) are implicitly arguing that such changes are unorthodox.  Logically, if Pius XII issued unorthodox rites, then he would also be a heretic and lose office (according to sede logic).  If Siri's saying of the new mass = heresy and loss of office.  How can Pius XII keep his office after issuing the Holy Week updates?

False expectations are the entire problem I have here with this thesis beyond the fact that he may have been elected in 1958 and/or 1963. This divining what motivated him to stay quiet and accept the Antipopes and false teachings of the Conciliarists, when, as Br. Peter stated, Siri's "big secret" may have been as simple as him misunderstanding that he doesn't need to remain quiet about an invalid election.

Br Peter's analysis seems complex only because he assumes that Siri's later actions retroactively affect the 58 and 63 elections.  This is similar to protestant errors of logic where they argue that "acceptance of Christ" = salvation but...if person X doesn't live a Christian life, then that's proof that he "didn't really accept Christ".  So it's the logical error of "future proves the past".  That's not the way the Church works.


Siri gets elected, he accepts, he is threatened, he resigns (under duress, so it's an invalid resignation).  Siri continues on as a Cardinal, incorrectly assuming his resignation and silence are legal and binding.  Maybe as years go by, he realizes he's wrong and his election to the papacy was true.  Maybe he ignores his conscience and his friends, and continues on as a Cardinal (because he's scared of the threats).  In this case, he's a coward, but he's still the pope.  So God allows his sin of cowardness to = acceptance of V2 and the new mass (9+ years after his election) due to loss of grace.

You can't say that Siri's acceptance of the new mass in 1970 invalidated his elections in 58 and 63.  That's totally illogical.  The future does not prove the past.  Was he elected in 58 and 63?  Yes or no?  What happened after is a mystery of grace and salvation and sin but has no effect on the papal election.  To argue otherwise is retarded.

You can't say that Siri's acceptance of the new mass in 1970 invalidated his elections in 58 and 63.  That's totally illogical.  The future does not prove the past.  Was he elected in 58 and 63?  Yes or no?  What happened after is a mystery of grace and salvation and sin but has no effect on the papal election.  To argue otherwise is retarded.

And I'm not saying that he wasn't elected.

Here's what MHFM states in the last section of their article on the Siri Thesis as linked by Lad:

Note: We believe that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope and unlawfully forced to resign - thus invalidating the “elections” of John XXIII and Paul VI.  But his failure to oppose the apostasy, stand up for his office and denounce the Antipopes in the decades following those fateful days preclude Catholics from holding that he remained Pope in the decades following the 1958 and 1963 conclaves.  Cardinal Siri may have been paralyzed by fear, uncertainty and confusion about his status and what to do about it; nevertheless one cannot recognize that he remained Pope in the years following his elections because, at least in the external forum, he did not stand up for his office or oppose the Antipopes.

If Cardinal Siri had been elected, what impact would it have if he lost the Papacy as MHFM claim or if he kept it? If the whole point was to present an invalidly elected fake Pope to institute a new religion eclipsing the Church, that deed was done.  Cardinal Siri is dead now.  I would imagine that just as a doubtful Pope is no Pope, a Pope keeping secret that he’s Pope is no Pope.  But again he is no longer living so what impact does it have now?

Depending on when he actually lost it and what one believes about whether the Cardinals appointed by the Conciliar Anti-popes, and whether you're a sedeprivationist, etc., it would impact which subsequent pontificates his holding of office would have impeded.

Conclaves were held, while +Siri was still alive, in 1958 (Roncalli), 1963 (Montini), 1978 (Luciani and Wojtyla).

Presumably the "fell from office" crowd could point to the date that +Siri fell from office, since they're so determined that he did and have all kinds of evidence to back it up, right?

I would think it would have been after 1963.  So the implication is that Luciani & Wojtyla MAY have been legitimately elected (if you're a privationist).

I don't really believe in this "fell from office" stuff.  I hold with St. Robert et al. that a once-legitimate Catholic pope will be prevented by God from falling from office due to heresy.  Later, some SVs (like Father Cekada) started to agree and said it's a sign that these men where never popes in the first place.  But what about +Siri then?  He was clearly not any kind of "manifest heretic" yet by 1958 or 1963.

All this talk about manifest heresy deposing from office is entirely moot if the Siri theory proves to be true ... as I'm convinced that it will.

We need to take the Dimonds with a huge grain of salt.  If a Bishop Williamson were elected to the papacy, the Dimonds would continue to hold that the See remained vacant because Bishop Williamson, according to them, is a manifest heretic.

This nonsense comes from the fact that the Dimonds don't understand formal/pertinacious heresy vs. material error ... which I should think they would given how much time they spend on the EENS issue (and it's all related).

I just don’t see how the Siri theory can be proven or to who exactly it will be proven.  Look at Dr. Chojnowski.  He looked at the post 1958 Sister Lucy and saw what many people saw and thought well it’s the 2020’s we can prove with modern technology that this is a different person and he did that.  And I just don’t see much of an impact. For the last 60 years anyone only need read the docuмents of Vatican II council and compare them to the docuмents from any prior council to see this docuмent opposes the teaching of the Church.  The New Order wasn’t spread secretly it’s blasphemously in the open for all to see, read, hear.  Can you refer me to any past hoax that has been subsequently exposed in the mainstream?  I just feel like we need to move on from it.

There’s one papal precedent that put’s the Siri coup d’etat into perspective, for the sake of Church history.

In 1130, Pope Innocent II’s papacy was hijacked by anti-Pope Anacletus, a jew who bought his conclave votes.  

He lasted 8 years and was finally ousted with the help of St. Bernard of Clairvaux.  The Saint had rallied the Church in several nations to reject Anacletus’s schism.

Likewise, the modern church is a hijacked schism.  

Cardinal Siri’s role as Pope Gregory XVII, as tragic as it was, gives us a demarcation point for the Church’s “eclipse” (Our Lady of LaSalette).

Although, 99% of the Catholic world was unaware of what had happened, we realize now, the suffering pope, was hiding in the Holy See, for 31 years.

Considering the Church’s incremental destruction since the day John XXIII appeared St. Peter’s Central balcony, it is a consolation to understand how the Church’s enemies pulled it off, IMHO.