Giuseppe Cardinal Siri

[BillB2]

Is there any basis in fact to the Siri Thesis?

The claim is that Siri was elected pope by the 1958 conclave. He accepted and later renounced it under duress. The conclave went on the select John XXIII.

Siri, supposedly, never confirmed nor denied this story but broadly hinted that it was true.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The claim is that Siri was elected pope by the 1958 conclave. He accepted and later renounced it under duress.

Under duress by whom? The same people who had just elected him? Who also happen to be the only people allowed to be there?

It just doesn’t make any sense. They elect him, he accepts, and then they immediately pressure him to renounce. And he does??? It’s just wacky.

Siri, supposedly, never confirmed nor denied this story

He can’t - conclave proceedings are secret, and participants vow to not reveal anything that did (or did not) happen.

but broadly hinted that it was true.

He can’t do that, either (ibid).

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

This comes up here periodically. I believe Siri (not to be confused with the Apple iPhone voice) refuted this before his death. But that doesn’t stop the conspiracy fans.

 

[LittleHannah]

I know all about it. Its very strange, but they have very good reasons to back up that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope Gregory XVII. Its at todayscatholicworld.com if anyone wants to see. If this is against the rules to talk about my apologies.

 

[LittleHannah]

Well what i mean is they seem to have good reasons, but they are sedavacantists i think.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Well what i mean is they seem to have good reasons, but they are sedavacantists i think.

I also thought the topics of SSPX and sedevacantism were not allowed on this forum. However, it appears this is no longer the case (if it ever was).

The consolidated stickies of this forum only make a single reference to these topics by a retired moderator, who did not actually ban such topics, but said they should be posted in the Traditional Catholicism forum (this post is five years old). Topical relevance is always a judgement call (especially when it concerns overlapping topics such as traditional Catholicism and general apologetics), and I do not believe that the half-decade-old categorical judgement of a retired moderator should be an absolute rule of current forum activities.

I cannot find such topics mentioned in any way in the current list of banned topics.

So, unless a current moderator corrects me, I am pretty sure it is quite OK for you to post your opinions on this forum, even if they veer into the topics that you (and I) once considered to be not allowed.

I, for one, would be very interested to hear what you have to say.