Siri Thesis Info Please

[cwestall]

Does anyone have a book that they can recommend that either refutes or supports the Siri thesis that is not written by an absolute crack pot. Everything I have ever found that either supports or refutes the thesis is horribly written and supported. I am not looking for a screed and I am not looking for someone to reinforce my idea, whatever that may be. I am just looking for a book that has some symbolence of journalistic intergrity. Thank you.

 

[DavidPalm]

In support, I can’t help you.

In rebuttal see the two links at the end of this article, one by William Albrecht and one published in Inside the Vatican magazine:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirianism

 

[narrowpath]

I found the one first criticism link helpful.

 

[cwestall]

I have read those two and did not find them persuasive in the least. The only thing those articles concretely refute is the italian newspaper piece of evidence. The Siri Thesis is not based soley on a news article from 1958, there are other pieces of information that are also used. I am not saying I buy the thesis, but I do not think that refuting one aspect of the thesis, refutes the whole thesis.

 

[Shin]

I think the simplest refutation of the Siri thesis can be provided by the fact that, despite the excommunication threat hanging over the cardinals in regards to revealing what occurs during the conclave –

So serious a matter would be moral grounds for defying it, clearly. If such a huge conspiracy were under the works, let us face it – there would be a great number of defectors from it who would have revealed it by now.

And also Siri himself would have simply spoken out in public about it, he did not live quite the sequestered lives these people put out.

So truly this sort of conspiracy does not require a book refutation. It does not rise to that level with the evidence, which is simply words and misinterpretations of events in a malign fashion that can far more easily be interpreted in a benign fashion.

Not that I do not understand the impulse to look for conspiracies due to the amount of troubles today, but that impulse must not be allowed to run free like a wild chicken with its head cut off.

 

[DavidPalm]

I think the simplest refutation of the Siri thesis can be provided by the fact that, despite the excommunication threat hanging over the cardinals in regards to revealing what occurs during the conclave –

So serious a matter would be moral grounds for defying it, clearly. If such a huge conspiracy were under the works, let us face it – there would be a great number of defectors from it who would have revealed it by now.

Indeed. And as Albrecht points out, the Pope himself is not bound by the secret, therefore if Siri really was elected he had a moral obligation to say so and was not bound by any secret. The mere fact that he (alleged) said that he was bound indicates that he was not a Pope.

So truly this sort of conspiracy does not require a book refutation. It does not rise to that level with the evidence, which is simply words and misinterpretations of events in a malign fashion that can far more easily be interpreted in a benign fashion.

Very wise. Bottom line is that Card. Siri recognized John XIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II as valid Popes. He also signed the documents of Vatican II. There’s just no way those hard facts fit neatly into such a conspiracy. But, as always, conspiracy theorists will find some contorted way to do so.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I’ve always thought the following quote from Inside the Vatican was interesting:

Inside the Vatican: “There were certain irregularities about the election during that 1958 conclave, as Cardinal Tisserant has himself acknowledged. Some say Agagianian was elected, others Siri, others some other cardinal, and that the camerlengo =chamberlain] then annulled the election. In any case, I’m quite sure John XXIII chose his name, the name of an antipope [of the 15th century], quite consciously, to show he had been irregularly elected.” (Inside the Vatican, interview with Fr. Charles-Roux, September 2004).

 

[Genesis315]

I’m not sure how anyone could be quite sure that was the reason John XXIII took that name. There are also plenty of Clements and Benedicts who came after anti-Popes with those names.

 

[Genesis315]

As I pointed out in another thread on this topic, the best refutation is the doctrine on the indefectibility of the Church. The Siri thesis was not invented until well after the death of John XXIII. That means for his entire papacy, the whole Church accepted John as Pope. The Holy Spirit ensures the whole entire Church will not defect and be subject to an anti-Pope rather than its true head.

 

[Ghoti]

I’ve always thought the following quote from Inside the Vatican was interesting:

Inside the Vatican: “There were certain irregularities about the election during that 1958 conclave, as Cardinal Tisserant has himself acknowledged. Some say Agagianian was elected, others Siri, others some other cardinal, and that the camerlengo =chamberlain] then annulled the election. In any case, I’m quite sure John XXIII chose his name, the name of an antipope [of the 15th century], quite consciously, to show he had been irregularly elected.” (Inside the Vatican, interview with Fr. Charles-Roux, September 2004).

That’s an odd assertion. What was he to call himself? John XXIV? I read that since the last legit pope named John was numbered XXII, he took the number XXIII to show that he regarded the other holder of that number to be an antipope.

Altho’…If I were elected pope, I’d take the name John XX…just to fix up the numbering.

 

[JaMc]

From what I’ve read about Card. Siri, I think he would have been apalled at the things his “admirers” have been saying about the Popes and the Church he served so well. While he, no doubt, would have been an excellent choice for Pope, the conspiracy theorists claiming he was elected are quite off the mark.

Another interesting question - while some sedevacantists claim John XXIII, JPI, and JPII were invalid based upon the assertion that Siri was the “real” Pope, how do they justify their rejection of Benedict XVI, who was elected after Siri’s death?

 

[Ghoti]

From what I’ve read about Card. Siri, I think he would have been apalled at the things his “admirers” have been saying about the Popes and the Church he served so well. While he, no doubt, would have been an excellent choice for Pope, the conspiracy theorists claiming he was elected are quite off the mark.

Another interesting question - while some sedevacantists claim John XXIII, JPI, and JPII were invalid based upon the assertion that Siri was the “real” Pope, how do they justify their rejection of Benedict XVI, who was elected after Siri’s death?

I think many (most?) sedevacantists also hold that the new (i.e. post-Vatican II) rite of episcopal consecration is defective and therefore invalid. Thus there are now no “real” bishops – all those raised by Pius XII are dead – and thus no cardinals, and thus no one to elect a pontiff.

Except, of course, in the case of, say, David “My Mom says I’m Pope!” Bawden or his ilk…

 

[Ottaviani]

I think many (most?) sedevacantists also hold that the new (i.e. post-Vatican II) rite of episcopal consecration is defective and therefore invalid. Thus there are now no “real” bishops – all those raised by Pius XII are dead – and thus no cardinals, and thus no one to elect a pontiff.

Except, of course, in the case of, say, David “My Mom says I’m Pope!” Bawden or his ilk…

If you can stomach the stupidity “pope michael” has a bunch of videos. Apparently he likes jeopardy and lives in his mom’s basement. Last time I watched one I laughed myself to tears.

Oh, yea, and he claims he was validly elected pope.

 

[Saintvitus]

As I pointed out in another thread on this topic, the best refutation is the doctrine on the indefectibility of the Church. The Siri thesis was not invented until well after the death of John XXIII. That means for his entire papacy, the whole Church accepted John as Pope. The Holy Spirit ensures the whole entire Church will not defect and be subject to an anti-Pope rather than its true head.

Hi Genesis,
I was looking for a refutation to the Siri Thesis with proper reference to Canon Law or Church Teachings, in order to substantially refute it beyond a doubt. You referred to the Doctrine on the indefectibility of the Church (which can be read more here: newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm ).
The problem with this particular argument that I’ve found is that it doesn’t actually refute the Siri Thesis, as this argument could be used by “them” in order to support their particular claim that the Church could not defect under ‘supposed’ anti Pope John XXIII (as they claim), therefore it legitimately continued through the ‘supposedly’ valid election of Pope Gregory XVII who under duress resigned (although they argue that the resignation was invalid:
“Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185))

Therefore like many scandalized Catholics, I’m left dumbfounded as to how to respond and refute the Siri Thesis on pure sound intellectual grounds making proper use of Canon Law and Dogmatic Church teaching, as they who support this notion are very good at using the holy laws of the Church herself in order to push their point through.

I would like to know if there was any substantial refutations out there, that would hold in a Canon Law court - if you know what I’m saying. As such claims as these need to be challenged to the fullest extent where not a single error is left uncorrected.

I think this issue needs to be referred to an Apologist, Catechist and Canon Lawyer!
God bless!

 

[ChadS]

Hi Genesis,
I was looking for a refutation to the Siri Thesis with proper reference to Canon Law or Church Teachings, in order to substantially refute it beyond a doubt. You referred to the Doctrine on the indefectibility of the Church (which can be read more here: newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm ).
The problem with this particular argument that I’ve found is that it doesn’t actually refute the Siri Thesis, as this argument could be used by “them” in order to support their particular claim that the Church could not defect under ‘supposed’ anti Pope John XXIII (as they claim), therefore it legitimately continued through the ‘supposedly’ valid election of Pope Gregory XVII who under duress resigned (although they argue that the resignation was invalid:
“Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185))

Therefore like many scandalized Catholics, I’m left dumbfounded as to how to respond and refute the Siri Thesis on pure sound intellectual grounds making proper use of Canon Law and Dogmatic Church teaching, as they who support this notion are very good at using the holy laws of the Church herself in order to push their point through.

I would like to know if there was any substantial refutations out there, that would hold in a Canon Law court - if you know what I’m saying. As such claims as these need to be challenged to the fullest extent where not a single error is left uncorrected.

I think this issue needs to be referred to an Apologist, Catechist and Canon Lawyer!
God bless!

Why does this stuff scandalize you? You don’t need a degree in Canon law or even to understand Canon law to refute this stuff. No matter how sound your intellectual ground may be the people that promote and believe things like the Siri thesis will never be defeated. All you do is go around in circles and more circles and no matter what arguments or evidence you use to knock the props out from under their arguments they will always have an “Ahh ha, but …” rebuttal that always trumps what you just said. All you need to simply say is “It’s not true and I don’t believe it.”

You would be much better off focussing your time and energy on more substantive Catholic issues and matters - ones that will increase your faith and knowledge and understanding rather than participating in a fools errand of debating the Siri thesis.

ChadS

 

[DavidPalm]

Why does this stuff scandalize you? You don’t need a degree in Canon law or even to understand Canon law to refute this stuff. No matter how sound your intellectual ground may be the people that promote and believe things like the Siri thesis will never be defeated. All you do is go around in circles and more circles and no matter what arguments or evidence you use to knock the props out from under their arguments they will always have an “Ahh ha, but …” rebuttal that always trumps what you just said. All you need to simply say is “It’s not true and I don’t believe it.”

You would be much better off focussing your time and energy on more substantive Catholic issues and matters - ones that will increase your faith and knowledge and understanding rather than participating in a fools errand of debating the Siri thesis.

ChadS

I agree with Chad. But in addition see my comments above. Cardinal Siri recognized John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II as legitimate Popes. Apparently he did not believe in the Siri Thesis. If he didn’t, no one should.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why does this stuff scandalize you? You don’t need a degree in Canon law or even to understand Canon law to refute this stuff. No matter how sound your intellectual ground may be the people that promote and believe things like the Siri thesis will never be defeated. All you do is go around in circles and more circles and no matter what arguments or evidence you use to knock the props out from under their arguments they will always have an “Ahh ha, but …” rebuttal that always trumps what you just said. All you need to simply say is “It’s not true and I don’t believe it.”

You would be much better off focussing your time and energy on more substantive Catholic issues and matters - ones that will increase your faith and knowledge and understanding rather than participating in a fools errand of debating the Siri thesis.

ChadS

Great post ChadS but I would add this.

There is nothing in Canon Law or Church Teaching that you could use to refute this as there are no Canon Law or Church Teaching arguments made by the conspiricy theoriests who believe this.

There seems to be no logical thoughts at all on their side so trying to refute it with Canon Law, Church Teachings, or even logic seems to fall on deaf ears. These people want to believe it so they do.

That seems to be the general problem with all conspiricy theories.

 

[DavidPalm]

Great post ChadS but I would add this.

There is nothing in Canon Law or Church Teaching that you could use to refute this as there are no Canon Law or Church Teaching arguments made by the conspiricy theoriests who believe this.

There seems to be no logical thoughts at all on their side so trying to refute it with Canon Law, Church Teachings, or even logic seems to fall on deaf ears. These people want to believe it so they do.

That seems to be the general problem with all conspiricy theories.

I agree, Br. David. I have been involved in refuting a Catholic apologist who disseminates all sorts of conspiracy theories. One wonders why his followers keep coming back for more after it has been demonstrated over and over again that he’s not a trustworthy source. But then one of my friends summed it up: “They keep drinking the Kool-Aid because they like the Kool-Aid.”

Conspiracy theorists want to believe all these things. It’s a matter of the will, not of the intellect. Therefore, as you point out, attempts at refutation are futile.

 

[Saintvitus]

" All you need to simply say is “It’s not true and I don’t believe it.”

You would be much better off focussing your time and energy … rather than participating in a fools errand of debating the Siri thesis.

ChadS

Hi Chads,
It would be totally ignorant of me to say “It’s not true and I don’t believe it” without actually proving this to be the case. That is my endeavor, to defeat error and heresy where it strikes hardest. In this case, it is our beloved Church under attack, Her authority and Papal Succession under attack.
I know it’s easier for the mind to focus on other things within the Church, but it is harder on the conscious to let this slip, leave it unresolved and buried, so that it may continue to scandalize and to spread error, leading to many people leaving the common faith of the Catholic Church - that of which it has, as I have seen other forum members convinced of this being fact, while others like your good self convinced it is not.
All I’m looking for is solid canonical laws and Church teaching that will totally refute this beyond question and beyond a doubt, so this can be done with, like every other heresy in Church history.

God bless.

 

[otjm]

Hi Chads,
It would be totally ignorant of me to say “It’s not true and I don’t believe it” without actually proving this to be the case. That is my endeavor, to defeat error and heresy where it strikes hardest. In this case, it is our beloved Church under attack, Her authority and Papal Succession under attack.
I know it’s easier for the mind to focus on other things within the Church, but it is harder on the conscious to let this slip, leave it unresolved and buried, so that it may continue to scandalize and to spread error, leading to many people leaving the common faith of the Catholic Church - that of which it has, as I have seen other forum members convinced of this being fact, while others like your good self convinced it is not.
All I’m looking for is solid canonical laws and Church teaching that will totally refute this beyond question and beyond a doubt, so this can be done with, like every other heresy in Church history.

God bless.

You are not going to refute it, because there is essentially nothing to refute. They ahve produced no evidence whatsoever that would stand up in a court of law.

Let me expalin it another way. someone with a mental illness comes up and says they hav seen a dragon. Now go prove there is no dragon - in any court of law - Canon, civil, criminal - take your pick. there is no law in any of them which will refutre this. None, nada, zip - laws do not exist to refute stories; they exist to deal with evidence. There is no evidence, so there is nothing for a court to act upon.

There is doctrine - that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church for all time. The essence of their argument is that the Holy Spirit has not done so. There is no evidence that He has not done so, only their theories, supported and substantiated by no factual evidence. “He said she said” is heresay evidence and a court (with perhaps Canon law as an exception, but I doubt it, I am not a Canon lawyer) will not accept hersay evidence. Thus, there is no evidence with which to start; and it is not your case to disprove; it is theirs to prove and they have not done so. All you have is a group of people, some of whom are either certifiably mentally ill or mentally disturbed, milling around promoting the same fabricated set of statements. Statements are not evidence in and of themselves, for the purposes of this discussion.

So in short you have it backward: there is no way you can disprove the issue. but it is not yours to disprove; it is theirs to prove and they have not done so.