Sedevacantism Seen by an SSPX-er

American Sedevacantist
I Miss Christendom | 6 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QPxyhoxoqs

When it comes to Flat Earthers, aren't the best points the ones that coincide with Geocentrism, even that of Globe Earth Geocentrics?

15:48 I would say that the Dimond brothers are in practise homealoners for the US, but they do consider Sede clergy valid, and presumably that's Mexican clergy.

They are Feeneyites, and consider CMRI and SSPV as heretics for believing in Baptism of Desire. And especially when it's implicit desire.

Not sure how they react to the condemnation of Fr. Feeney, except for one thing, it was the same form as the condemnation of Galileo, and according to them, that means "not infallible" ... Pope Michael I considered Epikeia could and should go up to a total removal of the emergency, i e an irregular but still necessary and therefore licit and valid election, the one in which he was elected. He also supported the condemnations of both Feeney and Galileo.

---

Source for the Siri thesis:

The Siri Thesis
Compiled by William G. von Peters, Ph.D.
website: The Pope in Red (write in one word, add dot com)
http://www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm

Pope Michael was unfavourably neutral on it. The question is, if a man could remain pope after agreeing to apparently to outsiders accept a false Pope. Now, in the case of Siri himself, it would be a question of remaining Pope after a normal acceptance of the papacy, according to the thesis. But Siri died the year before Pope Michael I was elected, so, whether Siri was and remained Pope or not, the see was not impeded by Siri.

However, some go further, and this is part of the rationale of some Sede impedita theorists, that Siri could have secret successors. The answer is no, one cannot validly accept papacy as a secret charge, it is by definition a charge carried openly. Hence, no secret successor of Siri should be taken account of as a reason not to hold a papal election. Just as no "material but no formal Pope" should, there is no such thing. The idea a man can loose the use of his office because of mortal sin, while retaining the office because the mortal sin is not the one of preaching identifiable heresy, is a version of Lollardism and Hussitism, condemned at the Council of Constance.