Talk:Papal election of Giuseppe Siri theory

message: The Siri thesis appears to be based on the concept of conclave capitulation, which is defined as an ancient treaty drawn up by the College of Cardinals during a papal conclave, attempting to constrain the actions of the Pope elected by the conclave. Capitulations were part and parcel of a strategy of the College of Cardinals to limit papal supremacy and to "make the Church an oligarchy instead of a monarchy". Strangely enough, such agreements were once again banned by John Paul II in the 1996 constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, long after the practice had  ceased to be officially acknowledged during the Renaissance. ADM (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he just reformed (in the older sense) the whole conclave, not only this point. Various conclave variants out of use have been abolished. --92.75.22.136 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclave capitulation

message: It's unclear how the two are related, since even if the entirety of the story, as presented in this article, were true, it would still not be the case that Siri was ever Pope (since he was never proclaimed or enthroned) and it would not impeach the authenticity of future Popes (since, according to the story, Siri bowed to pressure and refused the office, and the cardinals went on to elect another Pope).  It's hardly unheard of for Papal electees to refuse the throne, either voluntarily or due to outside pressure (cf. the veto of Papal elections used by some European powers down to the early 20th century).  So how does one get from Siri's refusal to sedevacantism? RandomCritic (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Siri Thesis and sedevacantism?

message: The Siri theses can exist with and without sedevacantism.  It states that Siri was - once or twice - elected pope during a conclave, but refused the election.  Some catholics who accept this thesis accept the legality (in the strictest sense of the word) of this action ('forced' resignation), and have no problems acknowledging the election of another pope.   Malachi Martin was one such catholic.  Others accept this as an illegal act, and therefor advocate a kind of sedevacantism.  Both are possible.  There is no necessary link. --Stijn Calle (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: The article claims "The possibility of a nuclear threat gained steam when the late author, Malachi Martin, wrote of threats which involved "the very existence of the Vatican state" during a conclave on pages 600 to 610 in his book, The Keys of this Blood, which deals primarily with Siri and the 1963 conclave."
However, the subtitle of the book is "the struggle for world dominion between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the capitalist West."
An electronic search of the book's text on Google Books shows "Siri" appearing once. The 1963 conclave is mentioned once.
The phrase that this book "deals primarily with Siri and the 1963 conclave" appears to be a factual error.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin book not about Siri 

message: The article is a bit unclear. If anyone speaks Italian, I recommend to translate the Italian Wiki's article, which is well done. --79.24.196.225 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article a bit unclear 

message: As the last section "Conspiracy Theory" (See old revision here: [1]) was completely bereft of citation, and marked as such with clear flags for over 4 months, it seems that the time to remove this section has come. I just did so.
If someone would like to re-add the section, edit it for weasel words and general readability (it was almost incoherent) and cite the claims it makes, I see no problem with it, but as it stands, it violates several wikipedia policies and must be removed until properly sourced and edited.
Andrew B (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conspiracy Theory"