THE SIRI THESIS EXPOSED

“Houston We Have A Problem”

© By Silvio Mattacchione B.A. M.A.

The quotation that follows comes from a paper, written by Monsignor Hugh Benson, and
read in May, 1907, before the Society of St. Thomas of Canterbury -- an organization of
Anglican clergy for the purpose of studying the history of Western Christendom.1

“IT has been very well observed that there is no such thing as an impartial historian. Every man who sets out
to trace the development of life, whether in politics, religion, or art, is bound to do so with some theory in his
mind. The word "progress" is meaningless unless there is to the mind of him who uses it some ideal standard
or goal to which his idea of progress is related.

We may express this truth in slightly different language by saying that, strictly speaking, all historical
argument must be deductive. It is impossible for us to approach incidents or records without a bias of some
kind; we cannot, literally speaking, read the simplest statement without bringing to its interpretation our own
sense of eternal fitness, without judging it, even though unconsciously, by some standard of right which we
acknowledge as supreme. The historian, or the theologian, who is most nearly impartial is not he who has no
view, but he who is aware of other views, and can give them due consideration.”2

I will use the following words of Monsignor Hugh Benson to describe my own approach.

“I begin, therefore, at the outset of this paper, by confessing that I approach the subject in this spirit. It is not
my intention to pretend, even to myself, that I am wholly impartial; but this does not necessarily involve a
petitio principii.”3

It is my aim, in this article, to confront, publicly, Mr. Gary Giuffre4 ,Helen Spigornell and
their supporters, (who have for many years, promoted, and continue to promote an
outgrown theory generally referred to as “The Siri Thesis”) with their own published
articles as evidence of their shortcomings as researchers. [Further, I have provided you, the
readers of this article, with actual primary source documents, so that each of you can
confirm independently, what each of the referenced source documents actually say!] . Like
every other theory, the theory proposed by Mr. Giuffre and his supporters must either
stand or fall, by the available, independently verifiable, facts, no amount of supposition,
deductive reasoning, prophecy or indirect evidence can avail.

It is my contention that after almost two decades, these researchers, Mr. Gary Giuffre and
his supporters5, have failed to provide proof in support of “The Siri Thesis”, even though
Giuffre has had, both sufficient time and financial resources to do so. Further Mr. Giuffre
and his supporters, in an attempt to add credence to the Siri hypothesis have relied heavily
on, and have been guided by a varied assortment of private revelations6 that may or may
not apply to our time, or to the circumstances in question. Private revelation and personal
opinions, are not within the category of theological consideration and cannot be entered as
evidence, but only as “hearsay” or “probability”. I believe that it is safe to say that

1
prophecy, is habitually misunderstood and reliance on prophecy does not constitute
scholarship.
In addition, it will be argued, that Mr. Giuffre7 and his supporters do not demonstrate, a
passion for facts, let alone a passion for fact checking nor a clearness of vision their
writings are rather guided, as those of most laypersons are, by an appeal to an emotional
mood. The true researcher is a trained doubter— a great skeptic, who demands genuine
proof! Like St. Thomas of old, the trained researcher must see and verify for himself all
that is proposed for his belief. Giuffre and his supporters are laypersons, who are not
trained researchers, as such they have not produced serious documentation for the trained
researcher, but rather emotion charged, anecdotal material for the layperson who,
unfortunately, willingly believes a goodly part of all that he reads or hears, a layperson who
has neither the time, the inclination nor the ability to search out genuine proof !
For the most part, Giuffre and his supporters have relied on secondary sources, allegations
and hearsay. Primary sources have played, at best, a minor role in this hypothesis. No
doubt, some of the shortcomings of “The Siri Thesis” are a direct result of the fact that Mr.
Giuffre has no personal facility (he does not read, write or speak Italian, French or German)
in any foreign languages. Since Giuffre is not a native speaker of Italian, French or German
the wealth of information available in these foreign sources has remained, for the most part,
untapped, and /or totally misunderstood as in the case of the Oct. 27, 1958 article written
by Silvio Negro. Mr. Giuffre and his supporters, the chief promoters of this hypothesis,
now generally referred to as “The Siri Thesis”8 have, through this thesis, unsuccessfully,
attempted to revise modern conclave history according to their own unique vision of
indefectibility. In doing so they have succeeded, only, in adding yet another layer of
confusion to an already totally confused situation.

Further I believe that as a result of my daring to independently research and then write this
article a series of massive character assassination attacks will be launched upon myself by
the promoters and supporters of the Siri Hypothesis , for it will be easier to “kill the
messenger” than it will be to attempt to refute the arguments that I have presented .It is
much easier to attack my person rather than my argument.

Finally I will take as my own these words of the great St. Anselm: “If there is anything that
calls for correction I do not refuse the correction.”

UPON THESE PILLARS

An analysis of the Siri thesis reveals that this hypothesis is primarily built upon three key
pillars. These three pillars include the issue of the white smoke that appeared on Oct. 26,
1958, the alleged passing of a note by the alleged Secretary of the Conclave of 1958 one
Monsignor Santoro and the article written by Silvio Negro for the evening edition of
Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) for October 27, 1958. The crux of the Siri thesis requires,
as a minimum precondition that, these three pillars be factually true. If one of these three
pillars is shown to be factually untrue then the entire edifice becomes suspect, but if all
three of these pillars are shown to be factually untrue then the entire edifice, built upon
these three support pillars, will as a consequence, fail totally.

2
We will seriously look at all three of these pillars (and considerably more) in the following
article and prove that the Siri thesis is not grounded upon factual, independently verifiable
fact.

The first of these pillars, the white smoke on October 26, 1958, is the easiest to deal with.
There is no doubt that 200,000 people in St. Peter’s Square saw white smoke coming out of
the Sistine Chapel stove pipe on October 26, 1958.The smoke was white, it was
voluminous it came out for a period of time, it then changed color, streaked with grey, then
black was seen, confusion was caused, but the confusion9, was quickly addressed by Prince
Chigi and within 10 minutes of the original smoke first emerging Prince Chigi had his
answers. Prince Chigi initiated, by an undisclosed and secret methodology ( this secret,
undisclosed method of contacting those inside the conclave was set up, just in case there
was confusion, so that the confusion could be quickly resolved) , contact with the inside of
the conclave. By this secret method he was able to quickly contact the conclave participants
to ascertain the truth of the color that was intended. Prince Chigi quickly received his
answer, the smoke intended was black! So pillar number one fails.

Pillar two is the alleged passing of a note “surreptitiously” by the senior conclave official
Monsignor Santoro to Prince Chigi advising him that no matter the smoke was white and
positive and that this information had to be delivered to Vatican Radio. So what is the
factual truth of this statement? Well the careful checking of the AAS for 1958 page 877
clearly shows that the ‘Secretary of The Conclave” in 1958 was one Monsignor Alberto
Di Jorio and not Monsignor Santoro. So pillar number two fails because the allegation that
Monsignor Santoro participated at the 1958 conclave as the “Secretary of the Conclave” is
not factually true. Monsignor Santoro having most probably died in 1943 could not have
been present at a conclave 15 years after his death. So pillar number two also fails.

Pillar number three is the supposed evidence ,allegedly provided ( and for which it was
alleged that Silvio Negro paid the ultimate price with the lose of his life one year later) by
the article of Silvio Negro that appeared in the evening edition of Corriere della Sera
(Milan, Italy) for October 27, 1958.Since Silvio Negro had already reported to the entire
world, in his article of October 9, 1958, entitled “Preghiere e pianti per Pio XII negli
ultimi istanti” (“Prayers and tears for Pius XII in the last moments”) that the Secretary of
the Conclave, Secretary of the Sacred College as well as The Secretary of State during the
1958 period of the “sede vacante” was none other than Monsignor Alberto Di Jorio it
seems incredible that Giuffre, Spigornell and others would allege that Silvio Negro’s
article of the 27th of October 1958 was/is somehow evidence that gives credence to the Siri
thesis. Since on the 9th of October 1958 Silvio Negro advised his readers that Monsignor Di
Jorio was the Secretary of the 1958 Conclave why would Silvio Negro, allegedly, report
something different 18 days later? Is it possible that Giuffre and his supporters have totally
misunderstood Silvio Negro’s article of Oct. 27, 1958? Yes, this is not only possible but it
is the fact Giuffre, Spigornell and others have totally failed to understand what Silvio
Negro wrote that evening of October 27, 1958.You see Silvio Negro, in his article of the
evening edition of the 27th of October 1958, under the sub heading “the Case of 1939”

3
sought to console Fr. Pellegrino, the Vatican Radio announcer by reminding him of the
facts concerning the confusion surrounding the white smoke in the 1939 conclave that
elected Pacelli as Pius XII. Incredibly Giuffre fails to understand that Silvio Negro is
referring to the known facts of a historical event that took place 19 years before the 1958
conclave Therefore pillar number three also fails and with it the entire Siri thesis crumbles!

THE SILVIO NEGRO10 ARTICLE, PRESENTED BY MR. GARY

GIUFFRE AND H. SPIGORNELL AS PRECIOUS EVIDENCE OF A
SINISTER PLOT IN THE 1958 CONCLAVE, HAS AFTER SIMPLE
FACT CHECKING, TURNED OUT TO BE A TOTAL CREDIBILITY
FIASCO FOR THE SIRI THESIS

From the first time that I had heard Giuffre speak about the Silvio Negro11 article, I had,
always had, an uneasy feeling about it. But I could not quite put my finger on what it was
that bothered me .Was this article really a precious piece of evidence of a sinister
conspiracy, as Giuffre and others including Helen Spigornell12 still claim? Had Silvio
Negro really stumbled onto something sinister, that he wrote about in the evening edition of
Corriere della Sera for January 27th, 1958? Had Silvio Negro’s death the following
November 1959 really had something to do with his writing of this aforementioned article,
as has often been alleged by Giuffre? Mr. Giuffre had often implied that these events (the
writing of the article of January 27th, 1958 by Silvio Negro and his subsequent death one
year later) were all somehow connected. Yes, there was a great deal that had left me
wondering about this article.

Since the article appeared in the evening edition of Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) for
October 27, 1958 and since the Conclave was still in session, how could Silvio Negro have
learned what Giuffre claimed he was saying? He (Silvio Negro) certainly would not have
had access to Monsignor Santoro13; after all, if Santoro had really been there, as alleged by
Giuffre, he would still have been in the Conclave that was still in session. Even more
curious and troublesome is the fact that no one else in Europe (or anywhere else for that
matter) had ever claimed any importance for this particular article? How could Giuffre and
his supporters use this article as the very crux of the entire Siri thesis and yet no one else in
the world ever even mention this article as having any importance? There were already
people in Europe in 1958 that suspected that something nefarious was at hand, why had
they, these original traditional fighters, failed to grasp the alleged supposed importance of
this article? After all Giuffre would not investigate these events until almost two decades
after the fact. Could a researcher in Texas that neither spoke, read nor wrote Italian (or any
other European language for that matter) have scooped Vatican experts, Vatican observers,
Vatican journalists and the “first sedevacantists”14, who were all proficient, in Italian? If the
article of Silvio Negro was, precious evidence as Giuffre and Spigornell have alleged then
why had no one ever interviewed Silvio Negro in the year before his death in 1959? If the
events had unfolded, as Giuffre has alleged, then why had Giuffre or “The Siri Thesis”
supporters never sought out the archives of Silvio Negro, why had they failed to acquire a

4
copy of every article Negro wrote both pre and post 1958, why had they never spoken to
his family? As usual, I had so many more questions, than answers.

The answers to all of these questions, and more, did not finally become totally clear to
me until October 13, 2005 and by October 17, 2005 I began to write this detailed
article15.However I must add that this article, though written by me, is in fact, the result of
the efforts and contributions of a number of people including Dr. Leonard Giblin, Dr. Peter
Reiss, Mr. Raymond Antonini and Mr. Hutton Gibson.

My history professors, at the University of Waterloo, never tired of reinforcing the

absolute necessity to constantly go back to the original sources when reviewing what is
alleged by any author in important issues. They taught us never to take for granted, that,
what we were reading, was indeed accurate, without first having recourse to the original
documents in question. This “fact checking” avoids a great number of potential problems, a
great deal of future embarrassment and certainly exposes a great deal of sloppy research.

In the article referenced below ( appearing on the internet at

16
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm which is a website that also carries two long
articles written by Gary Giuffre and described as being From: "The Plot Against The
Pope; Coup dé’tat in the Conclave – 1958" and also ) a well known supporter of Giuffre
and “The Siri Thesis” writing under the “alias”, H. Spigornell, weaves a very sinister and
totally contrived dramatization based loosely upon what the Italian journalist Silvio Negro
wrote in the evening edition of Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) for October 27, 1958.
Who is Helen Spigornell? Along with being a staunch defender of The Siri Thesis
Spigornell is the alias used by a close friend, supporter and long time collaborator of Mr.
Giuffre. It has also been alleged that H. Spigornell is the source of many of the Italian to
English translations used over the years by Mr. Giuffre. Helen Spigornell is not a native
Italian speaker, she is not fluent in Italian and her translations are the result of hours
laboriously spent using Italian/English dictionaries.

Unfortunately a number of serious errors have occurred in Spigornell’s particular

rendition of events at http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm17 . I believe, that these,
may have originally occurred, because of Spigornell’s deficiencies in her facility with the
Italian language along with the lack of “fact checking” of the original Giuffre allegations.
Helen Spigornell makes a specific reference to the Conclave Secretary Monsignor Santoro
as follows: “Through the turnstile connecting to the conclave kitchen, the Monsignor
had then “surreptitiously”18 passed the Prince a note telling him to alert the radio that, no
matter what, “the smoke was white and positive.” The reader will notice that the word
surreptitiously is in fact placed in quotation marks as are the words the smoke was white
and positive. These quotation marks indicate that these are direct quotes from the article of
Silvio Negro. Why do I point this out? It’s very important to be accurate with alleged facts.
It’s also very important to translate accurately, only, what is actually in an article in
question.
The actual article of Silvio Negro, in fact does not state what Spigornell has stated. The
word “surreptitiously” does not appear at all in that article nor does it say that “the smoke
was white and positive” but rather it does say that “the smoke would have been white and

5
positive”. The article written in 1958 has been improperly translated. Why has the word
“surreptitiously” with all that this word connotes, been added to Silvio Negro’s article? In
order to add some clarity to the confusion being caused by Ms. Helen. Spigornell I will fill
in some important details. It is important to understand that access in and out of the
conclave was through what the Italians refer to as “wheels” and what we refer to as
turnstiles. Each turnstile was guarded on both the inside and the outside of the turnstile.
Each side had a cleric who sat at the turnstile itself. One cleric on the outside and one cleric
on the inside. Along with the cleric, each turnstile was also under the protection of Swiss
Guards (on the inside of the turnstile, as well as on the outside of the turnstile).Everything
coming in or out of the turnstiles had to be inspected by the clerics, this included letters,
notes, books, packages etc. Unless the clerics at their posts saw granted authorization,
nothing could go in or out of the turnstiles, regardless of the rank or dignity of the person
seeking to access the turnstiles. Now Ms. Helen Spigornell says that Santoro
“surreptitiously”19 passed the Prince (Chigi) a note, “surreptitiously” which to the best of
my knowledge has the following meaning “operating with or characterized by stealth,
done, made, or acquired by secret or sneaky methods”. But how can anything be passed
out “surreptitiously” if in fact the wheels or turnstiles are guarded and anything going in or
out must be inspected by the cleric at the turnstile who must see, inspect, read and approve
anything going in or out of the turnstiles?
It gets even more curious because we must remember that this information allegedly
comes from the article written by the Italian journalist, Silvio Negro, that appeared on the
front page of the evening edition of Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) for October 27/28,
195820.Now it just so happens that in my archives I have an actual copy of that very
article21"Even Yesterday 'Fumate Nere' (Black Smoke) Out of the Sistine Chapel" which
was really entitled by Silvio Negro as “Minoranze tenaci si oppongono alle candidature
più favorite”, 256, 28 ott., p. 1;22. I have translated this article in its entirety and no where
does the word “surreptitiously” or anything remotely approximating this word appear. So
where did this word and all that it implies come from? I have no way of knowing, however
what I am certain of is this, it did not appear anywhere in the original article written by
Silvio Negro entitled "Even Yesterday 'Fumate Nere' (Black Smoke) Out of the Sistine
Chapel" on Page 1 (the original article is listed as follows in the bibliographies of Silvio
Negro’s writings for 1958 , Minoranze tenaci si oppongono alle candidature più favorite,
256, 28 ott., p. 1;of Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) October 27, 1958

FACT CHECKING FINALLY REVEALS THAT MONSIGNOR

SANTORO WAS NOT THE SECRETARY OF THE CONCLAVE IN
1958 AS ALLEGED BY THE SIRI THESIS.

In fact this is only the beginning of what unfortunately turns out to be a comedy of
errors, you see Giuffre and his “Siri Thesis” supporters wish to be recognized as experts, as
expert researchers, as experts on the Church and as “the” experts on the conclaves of 1958,
1963, and the two in 1978. I ask you, is it too much to ask, or too unreasonable of us to
expect, that these “supposed” experts should be, at the very least, able to ascertain,
correctly, who the real “Secretary of the Conclave”23 of 1958 actually was? Let me remind

6
you, with a direct quote, what Ms. Helen. Spigornell in her article Eclipse of the Church
at the 1958 Conclave.24 has claimed:

“ It seemed that, inside the Sistine Chapel, the conclave secretary, Monsignor Santoro, feeling he could
not rely entirely on messages sent via their stove—or the handlers thereof––had made a call to Prince Chigi
on the outside. Through the turnstile connecting to the conclave kitchen, the Monsignor had then
“surreptitiously”25 passed the Prince a note telling him to alert the radio that, no matter what, “the smoke was
white and positive.”
In other words, according to the word of veteran reporter Silvio Negro, someone from within the
conclave had released the news that a pope had indeed been elected at this time. And this “someone” was no
mere attendant—not even a junior priest, for it was Msgr. Santoro, conclave secretary! As such, he not only
knew the rules, it was his job to make sure they were followed. It was his responsibility to ensure the secrecy
and integrity of the conclave. Had a pope not been elected at the time he passed his note, his act would have
constituted a massive breach of security. Moreover, according the rules, it would have invalidated the
conclave as a whole.”26

Helen Spigornell, the long time friend, long time supporter, long time translator, long time
collaborator of Giuffre and militant supporter of “The Siri Thesis” has just claimed that
Monsignor Santoro was The Secretary of the Conclave in 1958. Giuffré and his
supporters have claimed and to this day continue to claim that Santoro was “The
Secretary of the 1958 Conclave”27. Well, once we did some simple fact checking, we
quickly found that our experts on Siri and the Conclaves of 1958, 1963 and 1978 were dead
wrong!

7
Conclave Figure 1 Silvio Negro in his article of October 9, 1958 entitled “Preghiere e pianti per Pio XII negli ultimi
istanti” (“Prayers and tears for Pius XII in the last moments”) reports that the Secretary of the Conclave,
Secretary of the Sacred College as well as The Secretary of State during the period of the sede vacante was none
other thanAlberto Di Jorio. Simple fact checking proves that experts Giuffre, Spigornell and the Siri Thesis are
incorrect in their claim regarding Santoro! Santoro was not the “Secretary of the Conclave in 1958 in fact he was
not in the 1958 conclave in any capacity, for to the best of our current knowledge (and subject to final
confirmation) it seems that Santoro died in 1943.

Figure 2 Image taken from AAS 1958 page 877 clearly shows that the ‘Secretary of The Conclave” in
1958 was Alberto Di Jorio and not Monsignor Santoro as claimed by Giuffre ,Helen Spigornell and
“The Siri Thesis” supporters.

8
FACT CHECKING REVEALS THAT ALBERTO DI JORIO WAS
THE SECRETARY OF THE CONCLAVE IN 1958 AND NOT
SANTORO AS CLAIMED BY GIUFFREAND OTHERS!

As authors, writers and researchers and commentators Mr. Giuffre, Spigornell and their
supporters are responsible to “fact check”. If they had done so, in this instance, they would
have found that “The Secretary of the Conclave of 1958” and regent of the “Secretariat of
Sacred College of Cardinals”, as well as the “Secretary of State” during the period of the
“Sede Vacante” starting on October 9, 1958 was none other than, Alberto di JORIO28
born in Rome, Italy July 18, 1884 and died in Italy in 1979.In light of this absolutely
fundamental error, I find it difficult to understand how anyone, knowing these facts and
interested in the truth of these historical events, could continue to take anything these
supposed experts say or claim, seriously, without first checking the veracity of every
claim?

How can, so easily verifiable a fact, go unverified for all these years? Is it unreasonable to
assume that the first thing that, even a novice researcher would, do in such a case, is to
immediately verify the basic facts via the “Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1958”? I think not!
So may I ask why, Giuffre, Spigornell, and their supporters, never did so? How can
Giuffre, Spigornell, and so many others who have repeated this false allegation, have made
so fundamental an error? How could these alleged experts have failed to check their facts?

Figure 3 Photo of Alberto Di Jorio he was the "Secretary of The Conclave in 1958" this photo was
taken shortly after he was made a Cardinal by John XXIII .Photo from an article by Silvio Negro.

9
THE CASE OF 1939: GIUFFRE AND HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE
TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD AND THEREFORE MISREPRESENT
THE SILVIO NEGRO ARTICLE OF OCT. 27, 1958!

But it really does get even worse. Not only have these experts mistranslated the article of
the evening of Oct 27 1958 (by actually adding the word “surreptitiously” which does not
appear anywhere in Silvio Negro’s original article), not only have they misinformed us all
as to whom the real “Secretary of The Conclave of 1958” really was but to add insult to
injury they have also failed to understand what Mr. Negro was saying in his article of the
27th. You see, Silvio Negro, was in fact consoling the Vatican Radio announcer
Fr.Pellegrino by informing him and his ( Silvio Negro’s ) readers that this very same thing
(smoke that starts out very white for a long time then turns black) had in fact all happened
before! When? Actually in 1939 at the election, on the first day of the Conclave, of
Pacelli /Pope Pius XII. That’s right, you understood correctly, these experts have taken the
reference by a serious journalist to the conclave of 1939, totally misunderstood the
reference and boldly told us all that it referred to the events of 1958.29 There are many
words that could be used to describe this failure, on the part of Giuffre, Spigornell and
others, to read and understand Silvio Negro’s simple article, but not one of these words is
scholarship!

Well here are the last two paragraphs, of the Silvio Negro article of Oct. 27th 1958 properly
tanslated.How do I know they were properly translated? Well because I translated them
myself:

“It might be of comfort to Father Pellegrino to learn that what happened yesterday had already occurred in
1939: the “Fumata” (smoke) that was supposed to be black appeared initially very white, thick, almost
chalky, and streaked with black shadings in the end.

That night, after the positive “Fumata” (smoke) that followed the first ballot and, therefore, ahead of time - a
case which might take place even this time both in the morning and in the afternoon - the “Fumata” (smoke)
was white as that of the morning, but not as thick, complete with black streaks in the end, and hence the
opinions were presently heatedly divided. The radio, however, very composed, declared the “Fumata”
(smoke) to have been white, and invited the population to go to the square to be blessed by the new
Pope. And that took place only because the secretary of the Conclave, then monsignor Santoro, utterly
distrustful of the stove, had had prince Chigi summoned to one of the wheels (turn-stile), and handed
him a letter in which he told him to advise the radio that, in any case, the “Fumata” (smoke) would
have been white and positive.

Silvio Negro”30

Now just in case you doubt my translation, you can arrange for your own, here is the actual
Italian text as well:

10
 Padre Pellegrino di conforti, la stessa cosa di ieri è avvenuta anche nel 1939: la fumata che doveva essere nera
apparve, invece, bianchissima all'inizio, bianca ma eccezionalmente, densa, quasi gessosa poi, striata di velature nere
alla fine.

La sera, poi, alla fumata positiva che si ebbe dopo il primo scrutinio e, quindi, in anticipo, caso che può verificarsi
anche questa volta sia al mattino sia nel pomeriggio, la fumata fu bianca come quella del mattino, ma meno densa, e
non mancarono le striature nere finali, per cui le opinioni furono subito ardentemente divise. La radio però,
tranquillissima, dichiarò che la fumata era bianca, e invitò la popolazione a recarsi in piazza per ricevere la
benedizione del nuovo Papa. E questo avvenne solo perché il segretario del Conclave, chi era allora monsignor
Santoro, non fidando si affatto della stufa, aveva fatto chiamare a una delle ruote il principe Chigi, e gli aveva passata
una lettera in cui gli si diceva di avvertire la radio che, in ogni caso, la fumata sarebbe stata bianca e positiva.
Silvio Negro

When you finally read it all, it does not require any great intellect to understand what ,Mr.
Silvio Negro, is dealing with in the last six paragraphs of his article, because the sub
heading ( to the last six paragraphs) he used was very clear, as he titled it” The Case of
1939”.

I can and I will go on, additionally, about the shortcomings in this research, but I think, that
it should be clear, already at this early stage that we may not be dealing with the most
erudite group of researchers in the world! The interpretations given by Giuffre, Spigornell
and their supporters in this one instance alone are damning enough. However, let us persist,
as it is worth pointing out many of the shortcomings in the writings of Helen Spigornell.

The writings of Spigornell bear little resemblance to historical fact31 but certainly do appear
to have a great affinity with melodramatic “faction” (faction defined by me as a lot of
fiction with a tinge of history) as you can see in this passage:

“On the other hand, if a candidate had in fact been elected—and accepted the office––thereby becoming the
new pope, the conclave would for all practical purposes have ended. Passing the note would in that case
have entailed no breach of security. On the contrary: if usurpers inside were in the process of
hijacking the conclave in order to block the communication of valid election results, his move would
have to be recognized as an heroic act of resistance.

“So what did happen? What are the known facts? First, consider the implications of the official
version, spread throughout the world these past 47 years; that a pope had not yet been elected the evening of
October 26. Given this situation, for Msgr. Santoro to have passed a note to Vatican Radio saying the
opposite would have violated the integrity of the conclave in the worst possible way. For it would mean that
he had not only falsified the results therein, but that he had attempted to have the lie broadcast worldwide in
an underhanded way, opposed to Church authority. Such a crime would surely warrant excommunication.
But think about it. Does it seem likely that an official like him would risk destroying not only his own future,
but also the integrity of the entire conclave?

Not unless he was crazy!

But was his act of alerting Vatican Radio via a note really that of a madman? Or was it, rather, the
desperate, spontaneous act of a man caught in the throes of a nightmarish scenario, one of which he
had had no prior knowledge?”32

Now Helen Spigornell asks “So what did happen?” and “What are the known Facts?”
then proceeds boldly to create a total fiction surrounding the assumed actions of a man, a

11
hero as it turns out, a desperate man, a desperate man caught in a nightmare, a desperate
man who must be recognized for a heroic act of resistance, a desperate man who risked his
life to alert the Vatican Radio to a deadly plot. What deadly plot? Well that of hijacking the
conclave against Siri (great fiction the stuff that B rated movies are made of) of course! But
as I have shown these are simply the ramblings of a person or persons , masquerading as
experts, who seem to be prone to conclusions without ever checking the facts, without
ever confirming whether their imagined hero ‘Monsignor Santoro” was even, ever, in the
Conclave of 1958 (Since I do not wish to be accused of taking what she has written out of
context , the article written by Helen Spigornell and appearing under the title “Eclipse of
the Church at the 1958 Conclave” can be viewed in its totality at
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm.)33. As I have already demonstrated Monsignor
Santoro was certainly not, the “Secretary of The Conclave of 1958” nor was he involved
in any way or in any capacity with the Conclave of 1958 for as far as we have been able to
discover he most probably died in 1943! Monsignor Santoro was however the “Secretary of
the Conclave” in the Conclave that elected Pacelli in 1939.

12
Figure 4 Image of 1939 AAS page 122 clearly shows that the Secretary of the Conclave in 1939 was
Vincentio Santoro (who most probably died in 1943) but he had nothing whatever to do with the
conclave of 1958.

So, if Ms. Helen Spigornell had actually taken the time to read carefully Silvio
Negro’s article (in the original Italian) she would have known that Silvio Negro was
writing about the Conclave of 193934 (a conclave that he personally reported on so he was
speaking of what he had personally witnessed) and there then would have been no need to
create this historical fiction that Spigornell has authored under the title of “Eclipse of the
Church at the 1958 Conclave”! Spigornell has the audacity, the temerity to actually try to
deny this reality, that there was confusion with the smoke signals in 1939, but she, 47 years
after the fact, attempts to rewrite that history by claiming that the confusion in the 1939
smoke signal never occurred! Whom does she cite as authorities for this claim? Why none
other than CBS and MSNBC.
Spigornell causes additional confusion, by adding MSNBC and CBS to the equation
and somehow claiming that their reports (circulating on the internet) in 2005 are somehow
public vindication (of what?) because somehow they do not mention 1939.I do not know
whether to cry out loud or roll on the ground laughing at the nature of these writings. Here
is what Spigornell says:

“Whatever transpired during those ensuing hours of the elongated conclave only added to the aura of
secrecy shrouding the event. Measures were surely taken to make sure the facts behind the smoke signals of
October 26 did not leak to the outside. Nevertheless, Italians, at least, did wonder about this, despite all the
inane excuses fed to the press, one being that “the same thing had happened in 1939.”

Oh really?

Those in the know did not fall for that line at the time, and, after many years, their public vindication has
finally come in the form of MSNBC and CBS News items, now circulating the internet, that discuss the topic
of smoke signals in the context of the most recent conclave. Both of these stories note that there was “little
record of color confusion until the 1958 conclave.”

Note that there is absolutely no mention of 1939!

Just prior to the election this past April, the mass media broadcast the news that, for the sake of clarity,
John Paul II had ordered bells to be rung in accompaniment to the smoke signals at future conclaves. In
addition, the CBS item mentioned above says “special chemicals would be added” to the straw to be burned
“to help avoid confusion.” Furthermore, in at least one other conclave subsequent to 1958, smoke bombs
were apparently used to produce black smoke! Nevertheless, despite these extra measures, the current CBS
item would have us believe that there was the same kind of confusion in 2005 that there was in 1958!

For proof, they cite the illuminating testimony of several onlookers in St. Peter’s square for the big
election this past April. These included 21-year-old Amy Turnipseed (yep, that’s right) who, seeing smoke
issuing from the pipe over the Sistine Chapel, said, “It looks really white, but I’m not sure.”

Would you believe? I mean, it’s almost as if some wise guys in the news media know about our interest
in the ’58 conclave and are using an embellished version of the 2005 confab to generate a new, up-to-date
kind of smoke screen to cover events past as well as present! How clever of them! But. . . Do you suppose
they really expect those of us who are clued in to what happened in ’58 to equate the words, however
titillating, of Amy Turnipseed and friends with those of Silvio Negro and Monsignore Santoro?

That’s what it looks like.

13
 But we’re not fooled, anymore than those wily Italianos were back in ’58, even if we are not just dumb
Americans, but the dumbest of the lot, American Catholics, accustomed to being lied to and cheated ad
nauseam (Isn’t that what being an American Catholic means?).35
I am really glad that Spigornell would never equate the words of Amy Turnipseed and
friends with those of veteran reporter “Silvio Negro and Monsignor Santoro”.But why do
we, not see ,exactly what Silvio Negro stated in his article,( the article used as precious
evidence of a hijacking of the Conclave of 1958 by sinister forces that will all one day be
made clear to us all by Gary Giuffre in his “soon to be released book” entitled "The Plot
Against The Pope; Coup dé’tat in the Conclave – 1958".( After reading this article Mr
Giuffre may wish to revise accordingly his soon to be released book ).Now what follows
is the English translation of the Silvio Negro article ( the last six paragraphs starting from
the heading “The Case of 1939”)from the evening edition of Oct. 27 , 1958 in
question ,guess what, he wrote about ,the very same issue ,of the smoke confusion in the
conclave of 1939, that Spigornell denies ever happened!:
“The Case of 1939

Through the small wheels (turnstile), located at the entrance of the St. Damaso courtyard passed a large
amount of mail, a large package containing books and documents, addressed to the secretary of the Conclave
and closely inspected before being allowed in, a purplish-blue mozzetta for the archbishop of Quito, Carlo
Maria de la Torre, two pieces of woolen clothing for cardinal Micara. Just minutes before the noon closure
the Chinese minister by the Holy See showed up, with the same retinue as yesterday, and sent in the by now
customary roast chicken and soup tureen.

The buzz had it that, on account of a breach at one of the wheels (turnstile), a Swiss guard had today been
expelled. The military (guard) had allegedly let in without authorization a woman carrying a small bundle of
clothing for her son, a mechanic inside, as a member of the staff. The guard had, in fact, been expelled by the
very severe new commander, but on disciplinary charges that had nothing to do with the Conclave’s wheels
(turnstile).

Prince Sigismondo Chigi is always present at the opening and closing of the wheels (turnstile), but he no
longer wears the severe costume with which he appeared Saturday night to take his oath at the Sistine Chapel.
Yesterday, he was at the ladies’ lodge, with the commissary of the Conclave, the consistorial counsel
Corsanego, when there came the “Fumata” (smoke) that was taken as good. Since the pair soon after was to
show up at the Conclave’s door, for the opening ceremonies, they rushed to get ready for the occasion and
learned of the false alarm only when they came back suitably appareled.

Today the Vatican radio assured that similar incidents would never happen again. “We will tell you the Pope
has been made only after an irrefutable confirmation” said father Pellegrino, who yesterday was betrayed by
an enthusiasm that renders honor to his habit, and carried by the excitement he reasoned as though the stove
of the Sistine Chapel had an understanding and a will of its own, it could make out what was passing on the
roof, it could perceive the anxieties and doubts that had come of it, and it were even capable of putting a
remedy to it with “undisputable” manifestations.

It might be of comfort to Father Pellegrino to learn that what happened yesterday had already occurred in
1939: the “Fumata” (smoke) that was supposed to be black appeared initially very white, thick, almost
chalky, and streaked with black shadings in the end.

That night, after the positive “Fumata” (smoke) that followed the first ballot and, therefore, ahead of time - a
case which might take place even this time both in the morning and in the afternoon - the “Fumata” (smoke)
was white as that of the morning, but not as thick, complete with black streaks in the end, and hence the
opinions were presently heatedly divided. The radio, however, very composed, declared the “Fumata”
(smoke) to have been white, and invited the population to go to the square to be blessed by the new Pope.
And that took place only because the secretary of the Conclave, then monsignor Santoro, utterly distrustful of

14
the stove, had had prince Chigi summoned to one of the wheels (turnstile) , and handed him a letter in which
he told him to advise the radio that, in any case, the “Fumata” (smoke) would have been white and positive
Silvio Negro”36

Figure 5 An actual copy of ,Silvio Negro's article, Minoranze tenaci si oppongono alle candidature più favorite, 256, 28 ott., p. 1;of
Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) evening edition of October 27, 1958 showing the reference to “Il caso del 1939”/ "The Case of
1939". Remember what Spigornell claimed. Let me quote Spigornell: “Nevertheless, Italians, at least, did wonder about this,
despite all the inane excuses fed to the press, one being that “the same thing had happened in 1939.” Silvio Negro was not in the
habit of making inane excuses and we should all remember that he was at, and reported on, the 1939 Conclave.Spigornell might

15
want to revise her position for clearly her analysis is totally incorrect especially in light of the fact that the very author of the
article that She and Giuffre claim as precious evidence that someone other than Roncalli was elected in 1958 is the very person
that advises us of the fact that the smoke in 1939 at the election of Pacelli had also caused great confusion. So much so, that
Monsignor Santoro, the Secretary of the Conclave in 1939, sent out a note to Prince Chigi through the turnstiles.

Figure 6 An actual copy of a portion of ,Silvio Negro's article, Minoranze tenaci si oppongono alle candidature
più favorite, 256, 28 ott., p. 1;of Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) evening edition October 27/28, 1958 displayed
above clearly showing the last 6 paragraphs of this article starting with the heading “Il caso del 1939”/ "The Case
of 1939". Remember what Spigornell claimed. Let me quote “Nevertheless, Italians, at least, did wonder about

16
this, despite all the inane excuses fed to the press, one being that “the same thing had happened in 1939.” Silvio
Negro was not in the habit of making excuses and we should all remember that he was at, and reported on, the
1939 Conclave.Spigornell might want to revise her position for clearly her analysis is totally without merit!
SPIGORNELL STATES “WE ARE NOT JUST DUMB AMERICANS,
BUT THE DUMBEST OF THE LOT”- YOU DECIDE!

Helen Spigornell may read here, possibly for the first time, what Silvio Negro, who also
reported on the election of Pacelli in 1939, had to say, and Spigornell will indeed be
surprised to learn that Silvio Negro’s testimony is diametrically in opposition to all that she
has written. Silvio Negro’s subheading (near the end of his article), to the original, evening
edition, article of Oct. 27th 1958, is in fact “The Case of 1939”.Why do you think that is?
Was Silvio Negro also fooled about the confusion of the smoke signals in 1939? After all
he was physically there and reported the incident in 1939 that is why he consoled Fr.
Pellegrino in his Article of the evening of Oct. 27, 1958! Was Silvio Negro not also one of
those “wily Italianos” who was not fooled or rather, have you just not proven, with your
own writings, that in fact you and your supporters are in deed, to use your very own words
“we are not just dumb Americans, but the dumbest of the lot”. Yes Spigornell I totally
agree with you, that you are, by your own admission “but the dumbest of the lot” and
further I agree that “American Catholics” are “accustomed to being lied to and cheated
ad nauseam”.That is why I have written this article so that even greater numbers of
innocent Catholics, are not required to deal with even more confusion and error than they
are already required to deal with!

Spigornell in her article reports that special chemicals were used in at least one conclave
subsequent to 1958:
“In addition, the CBS item mentioned above says “special chemicals would be added” to the straw to be
burned “to help avoid confusion.” Furthermore, in at least one other conclave subsequent to 1958, smoke
bombs were apparently used to produce black smoke!”37

However if Giuffre and Spigornell had carefully arranged for proper translations of all
important articles of that time period they would have found another article by Silvio
Negro ( also from Oct 27th 1958) that informed his wily Italian readers that Prince Chigi
confirmed ( contrary to what Spigornell alleges) that chemistry was indeed employed at the
conclave of 1958. Here is what Prince Chigi (in the article also written by Silvio Negro on
Oct. 27, 1958 appearing under the title of “Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi
l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott. p. 1 (C.d.I.); has to say on this
matter:

“But how is that possible, with all the advancements that chemistry has achieved?” remarked some
disillusioned people, yesterday. One might respond that if the chances of a misunderstanding were, this time,
so much greater than in the past, the thing is in fact due to the circumstance that yesterday they had made
innovations, convinced that the panacea would be found in certain chemical preparations. Be that as it may,
the rule to avoid being mislead is this: if the “fumata” is long, for the mere fact that it is long it is already
negative; the good one will always be a short “fumata” and of a white that is almost transparent, for, in that
case, only the ballot papers are burnt, and nothing else. Unfortunately, it is a rule that never agrees with the
anxiety of he that is bound to provide the first news.”38

17
 So the experts, Spigornell and Giuffre, seem to be unaware that “certain chemical
preparations” were used in the conclave of 1958 and that this fact ( the using of certain
chemical preparations) explains, according to Prince Chigi himself ( whom you will recall
is the Prince, who was at both the Conclave of 1939 and the Conclave of 1958, who
supposedly received the non existent “surreptitiously” passed note from the non existent
(actually, most probably deceased in 1943 ) Monsignor Santoro who was the non existent
Secretary of the Conclave of 1958” ( but who was in fact the Secretary of the Conclave of
1939) that supposedly stated that “the smoke was white and positive.” ) Why the great
variation in the color of the smoke in 1958.

PURVEYORS OF ILLUSION

Giuffre ,Spigornell and other supporters have attempted to boldly convince

unsuspecting, “innocent well meaning Catholics”39 that the totally innocent article of
Silvio Negro was somehow, precious evidence, of a sinister conspiracy, precious evidence
of the execution of a plot in the Vatican against Siri, but we now see that Spigornell ( long
time Giuffre collaborator, supporter and translator) has, unwittingly, manufactured a total
fiction, a totally inaccurate interpretation of Silvio Negro’s fine article based solely upon
her/their own misreading and misunderstanding of the Silvio Negro article in question..
Her/their dramatization of Silvio Negro’s article was not precious, it was not evidence, it
was not factual,40 and it has served only to potentially discredit the reputation of an
exceptional Italian reporter by associating Negro’s name with those of this band of self
styled investigators. This type of inept dramatization, this “faction” does only a disservice
to legitimate efforts attempting to find the truth.

It is exceedingly amusing that Helen Spigornell writes that. “It was, in fact, an eclipse
caused by purveyors of illusion who had finally managed to block the powers of light.” I
would suggest that Helen Spigornell’s own words are more rightly applicable to herself,
(and Giuffre), to what she has written in “Eclipse of the Church at the 1958 Conclave”. In
fact Spigornell and Giuffre are unequaled as “purveyors of illusion” (Illusions are beliefs
about Reality which are not founded in fact). Now just in case one might be tempted to
suggest that Mr. Giuffre has never himself made these ridiculous claims, let me dispel this
illusion by a direct quote from a portion of a communication originating from Giuffre
(directed to a person named Bill on Friday, January 14, 2000 1:31 AM) that is freely
available on the internet and cached on Google at http://64.233.161.104/search?
q=cache:lO3b51NJKjIJ:www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/
sirith2.htm+supporters+of+cardinal+siri+called+&hl=en

“Have you, or Case, or any of your ilk ever spoken with any former Vatican officials or secretaries of the
cardinals regarding the anomalies that surrounded the recent conclaves? Did you know, for instance, that
Milan's Corriere della Sera revealed on their front page, for 28 October 1958, that a high Vatican official
inside the conclave confirmed that a new Pope was elected and accepted office on 26 October, two days
before Angelo Roncalli was seen on the papal balcony? Have you ever been to Rome to check the public
documents that pertain to those hidden events that deprived the Church of her rightful shepherd? Well, I have.
And until you and Case have done a little checking into these issues on your own, perhaps you should

18
reconsider the wisdom and justice of tarring a fellow Catholic with your broad brush, over subjects about
which you know absolutely nothing.41

Additionally in late 2005 a brief article written by Gary Giuffre entitled “Comments on
The Eclipse of The Church and October 26 , 1958” was uploaded to
http://www.realnews247.com/giuffre_on_oct_26_1958.htm and a link is also available at
http://www.novusordowatch.org/resources.htm the first few paragraphs or Giuffre’s article
are provided for you here:

“Regarding the timing of the “Eclipse of the Church,” foretold by Our Lady of La Salette

It can be determined by Associated Press (AP) wire photos published by Joseph

Breig, and newspapers all over the world, what was the exact timing of the key events
with which we are particularly concerned:

Photo #1 (see below) portrayed the first clouds of white smoke that billowed out of the
Sistine Chapel stovepipe and would continue uninterrupted for five minutes.

During this interval, Vatican Radio repeatedly announced to the world that the election of a
Pope had taken place. News reports confirmed that the smoke was first seen at
approximately 5.55 P.M., from which it can be deduced that the election occurred shortly
before that time. Then, photo #2 shows the first puff of black smoke, after white smoke
had poured out of the stovepipe for five full minutes, clearly indicating that some anomaly
had occurred inside the conclave. The second photo also captured an image of the clock
over the Pauline Chapel on the façade of St. Peter’s Basilica, which can be seen with its
hands at 6 o’clock.

The fact that the new Pope did not emerge onto the balcony that night, even though one of
the conclave ministers sent out confirmation that “no matter what, the smoke is white and
positive,” which was made public, gives clear evidence that something had gone wrong
inside the conclave.

It is of interest to note that Giuffre does not bother to inform his readers in this 2005
article as to the identity of the alleged conclave minister.The conclave minister to whom
Giuffre refers( but for some reason fails to name) , in the paragraph above, is none other
than Monsignor Santoro, whom Giuffre and his supporters have, for almost 17 years,
claimed, was the Secretary of the Conclave of 1958.I have already proven (and provided
copies of the ACTA APOTOLICAE SEDIS-COMMENTARIUM OFFICIALE or AAS
for short for both 1939 and 1958 ) that Monsignor Santoro was not a participant at the
1958 Conclave ( in fact Santoro was the Secretary of the Conclave that elected Pacelli/Pius
XII in 1939 and most probably died in 1943) so Monsignor Santoro certainly could not
have surreptitiously passed out a non existent note, to Prince Chigi ( who I will
immediately demonstrate had in fact used other means to contact those inside the conclave,
within ten minutes of the smoke emerging, to in fact confirm a non election) claiming that
““no matter what, the smoke is white and positive,”.

Ms. Spigornell and Mr. Giuffre, we are not interested in “illusion” regardless of the
source, whether on the part of the destroyers of the Church or on the part of the supposed
defenders of the Church. The Siri Thesis has in fact, turned out to be an illusion, a fantasy,
and time alone will show it to have done grave harm to the traditional catholic movement

19
in the USA. No matter how well intended, if these researchers had spent some time in
properly translating Silvio Negro’s articles they, would not, then have created such a
fiction. If they had spent time, fact checking, as they should have, in confirming via the
AAS who the Secretaries of the Conclaves for both 1958 and 1939 really were they would
have avoided their current untenable credibility situation. Further I have consulted a list of
all the clerics who were present at the 1958 Conclave.This list is avaliable in the 1958 Acta
Apostolicae Sedis , pages 923,924 and 925 .This list includes all clerics including the aides
to each of the Cardinals that were present at the 1958 Conclave.This official list proves
without a shadow of a doubt that no cleric by the name of SANTORO participated in the
1958 Conclave in any capacity whatsoever.This absence from the 1958 Conclave of any
cleric named Santoro, in any position, clearly demonstrates, conclusively, that Giuffre and
Spigornell have totally misunderstood , that the Silvio Negro article of Oct.27 1958 refers
to the Conclave of 1939 and not that of 1958 as they have claimed and still continue to
claim in total error without checking their facts!

If they had also referred to the other article by Silvio Negro that also appeared on the
th
27 of October 1958 in Corriere della Sera under the title “Due prime fumate di colore
incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.);”, or
that of October 9th ,1958 entitled “Preghiere e pianti per Pio XII negli ultimi istanti”
(“Prayers and tears for Pius XII in the last moments”)42 there would have been no need
for Helen Spigornell to create, out of whole cloth, the illusion that follows:

“Little did he know how true his words would prove to be—in more ways than one. For, unbeknownst
to him, although, as the smoke changed, night was indeed falling over Vatican City (and several of the
floodlights on the roof of the Sistine Chapel were apparently out), there was also a deeper, intangible
darkness prevailing that did not come as the result of any natural occurrence. It was not just the dark of an
ordinary night, but, rather, one resulting from a strange sort of fraud, or cover up, comprising a kind of
eclipse. It was, in fact, an eclipse caused by purveyors of illusion who had finally managed to block the
powers of light.

After conspiring for centuries, they had at last succeeded. . .

The next morning, news of the supposed mix-up made headlines in papers throughout the world. The
Associated Press gave a full account of the event, including details regarding the confusion that had prevailed
as onlookers watched at least half an hour for a new pope to appear on the balcony above St. Peter’s Square
and give his benediction. Even the press waited—and waited. Long after the smoke had darkened there were
doubts as to what it was supposed to be: black or white?

In an interview with a reporter for Corriere della Serra, Prince Chigi, Marshal of the Conclave,
admitted, “Not even I, who have assisted at three Conclaves, even at four, have seen smoke of colors so
varied and suspect as at this time.”43

20
Figure 7 This image is a portion of the article from Silvio Negro’s article of the evening of October 9, 1958 entitled “Preghiere e
pianti per Pio XII negli ultimi istanti” (Prayers and tears for Pius XII in the last moments).In the photocopy of the article below
you can see the above referenced section on the left side column enclosed in a box. In it Silvio Negro states clearly that Alberto Di
Jorio was nominated Secretary of the Conclave. This same statement of fact was repeated later in the same article. There is no
defense for Giuffre and Spigornell failure to properly ascertain the facts as to who held what key positions.

21
Figure 8 Silvio Illustrated above are the last two paragraphs of the same Silvio Negro article of October 9,1958 entitled
“Preghiere e pianti per Pio XII negli ultimi istanti” (Prayers and tears for Pius XII in the last moments). The paragraphs, repeat
the fact that Alberto di Jorio was nominated as Secretary of the Conclave, Secretary of the Sacred College of Cardinals and
Secretary of State for the period of the Sede Vacante in 1958.Their is no excuse for not checking facts.

PRINCE CHIGI GIVES A FULL AND DETAILED EXPLANATION

FOR THE WHITE SMOKE THAT APPEARED ON OCT. 26 1958

Spigornell ( in the material cited above) clearly leaves her readers with the distinct
impression that Prince Chigi was somehow dismayed with the events of the 26th and that he
therefore had legitimate reasons to be suspicious of what she refers to as these sinister
events. Why do we not allow prince Chigi to speak for himself? Here is Prince Chigi’s
detailed response to the issue of the white smoke as reported in the second article written
by Silvio Negro on Oct. 27, 1958 appearing under the title of “Due prime fumate di colore
incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.);

Prince Chigi speaks out

The old Romans have been more cautious, mindful of past experiences. In fact, it’s not a puff or two of white
smoke that counts; what counts is that black smoke must never be seen. That white smoke appears at first,
even when the “fumata” is black, is an inevitable thing, since the fire cannot be lit with damp straw; it must
be lit with paper or dry straw, and in that case the smoke is, necessarily, white. Only then are damp straw and
other ingredients added. Therefore, the early signs are not to be taken as final, no matter how conspicuous
they might appear; what is required, rather, is patience, even because, in the face of all possible expedients,
the smokestack which so many eyes are now fastened upon, remains capricious, and never does fulfill in full
the intentions of he that operates, down below, the tongs and the shovel.

“But how is that possible, with all the advancements that chemistry has achieved?” remarked some
disillusioned people, yesterday. One might respond that if the chances of a misunderstanding were, this time,
so much greater than in the past, the thing is in fact due to the circumstance that yesterday they had made

22
innovations, convinced that the panacea would be found in certain chemical preparations. Be that as it may,
the rule to avoid being mislead is this: if the “fumata” is long, for the mere fact that it is long it is already
negative; the good one will always be a short “fumata” and of a white that is almost transparent, for, in that
case, only the ballot papers are burnt, and nothing else. Unfortunately, it is a rule that never agrees with the

anxiety of he that is bound to provide the first news”.44

So we see that Prince Chigi in the earlier Silvio Negro article of the 27th of October
1958, “Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato
eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); had quickly provided a detailed explanation and placed
this incident (the incident of the confusion over the white smoke) into it’s proper
perspective .Prince Chigi’s explanation and analysis, of the appearance of the white smoke
on Oct 26th, 1958 is in fact the exact opposite of what Spigornell, Giuffre and “The Siri
Thesis” supporters have claimed, for 17 years. Further Prince Chigi claimed that this
situation, this exact situation had certainly happened in the past and one can understand
why, only when one is totally familiar with how the stove really operates. Prince Chigi
commented further in the Silvio Negro article as follows:

“In fact, uncertainty ruled even within the palace among the many personalities present, so much so that
it was necessary to ask confirmation of the non election, and that was done after about ten minutes, through
communications that, naturally, I am not in the position to reveal.”45

Prince Chigi had also advised, as reported in Silvio Negro’s article “ Due prime
fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p.
1 (C.d.I.); that within ten minutes of the smoke appearing and due to the uncertainty
generated, he found it necessary to immediately ask for confirmation from within the
Conclave that black smoke had been intended, which he did, and confirmation was
received by him via a method of communication that Prince Chigi was not in a position to
reveal.

It is now clear that all of the issues raised by Spigornell, Giuffre and “The Siri Thesis”
supporters were addressed immediately, accurately, and honestly by Prince Chigi in the
article by Silvio Negro almost half a century ago on the 27th of October 1958. That the
death of Silvio Negro, approximately one year after the writing of his articles, in October of
1958, was a totally natural event (an event that has in fact never been researched by either
Giuffre or his supporters, ) that had no suspicious elements to it, as has been alleged by
Giuffre.

That the smoke signals, on October 26, 1958, were not the result of the traditional
method of operating the stove but in fact were the result of an attempt to use chemical
preparations to avoid confusion, that unfortunately , only served to cause more confusion
than intended . That Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretary of the Conclave of 1958
(but was however the Secretary of the Conclave in 1939) so he could not have
surreptitiously passed out a note to Prince Chigi in 1958 ( Monsignor Santoro did however
pass a note to Prince Chigi in 1939, in which Santoro ,confirmed that Pacelli had been
elected pope in 1939 and that Silvio Negro described this 1939 incident in his article of the
27th of October as follows “ then monsignor Santoro, utterly distrustful of the stove, had

23
had prince Chigi summoned to one of the wheels (turnstile) , and handed him a letter in
which he told him to advise the radio that, in any case, the “Fumata” (smoke) would
have been white and positive” . That Giuffre Spigornell and The Siri Thesis supporters
have totally confused both facts and references that pertain to, two totally different
conclaves separated by almost two decades in time is now only too clear. 46 That Giuffre,
Spigornell and his supporters have made use of poorly and inaccurately translated English
versions of Italian articles is now also clear. That not being native Italian speakers, Giuffre
and his supporters, were unable to read and understand the Negro articles in their language
of origin, which, had they been able to read and understand, would have allowed them to
avoid the subsequent fog of confusion created in their own minds due to faulty translations
and their inability to understand Italian idioms. That rumors, begun by Prince Paolo
Scortesco, who is alleged to have been unreliable by several clerics who knew him well,
probably began this Siri hoax in 1963.

SIRI MYTH LEADS TO “CONFUSIONE TOTALE”!

However we can truthfully declare that “The Siri Thesis” is not built upon fact, evidence,
scholarship, detailed research, nor proper analysis, and certainly not fact checking, it is a
myth, an illusion, built upon wishful thinking, supposition, faulty analysis, flawed
reasoning and possibly desperation. There comes a time when one must accept the
inevitability of truth! From this day forth, that truth is that “The Siri Thesis” is not fact for
it has been shown for what it is, a myth, and an illusion which from this day forward must
face the light of public scrutiny. I have attempted to do my duty as a researcher to check the
facts and in doing so I have pointed out, for all to see, serious errors. I now invite other
researchers, from all over the world, to follow my lead and to do the same. I invite you all,
to scrutinize and check every word ever uttered by Giuffre and all of his supporters on this
topic. I invite you all to also subject, Cardinal Siri and the other Cardinals, who ushered in
this new Church, to this same scrutiny and in so doing we may, yet hope, to find out if and
how these Cardinals may have been, (as alleged by many) compromised! If the Cardinals
of 1958 had not been (as alleged) compromised they would not, and could not have sat idly
by as the pestilence of modernism and the smoke of Satan infiltrated those ancient
structures intent upon creating a “new world order church”. The Siri Thesis has ultimately
served only one purpose and that has been to further fragment an already too fragmented
traditional Catholic movement. The Siri Thesis has, served to bring us all, closer to
“Confusione Totale”47.

24
FR. KHOAT: THE REST OF THE STORY

It is interesting to note that recently , two separate websites carried what one claimed to be
“GROUNDBREAKING TESTIMONY REVEALS "CARDINAL JOSEPH SIRI"
ACKNOWLEDGED HE WAS POPE GREGORY XVII AND WAS UNDER A
CONSTANT DEATH THREAT”48 and the other ran under the heading of “Priest Claims:
Cardinal Siri confirmed he was the true Pope”49. In both cases, these two well intentioned
and well meaning websites published this interview in an effort to increase our knowledge
of the events that were alleged to have occurred in the conclave of 1958 and in so doing
attempt to provide an explanation for subsequent changes to what is an unchangeable
Catholic Church. So who is Mr. Jim Condit? Mr. Jim Condit, Jr., is the director of
Citizens for a Fair Vote Count . He has run several times for congressional office for the
state of Ohio. In addition, Mr. Jim Condit Jr. is both a researcher and the former publisher
of a newspaper that was entitled “All These Things”. Mr. Condit also operates an extensive
website that can be viewed at www.realnews247.com .

I read this interview with great care, hopeful that critical new facts, details and
foolproof documentation might really be forthcoming. I waded through much of the
interview which dealt at great length with Mr. Condit’s personal life journey. Indeed, very
interesting, but I wanted desperately to see the facts that warranted such dramatic
headlines. The entire interview consisted of 9 pages, 4,197 words arrayed in 131 lines
totaling 67 paragraphs but unfortunately over half of this material dealt with Mr. Condit’s
personal life journey. That is a full 5 pages, 2443 words in 171 lines or 32 paragraphs. All
exceedingly interesting, I assure you, but I was anxious for details, for evidence, for facts,
for proof!

Mr Condit advises his readers of both the time and circumstances of Fr. Khoat’s visit:

“In the late summer/fall of 1989, I picked up Fr. Khoat at the Cincinnati airport. He was making his
first visit to Cincinnati, Ohio by arrangement with myself and Mr. Gary Giuffre of St. Jude's Shrine in
Houston, Texas.”(http://www.novusordowatch.org/story090905.htm)

We further learn that Fr. Khoat was:

“Fr. Khoat had ended up as one of the "boat people" who fled Vietnam as the Communists overran the
southern portion of that country in 1975. He had been the assistant to one of the Bishops of Vietnam in the
years preceding the fall of Saigon. He had been in charge of getting out the diocesan newspaper for the
Bishop” (http://www.novusordowatch.org/story090905.htm )

Now things get very interesting Mr. Condit advises us that:

“From my introduction to, and subsequent collaboration with, Mr. Gary Giuffre, I had been made aware that
Fr. Khoat had been sent on a mission to try and see Joseph Cardinal Siri in the spring of 1988, and that Fr.
Khoat had related to Mr. Giuffre and others that, as Fr. Khoat understood it, Siri had, after persistent
questioning, indicated to Fr. Khoat during a brief visit that he (Siri) was the Pope in exile.”
(http://www.novusordowatch.org/story090905.htm)

25
Well clearly you have my full attention now, a traditional Vietnamese priest, who does not
speak Italian, and to the best of my knowledge (certainly subject to correction if need be)
speaks only broken French and English, actually meets Cardinal Siri in a convent in Rome
mid 1988 and Siri, incredibly, reveals to this total stranger, what he has hitherto, never
revealed to any other person in the world! Now Mr. Condit is certain (as am I) that the
meeting took place because:

“At that point, I knew that Fr. Khoat had been to see Siri, and had seen a picture of the two of them together
to prove it. (The picture was shown in the Saturday night slide presentation given by Mr. Gary Giuffre to a
group of about 30 Catholics I had pulled together in Cincinnati, Ohio around February, 1989 - about 7 months
before Fr. Khoat came to Cincinnati on this trip.”.((http://www.novusordowatch.org/story090905.htm)

Additionally we learn that:

“Father gave some money to a few little Vietnamese kids who were playing near the convent where Siri was
staying. He asked them to go inside and find out when Mass was the next day. Fr. Khoat showed up at the
appointed time, amidst a somewhat tense situation, and obtained a five minute meeting in private with Siri,
under the guise of getting something signed.

Father told me that once alone he said to Siri: "Are you the Pope?" Siri denied the question several times. At
this point, Fr. Khoat told me he blurted out. "If you had done the consecration of Russia as Our Lady
requested then my Bishop would not have been killed and my country would not have fallen to the
Communists."

According to Fr. Khoat, Siri seemed to tear up.

Khoat continued, "You are the Pope, not de facto, but de jure." (In other words, Siri was not in control of the
Vatican [de facto, or in fact], but he was by law [de jure] the rightful and true Pope.)

According to Fr. Khoat, Siri responded, "You already know it."

Then Fr. Khoat said, "Come with me right now. I have two tickets to go to America where there are people
who will help you."

Siri replied, "That would be impossible. I cannot go. They can kill me at anytime."

Siri told Fr. Khoat to come back at 8 PM that night when his secretary would be gone. Fr. Khoat went back
that night and also saw Siri one more time with another priest he brought from a nearby city.”
(http://www.novusordowatch.org/story090905.htm )

Mr. Condit continues his questioning of Fr. Khoat as follows:

“Nevertheless, at this point I asked Fr. Khoat the following key question: "Did Siri know he was Pope from
1963, or did he come to realize in later years that the way he had been knocked off the throne was
illegitimate, and that he was in fact the rightfully elected Pope?"

Without any hesitation, and with a very steady, emphatic voice, Fr. Khoat responded, during the first few
words of this response he closed his eyes tightly and shook his head from side to side: "Oh, no, he knew he
was Pope from 1958. He was elected. He accepted. And he took the name Gregory XVII. Go look at what
happened in 1958 - this is when it all happened."

26
I then said, "So Siri was checkmated. Was he waiting for the chance to do something?"

Fr. Khoat: "Yes, he was waiting for the chance to do something."

I said, "But the chance never came?"

Khoat: "The chance never came." (http://www.novusordowatch.org/story090905.htm)

Finally Mr. Condit concludes as follows:

“The implications of Fr. Khoat's testimony were staggering. This would mean that a true Pope was elected,
shoved aside, and replaced by an anti-pope. This would mean that ALL the strange, disconcerting, and
destructive changes that had been imposed on the unsuspecting faithful since 1958 were not the actions of the
Church, but the actions of a counter-church, an anti-church, -- the "counterfeit church of darkness" foreseen
by the Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerick circa 1821. This would indicate that we are living through the
period described circa 1847 by Our Lady of LaSalette when she said, "The Church will be in eclipse." The
church was still there, but hidden from the view of almost the whole world by the counterfeit church of
darkness which has pulled off the false council, Vatican II, replaced the true Mass with the sacrilegious "New
Mass", vitiated the rite of the consecration of bishops in 1969, replaced the sound textbooks in use throughout
the Catholic world with heretical and fluff textbooks meant to deprive Catholic children of their birthright to
the Faith, and perpetrated so many more works of destruction.

But as the Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerick is also quoted as saying to the Catholics trying to remain
faithful who would live through this period, "Do not lose heart; victory will be ours."

Jim Condit Jr.

February 2005” (http://www.novusordowatch.org/story090905.htm)

I fully agree that the implications of this testimony are truly staggering but for a totally
different reason than what Mr. Condit may imagine. It’s staggering because neither Mr.
Condit50 nor Fr. Khoat have provided any evidence for the incredible claim allegedly made
by Fr. Khoat .Its staggering because Mr. Condit has reported, to the best of his recollection
the details of a conversation in which, a priest, made a totally unsubstantiated claim. It’s
staggering because Fr. Khoat supposedly alleged that Cardinal Siri admitted to him ( Fr.
Khoat), a total stranger, an unknown foreigner that he (Siri) was the pope and not a shred of
evidence is ever tendered! Yes it’s absolutely staggering to think that persons keenly
interested in these momentous events, would not demand documented proof!

How credible is this claim? You decide what credibility can be given to allegations for
which, not a single shred of evidence, no supporting documentation, no scholarship at all
has ever been tendered. Why would a Cardinal who had never once, in 30 years, ever
admitted that he was the pope to any person, including to some of his closest friends,
Archbishop Pintonello and Monsignor Villa, and others ,suddenly, allegedly, make this
incredible admission to a total stranger? A total stranger, who could did not speak Italian
and to the best of my knowledge (certainly subject to correction) only, spoke broken
French and broken English. Yes, Fr. Khoat got a few moments with Siri, yes there is a
photo of them together, but no witnesses as to what was or was not said by either party, on
any matter.

27
 From all available information and interviews that I have conducted into these events , it
seems that we can conclude that Fr. Khoat departed Houston for Italy via New York in late
April of 1988.Khoat spent almost a month in Genoa, where he sought, but was not
successful, in obtaining an audience with Siri.Fr. Khoat remained in Genoa until early June
1988 at which time he made his way to Rome, having been advised that Siri was staying in
a convent in Rome. Shortly after arriving in Rome Fr. Khoat allegedly attends an early
morning “Novus ordo” mass, offered by Siri, in the convent where he was staying. Khoat
seeks and is granted a brief interview with Siri, that morning, after mass and during this
brief interview Siri allegedly tells Khoat that he (Siri) was in fact the true reigning pope.Fr.
Khoat allegedly arranges for a second meeting with Siri and allegedly takes a friend (Fr.
Taramasso) another priest, with him. Fr.Khoat eventually returns to Houston, Texas
towards the end of July 1988.

It is a matter of record that upon his return Fr. Khoat meet with three people, Monsignor
Ruscitto51, Mr. Gary Giuffre and a third cleric (all of these individuals were associated with
St. Judes Chapel) and that they had come together, anxious to debrief Fr. Khoat. They
asked the inevitable questions, did you, or did you not, meet Cardinal Siri? And if so what
had Cardinal Siri said? According to Monsignor Ruscitto, Fr. Khoat, that evening, told a
very different story than what he would eventually tell Mr. Condit over a year later. In the
presence of Monsignor Ruscitto, another cleric and Mr. Giuffre, Fr. Khoat told of his
meeting with Siri and further described to them how Siri denied “three times” that he was
the pope! Siri denied being the pope three times, that is exactly what Khoat , according to
Monsignor Ruscitto allegedly reported to these three witnesses towards the end of July
1988.Needless to say that the clerics and Giuffre were most disheartened! Now is this not
very interesting? Much different than what Khoat apparently told Mr. Condit almost one
year later. Why two different accounts of the same incident?

Essentially, it seems, that no more is made of this issue until late May of 1989 (and the
timing here is most interesting) at which time Fr. Khoat makes “additional” claims, claims
of a very different nature than originally reported to the two clerics and one lay person.
However , it is of interest to note, that these new claims were allegedly made after the death
of Cardinal Siri (Siri died on May 2, 1989.) It seems that after the death of Cardinal Siri
Fr. Khoat allegedly provided a different version of events (some might be prompted to say
a fuller version of events) for the 1988 meeting with Siri and in addition another incredible
claim is also made! After the death of Cardinal Siri, Fr.Khoat allegedly claimed that he and
another priest, one Fr. Taramasso (Fr.Taramasso died in March 1989) had in fact allegedly
been made ‘secret cardinals”52 by Siri. Unfortunately the two people who could confirm (or
deny) these allegations were both deceased! It seems that Fr. Khoat further alleged that he
had instructions, direct from the true Pope –Siri-, that in the event of his (Siri) demise that
Fr.Khoat and Fr.Taramasso were to call a conclave! Additionally, allegedly Fr. Khoat
supposedly stated that Siri had made other secret cardinals of clerics who visited this
convent .These secret cardinals were, allegedly, all over the world. Now remember that Fr.
Khoat ( to the best of my knowledge) had never offered any proof for any of his
allegations, no letters, no signatures, no audio tapes, no video tapes, nothing! It seems
unreasonable to me, that people of good will, should, somehow, be expected to take his
( Fr. Khoat) word for this incredible story, a story that was allegedly revised and revealed

28
(some have alleged that Fr. Khoat finally revealed the true fullness) sometime after the
death of Siri!

But indeed the story becomes even more strange for on June 3, 1990 Fr. Khoat placed an
advert in the “Houston Post”53 requesting that all Cardinals in exile elevated by Siri were
to contact the Cardinal Camerlengo regarding the next conclave and then gives a Houston,
Texas Po Box address.54 This advert, that has been seen, read and commented on by many
authors and hundreds of Traditional Catholics in the USA and elsewhere, was allegedly
placed by Fr. Khoat, along with several other similar adverts that appeared in Europe.

Figure 9 This avert originally appeared in The Houston Post on June 3, 1990 original image from
http://siri.homestead.com/

Sadly, I do not personally believe that the placing of an advert in the “Houston Post”
calling for all hidden Cardinals appointed by Cardinal Siri to contact “Cardinal
Camerlengo” to constitute proof nor do I personally consider this to be the action of a
reliable witness. The same day that the above advert appeared in the now defunct Houston
Post Fr. Khoat also gave a detailed sermon at St. Judes Shrine in Texas. I have enclosed the
scan of the actual sermon as it was eventually reprinted in Number 65-July 1990 of Sangre
de Cristo Newsnotes.In the sermon Fr. Khoat alleges that Siri was elected and accepted
office on October 26 1958.Further Fr. Khoat claimed that the publication of the advert (in
English as well as many other languages) on June 3 1990 was a new beginning in mans
history. That “new beginning” was 16 years ago! Nothing has changed other than the fact
that the skies grow darker still!

29
30
Figure 10 This scan of Sangre di Cristo Newsnotes number 65 from July 1990 is located at
http://siri.homestead.com/

31
However, having expressed my personal view, I also firmly believe that it is never too late
to produce proof and even at this late date, if Fr.Khoat has independently verifiable proof
of these allegations then he is honor bound to produce, said, independently verifiable proof
for all to review and independently authenticate. In the absence of the tendering of said
independently verifiable proof, I think it would be safe to say, that the actions of and the
alleged differing testimonies of Fr. Khoat, especially in light of the interesting timing ,
understandably, leave one very skeptical. Further, without documented proof, these claims
of Fr. Khoat are and remain nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations!

PAOLO SCORTESCO, REMY, GIUFFRE AND THEIR SUPPORTERS

ALL HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON, THEY DEAL IN
ALLEGATIONS AND RUMOR

PAOLO SCORTESCO’S RUMORS REPEATED BY REMY IN HIS ARTICLE OF 1986

Rumor is defined by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as “a statement or report current

without known authority for its truth” additionally as “talk or opinion widely disseminated
with no discernible source”. Rumor from the Latin rumor to clamor, gossip.55 So
essentially rumor is gossip!

Mr. Giuffre in 1989 and 1990 had prepared a series of articles that appeared in a small
newsletter called “Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes” that was published quarterly by Fr.Daniel
E. Jones56 of Westcliffe, Colorado. It was rumored, at the time, that these articles were
excerpted from a book soon to be published “of compelling evidence that a true pope-
Elect ( a cardinal elected to the papacy but prevented against his will from accepting the
office) is living in dangerous exile while his rightful claim to the Chair of Peter has been
usurped by a succession of Modernists anti-popes in Rome”57 That rumor has still not
verified itself some 17 years after those words were originally written, in the introduction
to this article by Giuffre in 1989.However the rumors of both a book with evidence and a
pope deprived unlawfully of his rightful position have persisted due in great measure to the
efforts of Mr. Giuffre and his supporters and “The Siri Thesis” .

Who is most probably the source of the rumor that in 1958 and in 1963 someone other that
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Giovanni Montini/PaulVI were really elected popes? How
or why has this rumor persisted for this length of time? What has become of the rumored
“compelling evidence” of the existence of a true- pope elect living in dangerous exile?
Who, according to the rumor was really elected in 1958? In 1963?

32
Mario Derksen wrote in a lengthy article entitled “Eclipse of the Church: 1958 and
Beyond, Part Two, that has appeared on various websites, the following:

“At this point I should mention that one witness to the violated conclave doors was a pious layman by the
name of Paul Scortesco, who was involved in one of the conclaves (sources disagree on whether it was the
conclave of 1963 or 1958). In 1976 he revealed in a letter that the seals on one of the conclave doors had been
broken. Scortesco's testimony, which can partly be seen in the video tape "Vatican II: Council of Apostasy” is
"ratified" by the fact that he was later found dead in his bed - having been burned alive.” 58

I would like to comment on these allegations as follows;Mr. Derksen in the above

quotation alleges ( innocently for he assumes that his source for these allegations has
checked his facts, which unfortunately is not the case) that Paul Scortesco was a witness to
the violated conclave doors and that further that Paul Scortesco was involved in one of the
conclaves. I should like to advise our readers, that the AAS (available at most major
seminaries as well as most good Catholic University Libraries) is the definitive historical
record of who was or was not in any of these conclaves. I have checked these definitive
sources and I now have scans of the lay personnel along with the list of Cardinals and
Index of Clerics of all who were in attendance at the Conclaves of 1939, 1958 and 1963.
The 1958 index clearly identifies which priest was aide to which Cardinal, the 1963 index
just lists their names. It is interesting to note that there is no Fr. Malachi Martin listed
( though there is an Emmanuel Martin) but in addition there is no Prince Paolo (Paul)
Scortesco listed nor is there a listing for Prince Borghese.So I think we can dismiss the
often repeated and non factual allegations that Paolo Scortesco was present at either of the
conclaves.

Prince Paolo ( Paul) Scortesco was in fact the cousin of Prince Borghese, who is alleged to
have been the president of the conclave that elected Montini.Therefore Prince Scortesco
was attributing to his cousin ( Prince Borghese) certain remarks that his cousin ( Prince
Borghese) was alleged to have made to him at some unspecified time.Scortesco in essence
made unverifiable allegations ( Scortesco was not personally at either the conclaves of
1958 or 1963 so he could not have been a witness) that he attributed to his cousin. So
Prince Paolo Scortesco started a rumor that has persisted all of 43 years. Louis Herbert
Remy begins his, now famous, short article “The Pope: Could He Be Cardinal Siri?”
published in the July/August 1986 edition of SOUS LA BANNIERE No.06 with the
retelling of this very same unsubstantiated rumor:

“In one of his writings, Prince Scortesco, German cousin of Prince Borghese, President of the Conclave
which elected Montini to the Supreme Pontificate, gives the following information concerning the Conclave
of 21 June 1963: “During the Conclave, a Cardinal left the Sistine Chapel, met with the representatives
of B’nai - B’rith, announced to them the election of Cardinal Siri. They replied by saying that the
persecutions against the Church would continue at once. Returning to the Conclave, he made Montini
to be elected.”

When paying a visit to Monsieur de la Franquerie, in November 1984, with my friend François Dallais,
we spoke again of this grave problem. Monsieur de La Franquerie, in 1963, was in permanent contact with
numerous Roman prelates, and he confirmed to us that he had heard of this confidentially by persons who
could he trusted to be well aware of these facts.” 59

33
Now , much to his credit ,Mr. Remy did make an effort to confront Cardinal Siri with this
persistent rumor, so almost 4 years before the death of Cardinal Siri, Mr. Remy and his
two friends arrange to interview Cardinal Siri , for a period of two hours, on May
18,1985.Here is how Mr. Remy describes the preparations:

“In this way on 17 May 1985, we met together at my home in Lyon, Monsieur de la Franquerie, and François
Dallais. The evening was marvelous. I admit that I am sensitive to the charm of the very old France of our
dear Marquis, and we occupied, until a very advanced hour of the night, unforgettable moments by listening
to his souvenirs of a fecund and well-filled life. In his souvenirs of Monseigneur [Paul] Jouin, the Marechal
Petain or of Pius XII, Monsieur de la Franquerie is unquenchable and passionate”60

Mr. Remy’s article is not very long so, for your convenience, I present the bulk of it here:

The following day we left early to Genoa where the Cardinal was expecting us towards ten hours and
granted us an audience of two hours. We were received with much attention in the wonderful episcopal
palace of Genoa. The Cardinal speaks French very well, was cordial, attentive, and of a courtesy proper to
people, who are great by their function, but still greater by their heart. A dialogue took place between these
two respectable persons in a diplomatic language which I did not know and which is of a charm and delicacy
resulting from the education of hundreds of years, and unfortunately no longer exists today.

They spoke of several problems of today and the past, which need not be recalled here. Of concern to
us, as arranged the evening before, was to speak, first of all, about Cardinal Tisserant’s leaving the conclave.
When we recalled this fact, the reaction of Cardinal Siri was clear, precise, firm, and unquestionable: “No, no
one has left the Conclave .” He could only give witness of what he had seen and not of what might have
happened, while he was asleep, or behind his back. But what retained our attention was this firmness, this
categorical NO of the Cardinal.

Some moments later, when we asked him whether he had been elected pope, his reaction was com-
pletely different. He started by remaining silent for a long time, then raised his eyes to heaven with a rictus of
suffering and pain, joined his hands and said, weighing each word with gravity: “I am bound by the secret.”
Then, after a long silence, heavy for us all, he said again: “I am bound by the secret. This secret is horrible. I
would have books to write about the different conclaves. Very serious things have taken place. But I can say
nothing.”

Let’s think about it. If he had not been elected pope, he would have said so with as much promptness
and firmness as he had replied to the preceding question. As he had been elected, he could not say so, as he
was bound by the secret, and as he could not lie, he took refuge behind this secret.

In fact, it appears that someone among my trustworthy friends who knows him very well has assured me
that the Cardinal had told him that he had been elected pope twice: instead of Paul VI and instead of Wojtyla.
The first time he had refused, the second time he had been obliged to refuse under the pressure of schism!

We were three witnesses who have left very perturbed and practically convinced of his election.

And now there are serious questions being raised. Has he resigned? Has he been forced to resign?
What about these elections? What heavy secrets are weighing upon him?

During the last Synod, he remained some hours and then left. In spite of his advanced age and the fact
that he exceeded 75 years, he has not given his resignation and he has not been asked to do so [as of this
publication in July 1986].

What now? The last Cardinal nominated by Pius XII, we leave to the historians and theologians the care
to study this question thoroughly and to reply to it. We simply leave this grave witness.61

34
 After reading the aforementioned article, with great attention it becomes very clear that
no evidence, no proof whatsoever is ever presented by Remy for the claim, made by others,
that Siri was elected pope. Remy refers to the raising of Siri’s eyes to heaven, his silence,
his joined hands and his weighing of each word carefully, his visible pain. Remy advises
that Siri takes refuge behind the oath that binds him to secrecy. Remy refers to unnamed
supposedly trustworthy friends who have assured him that Siri was elected twice in 1963
and 1978.No names are given, but not to fear we can bank on the integrity of Remy’s
unnamed friends because they really do know and are really good guys! Who are we
kidding here? The consequences of these claims are far reaching, and surely, we are within
our rights, in such weighty matters, to ask for, nay to demand proof, to demand fact, to
demand evidence but all we are offered by Remy are his feelings, looks, suspicions,
silence, and the assurance that Remy and his friends are “practically convinced”. So Remy
is “practically convinced” all very interesting, but of no value whatsoever! These
researchers make allegations of one of the greatest crimes in History (Coup dé’tat in the
Conclave of 1958") and ask us all to trust their feelings because they are practically
convinced! Well sure, why didn’t you say that before, yes that proves it, I do not know why
I didn’t see it all before. Who are we kidding here? Just give us the facts, if you can and if
you can not, just say that what you offer is not fact, but rather, your personal opinion, your
presumption, conjecture,for what that is worth.

“IT MAY NOT BE PROOF FOR YOU, BUT IT IS PROOF FOR ME”
In the 2nd quarter of 2005 I had the opportunity to spend four or five days with Mr.
Remy and three of his co researchers from France along with a host of other people. I had a
long lunch with Remy and others the afternoon after my arrival at the hotel where I was
staying. Obviously it was not long before I brought up the issue of the Remy article. Remy
must have told the story a thousand times, I was amazed as he repeated, almost word for
word, ( in French) what he had written ( one of his friends translated for him).I waited
patiently. Finally he dramatically completed his presentation by acting out the actions and
mannerisms of Siri.I watched, waited, to make sure Remy was finished , stared him in the
eyes and said “clearly that is not proof!”. Remy was taken aback for a moment then
responded via his friend “It may not be proof for you, but it is proof for me!” This response
of Mr. Remy is not the response I either expected or hoped for. The answer clearly was, is, and
remains this, if Remy had proof he would have wielded it like a broad axe lopping off the heads of
the unbelievers but all he offered was “its proof for me!” Well Remy you and I have a very
different understandings of the word proof, evidence, and fact and the Remy article provides none
of the above and Remy in person also provided none of the above.

Now recently Mario Derksen wrote of this very matter in his article entitled “Eclipse of the
Church: 1958 and Beyond Part Two” .No doubt serious things have taken place at many
conclaves and 1958 is no different from this point of view, but to claim, without a shred of
proof, as Giuffre does, that a Coup dé’tat in the Conclave – 1958" took place is absurd.
Here is what Derksen says quoting the Remy article:

“We know from Cardinal Siri's own mouth that "very serious things have taken place." This he said in an
interview he gave in 1985:

35
 Some moments later, when we asked him whether he had been elected pope, his reaction was
completely different. He started by remaining silent for a long time, then raised his eyes to Heaven
with a rictus of suffering and pain, joined his hands and said, weighing each word with gravity: "I
am bound by the secret." Then, after a long silence, heavy for us all, he said again: "I am bound by
the secret. This secret is horrible. I would have books to write about the different conclaves. Very
serious things have taken place. But I can say nothing."
(Taken from "The Pope: Could He Be Cardinal Siri?" by Louis Hubert Remy
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Nov/nov18mdi.htm

Here is the response that should have been given to Siri by Remy, this is the response that I
give to both Derksen and Remy , and to any supporters of the Siri fiction and that is, that, if
Siri had really been the pope (and he was not for he personally denied this allegation for
31 years ) then clearly he was the only person to whom the “oath of secrecy” would not
have applied, because as pope elect (which he was not by his own admission) he would
have been legally and morally bound to declare to the whole world that he was in deed the
rightfully elected pope. Failing to do so his silence in fact would have constituted spiritual,
moral and in the USA at least also legal fraud (EVEN IN THE USA (which I do not hold
up as a shining beacon of either morality, legality or spirituality) IT IS THE LAW:”
Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or
when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot
condone this shocking conduct... If this is the case we hope our message is clear. This
sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected
immediately"U.S. v. Twell 550 F2d 297, 299-300).Siri has conveniently used this non
issue of secrecy as a means of excusing himself from the guilt of his failure to defend
Catholic Tradition, Catholic Liturgy and the Catholic Faith.

Why do I say that this issue of, alleged secrecy, was a non issue? Well allow me to clarify
for you the reality. Everyone, Remy, Giuffre and others stress the alleged fact that Siri
supposedly could not, and would not speak of what transpired within the conclave because
of the alleged threat of excommunication against anyone violating the secret of the
conclave yet the constitution of Pope Pius XII “VACANTIS APOSTOLICAE SEDIS”
under section #63 which deals with post conclave events, makes NO reference whatsoever
to excommunication as a penalty ( makes reference to no penalties at all), for revealing
details of the conclave, after the fact. So, it can not be claimed, by Siri or anyone else that
fear of excommunication held Siri or any witness , for that matter, back from revealing all
that they knew. Siri , and the others, were obligated to speak, obligated to save souls!It is
certain that Siri never revealed all that he knew ,but we need look elsewhere for the reason
and not to the alleged and non existent threat of excommunication!

Siri was a Prince of the Church, he wore ( as did all of the Cardinals) red to signify that he
was prepared to give his life in defense of his flock, in defense of Scripture and in defense
of Our Lord Christ .He clearly failed to do so. Remy advises that Siri takes refuge behind the oath
that binds him to secrecy( when in fact no such oath bound him in any way), yes Siri the Prince of
the Church, this alleged coward, this man of compromise, this politician, this labor
negotiator sought refuge behind a wall of secrecy as his flock is savaged before his very
eyes! Siri was not the pope and no amount of prophecy, no amount of presumption, no

36
amount of wishful thinking, no amount of lack luster research, no amount of creative or
melodramatic writing can ever change this fact!

How often do we ignore that which is directly in front of us because it does not suit our
preferred version of events.Giuffre and some of his supporters are fond of quoting the
words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however 'improbable,' must be the truth." These researchers have decided that
the Siri Thesis is not only quite probable (even though they are and have been unable to
provide any proof whatsoever) but that it is somehow the only solution to the problem that
does not seem to involve some heresy. Wake up all of you, presumption always gives way
to fact! History is bound to repeat itself because experts and incompetents alike always
ignore those historical facts that are inconvenient to their little pet theories. I, personally,
am not interested in theory, give me the facts, facts that have been fully and completely
verified, facts that have been checked, there is no need to quote Doyle if the facts are really
on your side!

KYRIE ELEISON NO 3 FOR 1986 “SIRI PAPST?”

So what are the facts regarding the source of this Siri rumor , it seems that by the time
Giuffre was 14 years old, in 1963, Prince Paolo Scortesco had already circulated this
unfounded rumor. Not long ago I was sent a German Traditional Catholic journal called
“Kyrie elesion”. I recognized it instantly as the traditional journal started by Dr. Elisabeth
Gerstner62 ,the worlds 1st Sedevacantist!As I thumbed through this issue (Kyrie eleison
No.3 for 1986 ) I came across a very interesting article on pages 53-59 entitled “SIRI
PAPST?63”.Now I do not read German but I do have a friend in Germany who is an official
translator for the courts and he quickly translated and sent me a word doc with the
completed translation. The article “SIRI PAPST?” was written by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner
immediately after the article by Mr. Remy, “The Pope: Could He Be Cardinal Siri?”
published in the July/August 1986 edition of SOUS LA BANNIERE No.06.
First appeared in France. Dr. Gerstner, upon reading the French original of the Remy article
immediately translated this article from the French (Gerstner was fluent in five languages
French, Latin, German, English, Spanish” Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner was the Leader of the
German Catholic Traditionalist Movement, who was also a close friend and collaborator
with the majority of Catholic conservative leaders (including Cardinals in the Vatican,
Ottaviani, Bacci, Larraona, Oddi and Carli.)in Europe . She was a fearless defender of
the Catholic faith, the Catholic Mass and Catholic Tradition.Dr. Gerstner was the
founder and Director of the “Centro Europeo del Movimento dei Cattolici
Tradizionalisti” which was responsible for coordinating the efforts of all traditionalist
movements in Germany as well as in all of Europe).
for the readers of her militant traditional Catholic journal and then puts the Remy article
into its proper historical perspective by going back in history to the year 1963. Why is the
year 1963 important? It is important because according to her article (and to audio and
video tapes in my possession authored by Dr. Gerstner a few months before her death)
1963 was the year that Dr. Gerstner, was informed directly, by Prince Paul Scortesco, that

37
Siri had been elected pope on 21, 6, 1963.Scortesco, according to Dr. Gerstner’s article,
Prince Paul Scortesco assured her personally that this was a fact! So based upon these
assurances Dr. Gerstner, her husband and family immediately traveled to Genoa to see
Cardinal Siri.These events transpired in 1963 before Montini was acclaimed. Here is her
description of events from her article:

“However , I was assured by Prince Paul Scortesco, our courageous comrade –in-arms in the resistance
movement which was active even then, that Cardinal Siri had been elected Pope on 21.6.1963 before Montini
was acclaimed, for which reason I requested, together with my husband ( and children), an appointment with
Cardinal Siri in Genoa through the offices of the Bishop of Ventimiglia, Msgr. Sigismondi, a friend of one of
our friends in Rome.We mentioned nothing of what we had been told by Scortesco, but did broach the issue
of Una Voce and our great fears with regard to the Holy Liturgy.I also wanted to express my special thanks to
Cardinal Siri for his Traditionalist paper on the Roman Liturgy (which appeared at the outset of the
Conclave),showing him to be absolutely Catholic and Traditionalist”64

Now it is important to note certain important points that emerge from what Dr. Gerstner
writes above. The first important point to understand is that an “ active resistance
movement” was already in existence, in Europe, prior to 1963 which blows away the
unsubstantiated claims of most anti sedevacantists that no resistance existed prior to the
mid 1970,s. Giuffre prides himself in supposedly being on the forefront of those who
recognized a problem in the Church, but he needs to be reminded that Dr. Gerstner was the
worlds very 1st sedevacantist, who felt so strongly about her Faith and Catholic Tradition,
that she quit her permanent position in the Vatican offices in which she worked in late
1961, so that she could then be free to defend Tradition. Dr. Gerstner was fighting for
tradition already in 1958 when Giuffre was only 9 years old, she gave up her Vatican
position in 1961 when Giuffre was 12, and she investigated the Scortesco allegations in
1963 when Giuffre was only 14 years old. Giuffre was still part of the Novus Ordo prior to
197465 by which time Dr. Gerstner had been fighting for Tradition for a full 16 years. By
the time Giuffre wrote his first articles on Siri in 1989 that appeared in “Sangre de Cristo
Newsnotes” Dr. Gerstner had been waging the war against the “Novus Ordo” for 28 years!
In 1970 Dr. Gerstner had coordinated the first “March on Rome” again in 1971, she
brought thousands of pilgrims from all over the world, (and focused the attention of the
world media on her march) to March on Rome. Giuffre is fond of calling people "Johnny-
come-lately," so I guess this term” Johnny-come-lately," is rightfully , even more
applicable to Giuffre himself ,because, in comparison to Dr. Gerstner, Giuffre, really was,
a "Johnny-come-lately," . For any person including Giuffre to attempt to disparage Dr.
Gerstner or her defense of the Church is reprehensible.

Second Dr. Gerstner makes it clear that Scortesco was (at that time), what she refers to as a
“comrade-in-arms” (therefore she was certainly not against Scortesco or his allegations) so
clearly Dr. Gerstner, at the time of the rumor, took the rumor seriously, in fact seriously
enough to want to check it out personally and then conclude for herself, based upon her
research, whether there existed sufficient evidence to believe or not believe the Scortesco
allegation. Here is what Dr. Gerstner wrote:

“However, I was assured by Prince Paul Scortesco, our courageous comrade –in-arms in the resistance
movement which was active even then, that Cardinal Siri had been elected Pope on 21.6.1963 before Montini
was acclaimed, for which reason I requested, together with my husband (and children), an appointment with

38
Cardinal Siri in Genoa through the offices of the Bishop of Ventimiglia, Msgr. Sigismondi, a friend of one of
our friends in Rome.66

The third important observation to make, is that, Dr. Gerstner believed, at that time, that
Cardinal Siri was Catholic and Traditional and she wanted to thank him personally for
writing his brief on “The Latin Language and the Italian Language” a pastoral letter to the
Clergy of the diocese of Genoa Italy, that appeared just prior to the opening of the 1958
Conclave. Actually, it is very interesting to note that the English translation of this article
was first reproduced in English by Dr. Robert Moynihan in the March/April 2004 issue of
his magazine called “Inside The Vatican” ( this translation was supplied to Dr. Moynihan
by Mr. Giuffre) and that the original Italian version of this pastoral letter was in fact
obtained by Silvio Mattacchione directly from the diocese of Genoa, Italy and then made
available to Gary Giuffre. Mr Giuffre had alleged that he had attempted, unsuccessfully,
through various channels, for 15 years to obtain this supposedly unobtainable pastoral
letter.Silvio Mattacchione made just one telephone call to the diocese offices in Genoa,
Italy and respectfully requested a copy, no problems whatever were encountered, and a
photocopy was delivered by post, free of charge, three weeks later to my home in Canada.

GOOD IDEA TO ALWAYS CHECK THE FACTS

So here is what we know from the above referenced article by Dr. Gerstner.
Dr. Gerstner respected (at the time) both Prince Scortesco and Cardinal Siri and was intent
upon personally finding the truth of the allegations made by Scortesco surrounding Siri.
Dr. Gerstner had a simple policy that she followed that we would all do well to learn from.
Dr. Gerstner demanded from those who related gossip to meticulously check their facts. As
I have already demonstrated earlier in this article “fact checking” does not seem to be a
major strength for Giuffre, Spigornell and many others. Here is exactly what Dr. Gerstner
writes:

“It was never my wish to join in, or be party to, the numerous speculations which, spreading like untended
weeds, entwined themselves around the protagonists-or,more precisely, the protagonist- of the Church scene
in Rome.However,to the extent that I, through fortunate circumstances, occasionally came to know of
something genuinely authentic, I was always prepared to make my testimony public.Not wishing to spread
rumors, I took quite the opposite approach by demanding of those who related such gossip to me that they
meticulously check their facts and create absolute clarity by means of personal confrontation, as they would
otherwise make themselves culpable.”67

So the long and the short of it is that Dr. Gerstner , (contrary to the persistent and false
disparaging gossip spread by some) was not against either Prince Paolo Scortesco or
Cardinal Siri, or the allegations made then, as to the possibility of Cardinal Siri being the
pope.Dr. Gerstner did as she was obligated to do, without waste of time; she immediately
set out to prove ( remember it is 1963 when these allegations were first made) the truth of
or the lack of truth of this rumor, by personally visiting and confronting Cardinal Siri!

So, is it not interesting, that Gerstner immediately ( and 23 years prior to the release of this
Remy Article) heard of the Siri Rumor, from Scortesco, in person in 1963 .The

39
conspiratorial character of the 1958 conclave was common knowledge and Gerstner was
assured by Prince Paul Scortesco that Siri had definitely been elected Pope on 21/6/1963
(further Scortesco claimed that Tedeschini had been elected in 1958) , before Montini was
acclaimed, Gerstner with her family departed for Genoa to see Siri. Nine days in a row Siri
refused to see Dr. Gerstner. She was never granted an audience even though Siri could hear
her demanding to see him and raising a commotion in his curial office in Genoa. So much
for Siri being a defender of Tradition and the Traditional Catholic Faith.

“Upon our arrival in Genoa we called at the Cardinal’s curia on nine consecutive days, only to receive a
veritable dressing-down from the Chancellor in response to my energetic insistence on being granted an
audience, having lost my patience with the delaying tactics.Strangely,the extremely irritable Chancellor of the
Curia saw through us as Traditionalists, finally telling us that we were mistaken if we believed that Cardinal
Siri did not have a positive attitude towards the Council and the reform of the Liturgy; quite the contrary, he
stood well and truly on the side of the Holy Father.Finally, having realized that we were prepared to stay at a
hotel in Genoa and wait for an audience, he told us frankly that he would continue to obstruct any audience
and that we would not be granted one though his offices. When I later told Msgr. Sigismondi of this he was
speechless.68

SCORTESCO ALLEGED TO BE A HIGH STRUNG ARTIST WHO

WAS NOT RELIABLE AND SUSPECTED SATANIC PLOTS
EVERYWHERE

It really does get even worse, while departing, on that 9th day; she observed that the book
of Hans Kung was being stacked in piles in Siri’s Curial bookstore waiting to be sold to
unsuspecting Catholics. All of this took place in 1963 a full 26 years before Giuffre would
himself would write about these rumors.

“We departed, our business unfinished, but not before we had seen several dozen copies of the works of Hans
Kung piled high in an antechamber of the Curia. Having knocked a pile down with a jolt, I addressed the
dumbfounded gentleman in the cassock, “So, that is what you became a priest for, to shelve and sell
heresies!”Mirjam ran after me crying, “What have you done, Mama?” I placidly took my children and said,
“Come on, the Devil is at work here!” and we left Genoa.69

Dr Gerstner was devastated by what she ultimately uncovered in Genoa. She wanted at all
costs to give credence to the allegations of Scortesco but Dr. Gerstner had been warned by
Scortesco’s own friends and comrades in France. She was warned by Monsignor Ducaud-
Bourget as well as by Abbe Louis Coache and many others. She was warned that the
convert to tradition Prince Paul Scortesco was NOT RELIABLE (a high strung artist,
subject to paranoia who saw Satanic plots everywhere). Here are Dr. Gerstners own words:

“As far as Siri’s election was as Pope is concerned, I really wanted to give credence to Scortesco but was
warned by his own friends and comrades in France, Msgr. Ducaud-Bourget, Abbe Loius Coache and many
others.Whilst indeed a champion of our cause, he was said to be too tempestuous and fanatical, just as one
would expect from a great artist and convert ( from the finer things in life to Traditionalism), and suspected
satanic plots everywhere, in other words I was advised to take everything he said cum granu salis etc. etc..
Scortesco, they said would be better off painting Madonnas (especially for them and their traditionalist
centers), this being his true calling”70

40
Along with seeing satanic plots everywhere Scortesco was also alleged to be beset by
financial difficulties. Here are Dr. Gerstners own words in this matter:

“These gentlemen had, however, steadfastly suppressed his written works, forcing the Prince, who was beset
by financial difficulties, to sell them at Traditional gatherings (I always relieved him of several hundred…and
these have remained in my possession, as I can bring myself to sell everything but these writings). Scortesco
painted Madonna’s and other Saints, but his written works were released at even shorter intervals until he
died in a fire at his studio. (It is assumed that he was murdered.) This was in 1974.”71

Giuffre72, Remy and others allege that Scortesco is a reliable source yet that does not seem
to be the case for Gerstner clearly knew Prince Paul Scortesco, she was certainly not
apposed to either (Scortesco or Siri) but certainly does set the record straight. Scortesco,
according to those who were in a position to know (Msgr. Ducaud-Bourget, Abbe Loius Coache
etc.) him alleged that he was NOT RELIABLE.
Giuffre in his article “Exile of The Pope-Elect- Part IV that appeared in the July 1990
Number 65 issue of Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes page 3-12 , on page 4 states:

“In October, 1958, the fate of the Catholic Church as well as the entire world would be radically altered by
one of the most secret episodes of the Twentieth Century. The revelation of this virtually unheard of event
recently surfaced in France through the publication of a letter written in 1976 by the late Paul Scortesco, who
was a cousin of the Prince Borghese, a prominent member of the Vatican’s Noble Guard, and President of the
1963 Conclave.Scortesco had obtained testimonies from the Noble Guard which prompted him to write about
the previously concealed election during the 1958 Conclave of Frederico Cardinal Tedeschini… from the
growing inventory of evidence, this writer has come to believe that, during the 1958 Conclave, an external
intervention was directed against one or two of the cardinals, after one or both of them had received an
electoral majority of votes during the many ballots cast. The illegal suppression of either one of these
elections would have invalidated the later, published results of the conclave. If Cardinal Tedeschini was a
victim of such an attack, his plight would have been similar to that of Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, whose thwarted
conclave elections in 1963 and 1978, were reported by writer, Louis Herbert Remy. (The Pope: Could He Be
Cardinal Siri?” SOUS LA BANNIERE, No. 06, Vailly-sur-Saudre, France)”

Giuffre has claimed that the Scortesco allegations were virtually unheard of until after the
publication in France of Scortesco’s letter in 1976.As I have already demonstrated, the
rumor was well known in Europe and Dr. Gerstner dealt with it and put the rumor to rest in
1963.She and many others, also alleged in 1963 that Scortesco was not reliable, for a
number of reasons, that we have already outlined earlier.Giuffre refers to Scortesco having
obtained testimonies from his cousin Prince Borghese, yet copies of, or proofs of these,
supposed testimonies, have never been produced. To the best of my knowledge no person
has ever interviewed and obtained the testimonies of Prince Borghese.The name of
Borghese is used, by Scortesco, to bolster his own allegations.

Giuffre and many others73 allege that Scortesco was murdered74, yet no proof of this event
is ever provided, no police reports were ever sought or tendered as proof of foul play, no
fire department reports were ever sought or provided, the supposed murder of Scortesco is
an unsubstantiated allegation with no evidentiary documentation to back it up, it is just
assumed, as Dr. Gerstner advises. No back up, just another rumor, more unsubstantiated
gossip. Scortesco, and many of his generation had a terrible smoking habit, it seems
possible that he could have worked late into the night, felt tired, smoked one last cigarette
in bed, nodded off, and with all of the oil paints and chemicals in his studio, paid the
ultimate price.Certainly until proper fact checking is done on this specific issue of

41
Scortesco’s death, the reality is we just do not know what happened because these facts
have never been properly investigated by anyone.

“Scortesco painted Madonnas and other Saints, but his written works were released at even shorter intervals
until he died in a fire at his studio.(It is assumed that he was murdered.) This was in 1974”75

So, Gerstner heard the rumor directly from Prince Paul Scortesco in 1963, was not apposed
to it, investigated it personally by immediately going to Genoa BEFORE Montini was
acclaimed, was disappointed to find that Siri refused to meet with her after nine straight
days of physically going to his office, found that Cardinal Siri had a positive attitude
towards the Council and the reform of the Liturgy and stood well and truly on the side of
the Holy Father, John XXIII. To add insult to injury Siri sold the book of Hans Kung in his
bookstore. In essence Gerstner had gone on a wild goose chase and in so doing put an
unfounded rumor to rest. So we get all of this info in an Article written and published by
Gerstner in 1986. Gerstner’s opinion of Siri changed after her 9 day visit to Genoa, in 1963.
That change was based solely upon all that she discovered in Genoa as well as her many
years of candid conversations with Archbishop Pintonello a long time friend of Siri as well
as Dr. Gerstner.

SOME SAY THAT SIRI SUCCESSOR WAS BISHOP ARRIGO

PINTONELLO

The confusion surrounding the Siri Thesis never ends, once Siri was dead and safely in his
grave, new allegations quickly surfaced. Siri, they claimed would have provided for the
Church, he would have, no doubt appointed a successor. Who was it? Yes an underground
line of succession and Mario Derksen in his article on “Eclipse of the Church: 1958 and
Beyond Part Two advises us of what he has learned in this regards:

“By the way, Cardinal Siri, or Pope Gregory XVII, died in 1989. Some think that his successor was Bishop
Arrigo Pintonello, though he too passed away, in 2001. At this point there is no known or even rumored
successor to either man, as far as I know. Nevertheless, the Novus Ordo Church is still there, blocking the
vision of the True Church.76

So who was Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello? Giuffre has over the years,lead many people
(including myself) to believe that Pintonello was most probably appointed, pope, secretly,
by Siri. A group of Siri supporters including H. Sigornell, certainly spent a great deal of
time reviewing every letter they received from Pintonello attempting to find hidden
messages and hidden meanings in these letters. I have had copies of all of these letters from
and to Pintonello supplied to me by several Siri supporters including H.Spigornell who was
involved in the review of these letters. I myself translated a number of these letters and
provided written responses to some for Giuffre .I also personally spoke to Pintonello three
times in 1999 and wrote several letters directly to him starting in 1999.

Archbishop Pintonello spoke often to Cardinal Siri (often while Dr. Gerstner was actually
in Pintonello’s office, Pintonello would, quietly, hand the phone directly to Dr. Gerstner, as
Siri was speaking to him, so that Dr. Gerstner could personally hear Siri’s comments etc77.)
and Dr. Gerstner who had personally known Pintonello since the early 60’s often spoke to

42
Pintonello of Cardinal Siri.Even in this article “Siri Papst?” Gerstner refers to Pintonello
and the allegations made by Pintonello regarding Siri:

“I had often spoken of Cardinal Siri with our good friend Bishop ArrigoPintonello who, in turn, is a close
friend of the Genoese Cardinal and had spoken to him directly after the Conclave.Msgr. Pintonello told me, “I
wasn’t there, and he doesn’t tell me everything; and if he had confided in me I would have to remain silent.”
He also implied that, like most, Cardinal Siri was being blackmailed by the opposition, who had incriminating
“material”, adding that no-one had a clean record and that the other side used blackmail. He also indicated to
me what the nature of the material was which incriminated Cardinal Siri.I countered by saying that Montini
had been elected although there was more than enough incriminating material against him which our side
could have used as a threat”78

We learn a great deal from this brief passage.Gerstner and Pintonello were long time
friends. We learn that Pintonello had actually spoken to Siri after the Conclave. We learn
an incredibly important piece of information and that is that Pintonello makes it known to
Gerstner that no one had a clean record and that the opposition had incriminating material
against Siri. Dr.Gerstner was also informed, by Pintonello, of the nature of the
incriminating material that was held against Siri.79 So Pintonello advises us all that no one
(reference to Cardinals and high ranking Bishops )had a clean record, and this devastating
piece of information, from the cleric considered by Giuffre and his supporters , as the
person that may have been appointed the successor to pope Siri,in an underground or
hidden succession, by Siri himself prior to Siri’s death in 1989.

Knowing the full truth in 1963, that Siri was not the pope, Dr. Gerstner, as late as 1986,
in her article “Siri Papst?”never gave up, she hoped even then, that Cardinal Siri might
yet take a stand, (not as a pope, for she knew that he was not the pope) the stand that Siri
should have taken, decades before, the stand that he was required to take as a Prince of
the Church, a stand in direct opposition to the “Novus Ordo Church” .A stand that Siri
unfortunately never took. To this end Gerstner even asked that readers of her magazine
“Kyrie eleison” who might be near to Siri to let him know that witnesses were still alive
in 1986 who could still testify to what they knew of both Roncalli and Montini80.Siri
could still do the right thing even though he was not the pope. Dr Gerstner writes as
follows:
“Someone near Cardinal Siri may read these pages from Kyrie eleison to the Cardinal and verify their
content. He may let the Cardinal know that there are STILL witnesses alive who, if the Church were in dire
peril, would testify to what they know of the incriminating material against Roncalli and Montini.It will then
transpire that this material was more encumbering for someone aspiring to a high clerical office than that
which the Progressives threatened to publish in order to blackmail the conservative Cardinal from Genoa. He
ought to speak out in order that the rumor-mongering ceases, for Siri has full knowledge of the accusations
against Montini and Roncalli.To this end he has the same testimony at his disposal to which I here make
reference and of which I, having been left to my own devices, would not like to speak in publications. Would
it not be better if everyone who knows something would simply reveal this for the sake of the Church. Our
adversaries, who avail of blackmail, have no such Scruples”81

I have in my possession an audio tape that originated with Benny Lai; it is a copy of a taped
interview that Lai conducted with Siri, in which Siri said, that he had asked the forgiveness
of God. Why had Siri asked the forgiveness of God? I have heard and read some really
creative answers to this question. The reality, I believe, is that he ( Siri) knew only too well
that he failed, during his long life, to defend, as he was required to do, his flock. May Our

43
Lord have mercy on his soul. Dr. Gerstner was an eye witness to the destruction of the
Catholic Church, she saw it first hand, in the Vatican, she knew all of the major players,
and she organized and defended against the attacks as best she could but even those on her
side were divided. Where were the Bishops, the Cardinals, the Monsignors, the priests?
Why was it left to a young woman to alert and defend the Church of Tradition? Here is her
eye witness account that stands in direct opposition to Scortesco, Remy, Giuffre, Spigornell
and others who were not present in Rome during these critical years, it is a condemnation
of Siri based upon fact alone:

“As far as Cardinal Siri is concerned, it can be said that the conditions in his diocese and seminary are not as
bad as those in other dioceses in the Catholic world, but ( and even if only under duress and in fear for his
reputation) Cardinal Siri has adopted all of the reforms of Vatican II, including the Novus Ordo Missae and
the new Sacraments and Rites. He did not raise his voice at the Conferences of Bishops to denounce abuses,
preferring to hide behind other bishops whom he incited to protest.In all these years he has behaved like
someone whose greatest worry was the revelation of material against his person in the hands of his enemies,
and not the well being of the Church and her delivery from the clutches of her enemies.” 82

It is alleged by Dr. Gerstner, based upon information provided by Pintonello to Dr.

Gerstner that Siri had been compromised and feared the release of this material more than
he should have. We all make mistakes, we all lose our way, we all deny Christ and even St.
Peter denied Christ three times but St. Peter asked forgiveness and defended his small flock
and welcomed his own martyrdom. Siri, in turn, allowed 31 long years to go by, watched
his flock savaged and died of old age.

ARRIGO PINTONELLO DECLARED THE RUMOR OF A SIRI

HIDDEN LINE OF SUCCESSION TO BE “ABSURD”

Who was Arrigo Pintonello? FOR THE RECORD: The following info was produced by the
assistant and secretary to Pintonello, Mons. Giacomino Femino and was published as a
little pamphlet.

“The official title of Pintonello was that of “Ordinary Military Archbishop for Italy”. On the campaign of
Russia he was Head Military Chaplin (I believe August 5 1941 till April 5 1943)

Archbishop Pintonello died on Sunday July 8, 2001 in his residency in Pomezia ( Rome) at Mater Ecclesaie
College Selva dei Pini Foundation.He was aged 93..His excellency Mons. Arrigo Pintonello, Honourary
Military Archbishop.

Pintonello was born August 28, 1908 at Rivale di Pianiga ( Venice), student at La “ Carraresi” school,
secondary school at “ Tito Livio Secondary School at Padua.He got his bachelorate in Canon Law and a
doctorate in Philosophy and Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome. He was Ordained to the
priesthood at the Cathederal of Cittadella (Padua) on October 9 1932.After which he had a short period of
pastoral experience at the Cathederal of Este ( Padua).He was appointed vice pastor responsible for St.
Prosdocimo University Club.In 1933 the Aposolic Nunzio Mons. Francesco Borgongini Duca called him to
the Pontifical Oratory of St. Peter in Rome as a member of the body of Directors..President of this body at the
time was the Apostolic Nunzio and the vice president was Mons. Carlo Rusticoni Military Vicar General.In
1935 Pintonello was assigned as military Chaplin to the school of the Marines of Pola. In 1937 Pintonello was
transferred to Rome as both member and secretary of the Military Bishopric of the Curia Castrense.In 1938
he was in the military Division of “Pusteria” at Brunico ( Bolzano).In 1940 Pintonello returned to Rome at
the Military Bishopric as Chaplin connecting the Ministry of War with the Military Bishopric.In 1941,

44
because he spoke German he was sent to Russia as Captain in Charge of 250 other Military Chaplins..He
became known as the “ Chaplin of Russia”.He was later responsible for the construction of War Cemeteries
in Russia together with his brother Achille an engineer and architect who was responsible for design and
construction of these Russian War Cemeteries..Thanks to the efforts of Pintonello the remains of many
soldiers were returned to their loved ones over 50 years later…
Pintonello returned to Italy in April 5 1943 at which time he was operated on twice at the University Clinic of
Padua.

In August 17,1945 he was nominated a Rector of the Pontifical Seminary of “ La Quericia of Viterbo”.On
September 13, 1946 at the end of the school year he was sent by the Holy See, Congregation of Seminaries, to
the regional Pontifical Seminary Pio XI of Salerno which had 400 students of Philosophy and Theology.
In November 4, 1953 he was nominated Archbishop ( Ordinary Military for Italy) and received his episcopal
consecration on November 30 1953 at S. Carlo al Corso Basillica in Rome.
Many of the priests that he had formed in the seminaries of Vieterbo as well as Salerno became both Bishops
and Cardinals..Most of his energy went into the formation of priests and he founded in Rome at Monte Sacro,
Via Monte Nevoso, the military academy for chaplins and others: at Pomezia ( Rome), Salo (Brescia) San
Felice Circeo ( Latina).
During Vatican II the Conference Of Bishops appointed Pintonello as President of The Commission of
“Studies and Seminary” and his councilors were the future Cardinals Alfonso Maria Stild and Cardinal
Agostino Mayer.

At the end of his active army service he became Honorary Military Ordinary.

In 1971 he surrendered the diocese of Latina after he had founded the diocese and canonically erected 18 new
parishes.After this time he dedicated his efforts to founding the school in Pomezia ( Rome).He founded a
center for mentally and physically retarded children and another school called “ Selva di Pini”. Before he died
he created the foundation “ Mater Ecclesiae College Selva Dei Pini” of Pomezia Rome.”

While Arrigo Pintonello was still alive Giuffre and his supporters suspected and lead many
people (including myself) to believe that Pintonello was the most likely person to have
been the successor of Siri, in a hidden line of papal succession. Somehow, mysteriously,
appointed by Siri, prior to the death of Siri himself. In 1999 I translated letters to and from
Pintonello for Giuffre, in time; I received copies of every letter that transpired between
Giuffre and his supporters and Pintonello. Pintonello never once admitted (in any of this
correspondence) to any person that he was the pope in a hidden line of succession. I
personally spoke to Pintonello three times , by telephone,( I also, each time, spoke to his
assistant) during 1999, as well as writing a very long and detailed letter to Pintonello
pleading with him to step forward and publicly take action against the “new church “before
it was to late. He responded to be in a short letter giving me his Christmas greetings and
thus totally ignoring all that I had written. How could this be? Why would Pintonello
totally ignore the pleading of so many people who looked to him for direction and a
possible solution?
I had no explanation for Pintonello’s actions, or should I say total lack of action, that is no
explanation up until March of 2005.After I began corresponding with Dr. Gerstner many
things became clear. In fact Pintonello personally thought that the entire notion of Siri
being the pope was “ABSURD”83 and expressed this fact directly to Dr.Gerstner many
times. In fact Dr.Gerstner had occasion to visit Pintonello in 1997 just a few days after
Giuffre and others had visited Pintonello in Pomezia in March of 1997.I have photos of this
meeting between Pintonello and Gerstner in March of 1997.
So in March of 1997 the man that Giuffre and his supporters alleged to be the most likely
cleric to have been appointed, Pope, by Siri, in this, much longed for, hidden line of

45
succession, this best friend of Cardinal Siri, Pintonello states to Dr. Gerstner, his friend of
over 30 years, that Siri had never confided this fact to him. Later Pintonello states to Dr.
Gerstner that he had never once even mentioned this ABSURD RUMOR to Cardinal Siri
because Siri never joked! What absurd Rumor? Well the absurd rumor that Pintonello
referred to was the rumor that, Siri was the pope!

GARY GIUFFRE AND HIS SUPPORTERS DECLARED, AFTER THE

FACT, THAT SIRI WAS THE FRONTRUNNER, HOWEVER SILVIO
NEGRO IN HIS 1958 HEADLINES DECLARED OTHERWISE!

Under the title of “Exile of The Pope Elect-Part V” by Gary Giuffre in Sange de Cristo
Newsnotes Number 65 July 1990 Giuffre writes:
“To comprehend how these events may have unfolded one must study the currents which preceded the voting
for the pope who would follow Pius XII.Contrary to the majority of liberal, mass media sources who have
maintained, over the last thirty-two years, that there was no clear favorite in 1958, the truth has at times
slipped past the press censors that, indeed there was a logical successor to Pacelli.Author Jim Bishop wrote
about the emerging heir apparent almost two years before the fateful conclave:
“Siri is a strong candidate.He is only 50 and is the most popular cleric in Italy.He was born in Genoa and
came from a laboring family.At 22 he was a priest and at 37 he was a bishop.During the war, he organized
soup kitchens for the poor.He is a master of labor management problems.It is said that he has settled more
disputes, without strikes, than any other man in Italy” ( “The Next Pope” The American Weekly, March 17,
1957 page 21.)

Interesting how Jim Bishop slipped past the press censors? Press censors, of course I
should have guessed? No doubt, the American Weekly had developed great expertise in the
theology, the Vatican, had cultivated erudite sources and is it possible that Jim Bishop was
an expert on conclaves, Cardinals, councils and the Catholic Faith? Maybe, just maybe Jim
Bishop and Desmond O’Grady had the same expertise, experience, the same contacts and
the same insights as the great Italian journalist Silvio Negro. Or maybe not! Silvio Negro
was in a league of his own, Bishop and O’Grady were, at best, not even bush league.
You see Silvio Negro saw what was happening in Rome and commented on it almost daily.
Negro knew that Roncalli had powerful support from the French Cardinals and that they
would vote as a block with the others who were in favor of reform. Day in Day out,Silvio
Negro never tired of calling it as a struggle between Roncalli and Agagianian, and in the
end Roncalli emerged!All one need do is study the Italian headlines of the time, the
headlines of Silvio Negro tell a far different story than what Giuffre would have us all
believe. Many people in Rome had reason to believe that this outcome ( the election of
Roncalli) would be the case and they said so, some said so even before the conclave. Those
who knew what was coming, amongst others, included Dr. Rosemary Goldie, Dr. Elisabeth
Gerstner, and Franco Bellegrandi just to mention a few. But not one ever spoke seriously of
Siri!

46
Figure 11 Giuffre would have us all believe that Siri was not only the most popular cleric in all of Italy
but also the “front runner and preferred candidate of the conservative block going into the conclave of
1958”. However on October 9 1958, the day that Pacelli/Pius XII died Silvio Negro in the above article
entitled “Possible But Not Probable That A Foreigner Would Come To Be Elected”. Under the heading
‘Tre Italiani’ or “Three Italians” Silvio Negro quickly and without the waste of extra words dealt with
the issue of the chances of a particular group three Italian Cardinals to be elected. The three that he
quickly deals with ( and quickly dismisses) are Siri of Genoa, Lercaro of Bologna and Ruffini of
Palermo.Silvio Negro first deals with Siri , quickly lists his qualities and then concludes in the negative.
Silvio Negro declared that Siri had a defect, he was “too young” Siri was therefore not papabile!Silvio
Negro without a doubt, one of the most respected men of letters as well as journalits in Italy on October
9, 1958 dedicated a total of four sentences to the issue of whether Siri was truly Papabile or not.

47
Figure 12 Silvio Negro , Italy’s leading journalist, on religious and social issues, writing since 1926 for Corriere
della Sera (Milan, Italy) on October 17, 1958 indicates in a headline and article that the French will back Roncalli
and Spellman and the conservatives would back Agagianian. No mention of Siri, yet Giuffre and his supporters
would have us believe otherwise.

48
Figure 13 Silvio Negro, Italy’s leading journalist, on religious and social issues, writing since 1926 for
Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) on October 21 1958 indicates in a headline and article that Agagianian
was favoured.No mention of Siri? Giuffre who was age 9 at the time of these events would eventually
use references from local Houston papers and the AP wire service, as his authorities, thus declaring
Siri the frontrunner.

49
Figure 14 Silvio Negro , Italy’s leading journalist , on religious and social issues, writing since 1926 for
Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) advises his Italian readers on Oct. 23, 1958 that the French are
definetly backing Roncalli! Again no mention of Giuffre’s alleged front-runner, Siri.

50
CHRIST DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE PERPETUITY OF THE
ROMAN PONTIFFS!

The following brief quote is taken from an article written by Gary Giuffre entitled
“Warnings from Heaven Suppressed” from Giuffre’s soon to be released book “The Plot
Against The Pope Coup dé’tat in the Conclave – 1958". This article is available at
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Warnings.htm .In essence the critical point that is being
made in this article by Giuffre is simply this-Vatican Council ( often referred to as Vatican
Council I ) teaches that Peter will always have “perpetual successors”! Giuffre puts it like
this: “Did not the First Vatican Council teach that Christ, Himself guarantees the
perpetuity of the Roman Pontiffs?” ( The answer to this question is NO IT DID NOT
AND DOES NOT and Giuffre has been personally corrected on this point several times
by Mr. Hutton Gibson) and then answers his own question as follows; “This
interpretation of the council seems to have been supported by Fathers Spirago and
Clarke, the authors of one of the most comprehensive catechisms in the English
language, who wrote in 1899:”( Fathers Spirago and Clarke are hardly infallible
authorities, nor are they correct in their interpretation ).Here is exactly what Giuffre has
to say in this regards:

“The Promise of Christ

Today, confusion reigns as never before, even among remnant Catholics, who are heroically clinging to
the Faith of their fathers. As awareness increases concerning the bogus character of the conciliar "popes," yet
another danger currently presents itself. Breeding despair and defeatism, a supposition is now being subtly
introduced into traditional Catholic enclaves, that the papacy has been irreparably lost. This latest deception,
however, may also involve heresy, since it seems to contradict the teaching of a dogmatic council of the
Church:

"That which our Lord Jesus, the Prince of shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, established in
the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of
necessity remain forever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock,
will stand firm until the end of time . . .

"Therefore if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say by
Divine law) that blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church . . . let
him be anathema." 25

Did not the First Vatican Council teach that Christ, Himself guarantees the perpetuity of the Roman
Pontiffs? This interpretation of the council seems to have been supported by Fathers Spirago and Clarke, the
authors of one of the most comprehensive catechisms in the English language, who wrote in 1899:

"Never in the history of the Catholic Church, has it been free of persecution. Whatever may be the
differences between the sects, they unite against the Church . . .

"All Catholics acknowledge the Pope as Head of the Church. If there were antipopes, it is none the
less true that someone was the true Pope. The existence of many pretenders to a throne does not
exclude the claim of the true king . . .

"The Vatican Council declares that it is the will of Christ that till the end of the world there be
successors to St. Peter . . .

51
"Hence, there will always be Popes, Bishops and faithful and God’s revealed truths will ever be found in the
Catholic Church . . ." 26”

Even in these dark days, Catholics should take heart in the promise of Christ that the gates of Hell will not
prevail against His Church, as nothing which happens on earth, occurs without the permission of Providence.
There is reason to hope that another true pope will soon emerge from holy obscurity (as is suggested by the
prophecies of many holy souls), and will reawaken his sleeping flock.”

(Above reference “Warnings from Heaven Suppressed” from: "The Plot Against The Pope Coup dé’tat in
the Conclave – 1958" © Copyright 1989 - 2005, by Gary Giuffré available at
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Warnings.htm this page has been archived for future reference)

This notion, promoted by Giuffre (and many others), that Peter will have perpetual
successors is extremely important to the very essence of “The Siri Thesis” and it is
INCORRECT! The real point at issue here is whether or not the idea of a long-term
vacancy of the Holy See is, or is not, possible. In essence Giuffre decides, for us, that it is
not possible (against the actual facts and in so doing, in the past, has made repeated use
of both Ott’s mistranslation of Denzinger 1825 in the Latin as well as Spirago and
Clarke’s incorrect interpretation of what was pronounced in 1825) and in so doing uses
this alleged incompatibility with the teaching of Vatican Council, as seeming support for
“The Siri Thesis”.

What does Denzinger 1825 actually say, here is the original Latin: (CANON)) Si quis ergo
dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu jure divino, ut beatus Petrus in
primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores;aut Romanum
Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem:anathema sit.

In a June 2, 1999 letter to a foreign correspondent, Mr. Hutton Gibson discussed this very
issue. Here is what Gibson writes:

“According to this canon, promulgated in 1870, Peter has (habeat) - not will have
(habebit) –perpetual successors in his primacy. No one is condemned as a heretic for
maintaining another interregnum of whatever length since the promulgation date. The
Church itself is incompetent in prognostication.

But of course there’s Ludwig Ott, who states (page 282):”According to Christ’s ordinance.
Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time (De
fide)”.After quoting the Vatican Council that Peter has (in 1870) perpetual successors, Ott
continues: “That the primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors is, indeed, not expressly
stated in the words of the promise and conferring of The Primacy by Our Lord, but it flows
as an inference from the nature and purpose of the Primacy itself. As the function of the
Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as The Church, according
to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of
time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated”.
Our disastrous current position itself proves we have no pope in charge. All see the
substantial sameness, so in accord with the Church’s recent and current fragmentation. On
page 9, section 8, Ott lists theological grades of certainty:

52
Fides Divinia- the belief due immediately to revealed truths based on God revealing;

Fides catholica – based on the Church’s infallible Teaching Authority when the Church
teaches that a Truth is contained in Revelation;

De fide definita-accorded truths solemnly defined by Pope or Council.

Otts errors are visible to the blind.Ott’s errors, were outlined by a friend of mine to a
correspondent of his, in a personal correspondence forwarded to me on June 6, 1999 where
he writes as follows:

1) He (reference to Ott) mistranslates habeat ( has), a verb in the present subjunctive

tense, as habebit, a verb in the future indicative ( will have, or is to have).
2) He (reference to Ott) tendentiously confers upon something “not expressly
stated”, but indeed which “flows as an inference” the rank of dignity of a truth
solemnly defined by pope or council, to wit, De fide definita.

3) He(reference to Ott) does not define what he means by the “end of time”, thus
laying the groundwork for the confusion in the minds of Catholics, in the meaning
of the word “perpetual” making it wrongly, as it were a synonym of the word
“continuous”.

4) He (reference to Ott) conveniently misses the stress of Denzinger 1824 and

1825.Both Items are not primarily about perpetuity of the succession;that is only
their secondary intent. D 1824 is concerned with the insitution of the papacy, and
D 1825 is together with it,concerned primarily against the Protestants and
schismatics who deny that it is from the institution of Christ Our Lord Himself,
or of divine law, that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy
of the universal Church.

So totally contrary to the claims of Giuffre, Vatican Council, DOES NOT teach that Peter
will have perpetual successors to the end of time.

Giuffre may wish to read what Siri himself had to say as regards this very same issue. As
you can clearly see, in the complete quotation below from the article entitled, “THE
ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF” and which originally appeared in “Renovatio,”
VII (1972), inst. 2, p. 155-156. Siri dealt with this issue in its proper context. Siri knew
what this issue (institution of the papacy) was concerned with and he knew that it sought to
address the errors being promoted by the Protestants and schismatics (of that time) who
denied that it is from the institution of Christ Our Lord Himself, or of divine law, that
the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy of the universal Church.
Further Siri made it clear that the right to elect the pope was the sole right of the Roman
Church and no other. The Church of Rome would always elect Peter and no democratic or
federalist changes are ever legally or theologically possible in this regards! Siri also used
the correct term for has in Latin, which is “habeat”.Here is what Siri had to say:

53
 “Let us review the central theological aspect. The first Vatican Council, in the canon, which follows chapter
two of the bull Pastor Aeternus, so recites: «Si quis ergo dixerit non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione
seu jure divino ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores, aut
romanum pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem, anathema sit» (D.S. 3058 ) (If, then,
anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right, that Blessed
Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the
successor of Blessed Peter in the same primacy; let him be anathema.) ( D.S. 3058) This means that the
succession of Peter is the prerogative of the bishop of Rome. If the succession is the prerogative of the bishop
of Rome, and not to another, this signifies the absolute bond between the Roman episcopate and the Petrine
succession. It must logically and necessarily be inferred that the Pope is such because he is the bishop of
Rome. This causal bond between the Roman episcopate and the Petrine succession becomes clearer if one
reads the entire second chapter of the cited constitution (D.S. 3057); it becomes very clear when the whole
tradition, especially the primitive tradition, that which benefits with immediacy and certainty of the
provisions taken by the prince of the apostles, is observed. In fact Clement (first century) intervenes strongly
in the Church of Corinth, with a lengthy and solemn letter, whilst the apostle John is still living and
geographically nearer, in the name of the Roman Church. It is evident that he intends to infer from his
Episcopal see the power to look after the far-off Church of Corinth, upon which he could only intervene as a
universal pastor, being Corinth well out of the Roman diction. The two great witnesses of the very early age,
Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaes, in the well-known texts, use the same language as Clement.

That said, it is hard to grasp how one could theologically sustain a separateness of the supremacy in the
Church from the Roman Episcopal see, or reasonably deny that the Roman see be itself the legal title of the
succession to Peter.

Having clarified the fundamental theological aspect, it is not at all pointless to consider the logic that Christ
has placed inside His Church. There is a primate; there are bishops successors of the apostles who are such by
divine right within the framework of the catholicity of the college and of the right of the primate. Constitutive
cells of the Church are the individual local churches, led by a successor of the apostles. All of the faithful
belong to the Church, but the immediate reason for her unity and catholicity lies in the particular churches
under Peter. The error, made by many, that has been clearly witnessed in the recent and not always orthodox
diatribes on the «Lex Fundamentalis,» is precisely that of assimilating the Divine Constitution of the Church
to any state political constitution. The first is absolutely unique and inimitable, like other things within the
Church. It therefore appears clear why Christ entrusted the primate to Peter, and why the latter exercised it
and bequeathed to his successors, as bishop of a designated cell of the Church, the diocese of Rome.

That placed, no idea of democratic or federalist constitution can surface when the issue of the election of the
Roman pontiff is posed theologically and legally. It is the Roman Church that must elect her bishop.” 84

FR. O’REILLY ON THE IDEA OF A LONG TERM VACANCY OF

THE HOLY SEE

In October of 1999 Mr John Daly wrote an article entitled , “Fr. O'Reilly On The Idea Of
A Long-Term Vacancy Of The Holy See”. In it Mr. Daly addresses the very issue in
question here as follows:

“In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological
Essays, comprising twenty-nine essays by Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of
his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and
insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme.

54
For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication,
for in it Fr. O'Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:

1. that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be
incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and
2. that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to
allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy,
nor in any way err).”85

Mr .Daly goes on to give some important background on Fr. O’Reilly as follows:

“Of course Fr. O'Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was
certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the
following facts:

Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850.

Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.

Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his
theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.

He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation.

The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman
College in Rome, though as it turned out circumstances unrelated to Fr. O'Reilly intervened to prevent that
appointment.

At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was
chosen to represent all the English-speaking "provinces" of the Society - that is, Ireland, England, Maryland,
and the other divisions of the United States.

In short Fr. O'Reilly was widely recognised as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his
time.”86

So Fr. O’Reilly is writing in 1882 not long after the actual Vatican Council, he was
recognized as a brilliant, a solid, and an able theologian, docile to the Church and fixed in
the ancient theological paths:

"Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian - one so docile to the Church and so fixed in
the ancient theological paths - cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and
perilous times."

Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what "signal benefit" we, a little
more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O'Reilly's writing.

We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called "The Pastoral Office of the Church".
On page 33 Fr. O'Reilly says this (emphases added):

"If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and
comes immediately from God on the fulfillment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having
jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate
election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes

55
regarding such election."

Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case
of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate
election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain,
"de facto".

Fr. O'Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 - our emphases added):

"A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the
Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and
may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim."87

Mr. Daly continues with his narrative as follows:

”This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O'Reilly to the Council of
Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an
end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that
time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a
considerable following. Back to Fr. O'Reilly:

"The Council assembled in 1414...

"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three
claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all
through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope - with the exception, of course, of
the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There
was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ
and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness;
not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or
inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a
matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."

Further narrative from Mr. Daly:

Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the
1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is "by no means manifest" that a thirty-six year
interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And
we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After
thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a
long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree -
how long - cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know
what astonishing things He may in fact decide.

And, indeed, as Fr. O'Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a
hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our
day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that
God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):

56
"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance...nor
ever with such a following...

"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of
expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening
would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit
the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and
last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the
great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the
heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty
years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this
would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we
may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to
pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil
His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His
Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to
each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and
attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in
all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We
may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His
promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future
from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our
successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have
yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all
things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor
pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to
convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises,
cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and
distressing in a very high degree."

Mr. Daly continues as follows:

While Fr. O'Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy
is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which,
provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the
light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in
the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr.
O'Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur,
any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such
assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in
question do occur. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith
the Lord." (Isaias 55:8)”88

We can conclude,contrary to the claims of Giuffre and The Siri Thesis supporters, a long
interregnum, regardless of time involved, is not incompatible with the promises of Christ.

57
UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS MADE BY PAUL L.
WILLIAMS

The American Magazine “Criminal Politics” listed Paul L Williams, in their June
/July 2005 issue as an “International terrorism expert” who “forecasts Nuclear
Attack!”

Dr. Paul L.Williams was described, by his publisher as follows, on www.fictionwise.com :

“Paul L. Williams holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from Wilkes University, a Master of Divinity
degree from Drew University, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Drew. He also received six academic
scholarships and a teaching fellowship from Lehigh University. Paul has taught theology, humanities,
medieval history, and philosophy at the University of Scranton. After writing a series of feature articles on
religion for the National Review, our author became existentially shipwrecked in Scranton, Pennsylvania,
where he became a holy hermit. On select occasions, he emerged from his secluded castle to battle dragons,
to save damsels in distress, to engage in holy war, and to write such inspired works as The Moral Philosophy
of Peter Abelard (The University Press of America), Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the
Catholic Church But Were Afraid to Ask for Fear of Excommunication (Doubleday), and The Complete
Idiot's Guide to the Lives of the Saints. He has also penned a series of scripts for CBS and Allied Artists. This
distinguished knight has championed the cause of the disenfranchised and the oppressed by serving as an
award-winning newspaper reporter who captured three first-prize Keystone Press awards in three different
categories in the same year-a feat that remains unmatched by any other crusading reporter. His long-suffering
and pious wife, xxxxxxx, serves as a schoolteacher for the xxxxxxxxxxxxx School District. They have a
beautiful, intelligent, and radiant daughter, Princess xxxxxxxx, who came from Heaven, as Paul in days of
yore lost the singular key to his good wife's chastity belt.” ( reference
http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook27692.htm )

It seems that Dr.Williams is much more than just an author; he is also alleged to be an
expert on terror and terrorists89. To this end, it is alleged that he is a consultant on
international terrorism to the FBI! So I ask why is an alleged expert on International terror 90
doing writing about the Vatican. Are there now particular segments of the Catholic world,
possibly Traditionalists that have caught the attention of the FBI? Is it possibly the intent of
politicians, bureaucrats, law enforcement agencies, international organizations and the
possibly theVatican itself to declare “Christian believers in the inerrancy of every word of
scripture” to be guilty of “fanatic fundamentalism” zealots who are somehow made to be
seen as possible extremists91?

It seems odd that in a book intended to expose the Vatican’s supposed dealings with
money, murder and the mafia that Williams takes the time to write , about a conclave (of
1958 and the election of Roncalli) that took place almost 50 years ago? I wonder why? It is
not difficult to understand where the sympathies of Dr. Williams reside by reviewing some
of the books he has written.

The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, And the Coming Apocalypse
The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia

58
Osama's Revenge: THE NEXT 9/11 : What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You
The Complete Idiot's Guide(R) to the Crusades
Al Qaeda: Brotherhood of Terror
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Lives of the Saints

59
Figure 15 The American magazine “ Criminal Politics” listed Paul L Williams , in their June /July 2005 issue as
an “International terrorism expert” who “forecasts Nuclear Attack!” Williams , in the aforementioned article,is
spoken of as (one of three) a qualified author who alleged that Al Qaeda purchased 20 suitcase nuclear devices for
30,000,000 US from the KGB.

WHO IS INTERESTED IN TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS AND WHY?

In May of 2003 a book written by Paul L. Williams entitled “The Vatican Exposed: Money,
Murder, and the Mafia” was published and released in the USA.Traditional Catholics took
an immediate interest in this book and their interest had nothing to do with the allegations
of Money, Murder or the Mafia. In fact Traditional Catholic interest had to do with certain
claims that were made regarding the 85th Conclave of the Catholic Church which began on
the 26th of October 1958. A critical conclave that in essence began the march towards
modernity and the refutation of 2000 years of Catholic belief. What did Williams write
(why is the FBI interested in Catholics?92) that excited the interest of Traditional Catholics
worldwide to such a degree that emails were sent around the world, at least one Sunday
sermon was written by a Traditional Catholic priest, making reference to this information
and this sermon was subsequently emailed and posted on websites worldwide? To this day
this information is still making the rounds worldwide.

Well here is what was written by Williams (that caused all the excitement) that was
uploaded to a prominent religious educational site in the USA
(http://www.novusordowatch.org/story081004.htm)

“In 1954 Count Della Torre, editor of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, warned [Pope] Pius
XII of [Cardinal Angelo] Roncalli's Communist sympathies. Other members of the "Black Nobility"
expressed similar concerns.[5]
Nor did Roncalli [later known as "Pope John XXIII"] escape the attention of the FBI and CIA. The
agencies began to accumulate thick files on him and the questionable activities of other "progressives" within
the Vatican, including Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Paul VI).
[...]
Pius XII had appointed Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as his desired successor.[7] Siri was rabidly anti-
Communist, an intransigent traditionalist in matters of church doctrine, and a skilled bureaucrat. . . .
In 1958 [on October 26], when the cardinals were locked away in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope,
mysterious events began to unfold. On the third ballot, Siri, according to FBI sources, obtained the necessary
votes and was elected as Pope Gregory XVII.[8] White smoke poured from the chimney of the chapel to
inform the faithful that a new pope had been chosen. The news was announced with joy at 6 P.M. on Vatican
radio. The announcer said, "The smoke is white. . . . There is absolutely no doubt. A pope has been
elected."[9] . . .
But the new pope failed to appear. Question began to arise whether the smoke was white or gray. To quell
such doubts, Monsignor Santaro, secretary of the Conclave of Cardinals, informed the press that the smoke,
indeed, had been white and that a new pope had been elected. The waiting continued. By evening Vatican
radio announced that the results remained uncertain. On October 27, 1958, the Houston Post headlined:
"Cardinals Fail to elect pope in 4 Ballots: Mix-Up in Smoke Signals Cause False Reports."[10]
But the reports had been valid. On the fourth ballot, according to FBI sources, Siri again obtained the
necessary votes and was elected supreme pontiff. But the French cardinals annulled the results, claiming that
the election would cause widespread riots and the assassination of several prominent bishops behind the Iron
Curtain.[11]
The cardinals opted to elect Cardinal Frederico Tedischini as a "transitional pope," but Tedischini was too
ill to accept the position.
Finally, on the third day of balloting, Roncalli received the necessary support to become Pope John
XXIII.”93 . . .

60
 --Paul L. Williams, The Vatican Exposed
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003), pp. 90-92

The footnote numbers included in Williams' text point to the following references (adapted from p. 243):

[5] Department of State confidential biography, "John XXIII," issue date: no date, declassified: February 15,
1974; see also Avro Manhattan, Murder in the Vatican, p. 31.

[7] John Cooney, The American Pope, p. 259.

[8] Department of State secret dispatch, "John XXIII," issue date: November 20, 1958, declassified:
November 11, 1974.

[9] The announcer's words appeared in the London Tablet, November 1, 1958, p. 387.

[10] Houston Post, October 27, 1958, pp. 1 and 7.

[11] Department of State secret file, "Cardinal Siri," issue date: April 10, 1961, declassified: February 28,
1994.”

Figure 16 Displayed above is a photograph of page 92 of the Williams book “The Vatican Exposed” please note the third line in
the second paragraph where Dr.Williams alleges that Monsignor Santoro was the Secretary of the Conclave in 1958. Where did
Dr. Williams get this information? If Dr. Williams had checked his facts he would have found that Santoro was the Secretary of
the Conclave in 1939 and died (most probably in 1943) before the conclave of 1958. Clearly having died before the Conclave
Monsignor Santoro could not have been present in the 1958 conclave to inform anyone of anything!

61
On May 4th 2004 I personally wrote a letter to Dr. Williams (sent via his publisher) that has
in fact never been responded to. In a letter to Dr. Williams (partially reproduced below) via
his Publisher I requested as follows:

“After purchasing your book, “The Vatican Exposed,” I was most intrigued by your narrative about how the
election of a certain Italian as pope was “annulled” by the French cardinals during the 1958 papal conclave in
Rome. You indicate that this man was simply replaced by another cardinal, who turned out to be Pope John
XXIII, and who was considered friendly to the Kremlin.

What I found most interesting was your citing the titles of three U.S. documents, including:

a) Department of State secret dispatch, “John XXIII,” issue date: November 20, 1958; declassified
November 11,1974.
b) Department of State confidential biography, “John XXIII,” no issue date; declassified: February
15, 1974.
c) Department of State secret file, “Cardinal Siri,” issue date: April 10, 1961; declassified:
February 28, 1994.

… However, I noticed that you did not quote directly from the text of those documents, …

In any event, I have been extremely interested in the subject … and I submitted petitions … to obtain
these related documents under the Freedom of Information Act, …, I thought perhaps that you might have
copies of them. If so, would you consider making me a set of those three documents? Of course, I would
expect to reimburse you for any costs incurred,… (Personal correspondence from Silvio Mattacchione to Dr.
Paul L. Williams dated May 4, 2004, as of Dec 2005, no acknowledgement nor response has ever been
forthcoming from Dr. Williams)

Though Dr. Williams never responded to my letter he did initiate email correspondence
with www.novusordowatch.org an educational website in the USA .I was sent a copy of
this email by the Editor of www.novusordowatch.org which was sent to him on June 20,
2005 in which Dr. Williams advises that:

“For your information, I am a Catholic traditionalist and a very staunch conservative. In the past, I have
penned feature articles for "National Review" decrying aggiornamento and the reforms of Vatican II. Your
article of April 6, 2005 on my book THE VATICAN EXPOSED depicts me in a false light. However, I did
enjoy the article and I am glad you picked up the information about the conclave of 1958 and the election of
Roncalli. Paul L. Williams”94

Now the editors of Novusordowatch responded later that same day as follows”

“Since you kindly contacted us, which we appreciate very much, we would like to take this opportunity to ask
you, a fellow-traditionalist, to please share with us the declassified intelligence documents you have cited in
your book concerning the election of Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII, that is, the documents on Siri, John
XXIII, and Montini. We have been searching high and low to locate these documents, using the citation
information you have provided in your book, and we have filed requests under the freedom of information
act, but all to no avail. Would it be possible for you to share these documents with us or to help us retrieve
them from the archives? If this should be associated with any fees or costs, it is not a problem; we are quite
willing to pay what may be necessary to get a hold of copies of these documents.

62
Thank you very much.

Editor
Novus Ordo Watch”95

Some seven months have now gone by since Dr. Williams initiated contact by email, with
www.novusordowatch.org however, to date, no response has been received. One would
have thought that if Dr. Williams was in fact a “Catholic traditionalist” ( as he himself has
claimed) he would have been eager to share with other “Catholic traditionalists” the
requested copies of those, supposed, state department and FBI declassified files.

FOIA’s have been filed on my behalf, in this area of interest , since 2001 and to date we
have accumulated over 4000 pages of documentation. These actions, on our part, were
taken years before the Williams book appeared. After the Williams book was released we
expanded our requests to include the alleged documents that Williams specifically
referenced as well. After almost 5 years of searching and filing FOIA’s I can only conclude
that these documents may, not exist. I will be able to give a final opinion in this matter
sometime in late 2006 or early 2007 after I have had sufficient time to review an
additional 6042 photocopies of original documentation covering the Vatican files from
1955 to 1963 that have been released to us.Certainly it makes very little sense for
Dr.Williams to have remained absolutely silent over the request made of him by
www.novusordowatch.org over seven months ago (and the same request made by myself
over 19 months ago) for copies of the documents in question.

Without authentic and independently verifiable copies of these supposed documents in

hand all one can say, for the present, is that the claims made by Dr. Williams are
unsubstantiated allegations! This fact , when taken together with the fact that Dr. Williams
repeated, in his book,”The Vatican Exposed” the allegation that Santoro was the “Secretary
of the Conclave in 1958”, (when we have clearly shown that Santoro was not involved in
any way with the Conclave of 1958 having in fact most probably died in 1943) do not bode
well for these allegations. If these alleged FBI documents really do exist ( and I personally
have grave doubts that they do), it is incumbent upon Dr.Williams to come forward and
supply independently verifiable copies of these alleged documents, and in so doing put an
end to all of our doubts.

63
Figure 17 Displayed is page 243 of the NOTES section from the Williams book “The Vatican Exposed"
originally published in May 2003. The references are not in a form that would allow interested
scholars and independent researchers to verify their existence. Any researcher who files a FOIA using
the references given on page 243 of the Williams book will be unable to either make any progress or
obtain any documents. Many, including myself, have already tried and already failed.

64
WILL THE REAL SIRI PLEASE STAND UP!

The illusion of Cardinal Siri being the champion of Tradition, the alleged pope of the
Fatima apparitions, the pope who would have much to suffer, a man who feared schism, a
man who feared the persecution of the church, the fearful martyr under duress and constant
surveillance is a myth that just does not stand “scrutiny”.

The real Siri remained firmly in communion with Rome and all four of the men that he
believed to be true popes during ,the 31 years that followed the 1958 Conclave.

Siri and our other supposed defenders might have learned much as regards the false
opening to the world from the protestant Karl Barth who wrote as follows:

And yet, even the Protestant theologian Karl Barth, posed himself the question, on that “opening to the
world”, on the part not only of Protestantism of any chapter, but also of post-Conciliar Roman
Catholicism:

“With the windows opened onto the world – he wrote – haven’t our ‘Protestants’, as well as the last
Council, gone too far? When too many windows are built and opened, the house ceases to be a house…
the concept of “Church” could be broadened to the extent that it would fade out into the dim nebulosity
of an unconscious Christianity”96

Though Cardinal Siri REFUSED to supported any traditional efforts in any way, though he
refused to have anything to do with Conservative Catholic Movements and most especially
any SEDEVACANTIST Movements and certainly nothing at all to do with what Giuffre
called a SEDE IMPEDITA Movement, he certainly found the time, the resources and the
desire to work with all types of Novus Ordo undertakings (including the formation of
Novus Ordo priests by Mother Provvidenza) as is only too evident from the following
passages:

“His Excellence Mons. Giuseppe Franciolini, Bishop of Cortona, with the consent of His
Eminence the Cardinal Siri, gave her the Carmelite religious uniform. During that ceremony the
Bishop said that, as a foundress, she had to be called also as: Madre Provvidenza. In twenty-five
years of work in the Church and for the Church, we have formed together, by God’s help, 150
priests who were sent all over the world. They were not only Italian but also priests coming from
all Continents. Thus we opened houses not only in Italy but also in many countries in the world: in
India, Philippines, Samoa, Angola, West Indies, Colombia, Ecuador, Vietnam, Myanmar,
Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina. The missionary foundations were of different kind, both active and
contemplative life. The spirit is particularly that of living and communicating a deep faith. The
main finality is that of helping the Priests who are in difficulty and that of taking care of the
formation of numerous seminarists by opening seminaries both in Italy and abroad. Anyway, the
Founder is always God: we have been only His supporters. His Eminence the Cardinal Siri wanted
Mother Providence to dedicate herself, like a real mother, to all the necessities of the candidates,
whether they were spiritual or material ones, such as: the clothing, the feeding and the general
order. He proposed to her also to edit a booklet for lay friends called “Svegliarino”, with the
supplement “Missionarium”. To write and help were always a need for her soul. There had
been instituted, indeed, also another family, besides the religious ones, called “Mother
Providence’s sons”. The Mother always received many letters from a lot of people who asked
for help and prayers, and she always strived to help and comfort them. It is written in the Gospel
indeed: “ Ask and you’ll be given; search and you’ll find; knock and you’ll be opened” (Mt 7,7).
Now, after so much work for the building of numerous houses, also overseas, despite her bad

65
 physical condition, after many sufferings, she retired into her house in Pradalunga near Bergamo,
where she could find a little time to cure herself. She had spent several years often traveling night
and day to give the Church numerous Priests and Nuns.”97

Siri had no problem assisting in these , above referenced, efforts to give the church 150
new priests of the Novus Ordo Sect, yet he could not find it within himself to assist any
Traditional Causes whatsoever. He would not even meet with prominent Traditional
leaders and writers like Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner. Nine mornings in a row she went to his
offices in Genoa in 1963 and nine mornings in a row Siri refused to see her. These same
mornings his underlings were selling copies of the book of Hans Kung in his bookstore.

Siri had no problem in naming John Paul II, or John Paul I or, Paul VI, or John XXIII to the
cannon of the mass (and why should he have had since Siri considered all four of these men
as true popes to whom he owed and gave his allegiance) which was in fact the most solemn
recognition that Siri could make of their AUTHORITY!

It would have served us all better if Cardinal Siri had spent some quality time meditating
seriously on the following text of pope Pius IX:

“IT IS A QUESTION INDEED, RESPECTABLE BROTHERS AND BELOVED SONS, OF

GRANTING OR OF REFUSING OBEDIENCE IN APOSTOLIC SEE; IT IS A QUESTION OF
RECOGNIZING HIS SUPREME AUTHORITY EVEN ON YOUR CHURCHES, AND NOT ONLY
AS FOR THE FAITH, BUT STILL AS FOR THE DISCIPLINE: THE ONE THAT DENIES IT IS
HERETICAL; THE ONE THAT RECOGNIZES IT AND THAT REFUSES OBSTINATELY TO
OBEY HIM DESERVES ANATHEMA.”98

Siri, the alleged, pope in hiding, the alleged pope who started an alleged underground line
of succession, the alleged pope who started an alleged underground clergy, the alleged
pope who wore red, also found the time in his busy schedule to become the principal
celebrant at one of the “novendiali”99 for both Paul VI and John Paul I. Yes these were
Novus Ordo masses ( novendiali are a series of nine funeral masses offered for the repose
of the deceased pope). So Siri places himself at the heart of this new church and has no
regrets doing so.

But why do we not allow Siri himself to educate us all on the value of the “new mass” .The
following is from the book by Joseph Cardinal Siri entitled “Return to the Holy Mass”
((Retorno alla Santa Messa”) that I arraged to have translated in 2005,Section title “What
for other causes renders participation more perfect.” from pages 93 and 94. I have
included the quotes in their entirety so as not to be accused of misrepresentation of Siri’s
intent.

“The perfect direction. The Holy Mass, the entire people present today, has doubtless taken on a new and
fruitful solemnity. It is no longer about a Priest telling Mass on his own, about a more or less graceful
altar boy assisting in it, about faithful attending to a certain thing that seems not to concern them. Nay!
Today there is movement, color, and choreography. And people need all this. But all this requires not a
good-natured improvisation, but an authentic direction. The altar boys and the pueri [cantores] must be
patiently and spiritually educated; the readers, the chiefs, the responsible of the various categories must
be prepared. The holy tools must have all the attention, in order to respond to the anticipation of the
solemn moment - The chants, too, wherever possible, should be managed in a collective manner. The

66
 organ is an effective and sublime instrument that, properly played, can substitute many other elements
and can alone create a stupendous environment, arousing the best and holiest emotions. - The lights play
their part, not only in allowing to see and read, but also to create a grandiose and triumphal atmosphere
around the renewed Eucharistic presence of the Lord. It is praiseworthy the custom of turning on
powerful spotlights onto the altar at the time of Consecration. The chandeliers. We will speak of these
separately, since, often, they are condemned by an iconoclastic mania to elimination, whereas they
constitute the best ornament of the Churches at all times. A protestantic presentation of exploitation,
other than being a sign of stupidity, cools down all the external presentation of the Church at the moment
of the Holy Sacrifice The experiments to reinforce all this and make it easier to the people the
participation in the Holy Sacrifice, must be known – so long as proper balance is maintained – and so
long as they do not bring into the Church a climate of dance, of carnival and of a most patent stupidity.
We are speaking of experiments, not oddness; but of the use of serious devices, useful to the faithful. We
will return to this in due time. Genoa; March 25, 1972. Joseph Card. Siri”

From the above it is clear that Siri did not have a problem with either the New Mass or
innovation in the mass ( as has also been confirmed by Dr. Gerstner and Arrigo Pintonello)
so long as that innovation did not get out of hand. Siri certainly had no problems with the
new mass because he was in fact certain that Paul VI was in fact and indeed the pope! Don
Francesco Ricossa recently wrote a book entitled “Cristina Campo, o l”ambiguita della
Tradizione” that was released in Italy in April of 2005.On page 18 of that book footnote 74
refers to Siri.The subject under discussion was the Ottaviani Intervention. All of the
Cardinals including Siri, Larraona, Cicognani as well as all of the Bishops of the synod had
refused to sign this incredible document.Siri declared to Cavaterra as follows:

“I said at the time, ‘If they ask for my signature, I will not give it to them. This was an episode that left
me very embarrassed…The liturgical reform was made, the pope had approved it, and that was enough. I
am in the position of obedience that one must always have respect for the pope, if they had asked me for
something, I believe I would have made for them certain observations, many in fact. But once a law has
been approved, I believe that what remains is only one thing: obedience’” (Cavaterra, page 117)

Giuffre and his supporters allege100 that Siri was the hidden pope unjustly defrauded of his
rightful position under threats of grave personal harm to himself, persecution of the Church
and annihilation of the Vatican by a nuclear weapon101. Yet, by some breach in logic, all of
the extremely important details of Siri’s life are conveniently overlooked by these same
researchers. The fact that Siri failed to support the Traditional Movement, (in fact he was
hostile towards it), the fact that Siri recognized John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John
Paul II as true and valid popes until his death, the fact that Siri said the new mass, ordained
in the new rite, consecrated in the new rite, signed all of the documents of Vatican II, held
high official positions in the Counter Church and defended Vatican II, tell us all we will
ever need to know about Cardinal Siri. In fact, it seems and, I think, that it can be argued,
that in 1958 , Siri, and almost the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church were, “traitors to
tradition” ,who lacked the courage to “boldly stand against the modernist current”. If this
allegation is true then GOD was betrayed by the very souls which HE had privileged by
calling them to the dignity of the priesthood!

67
Epilogue
On January 28 2006 I received a rather disturbing call from my fellow researcher Dr.
Leonard Giblin advising me that a certain article written by Mr. Gary Giuffre that had been
resident on http://www.realnews247.com/giuffre_on_oct_26_1958.htm for several months
and was also linked to by www.novusordowatch.org/siri.htm had in fact been sanitized.
The publisher of the website www.realnews247.com had quietly removed all references to
the “one of the conclave ministers” ( for 17 years Giuffre and his supporters including the
aforementioned website publisher had made it known to all and sundry that Monsignor
Santoro was the Secretary of the 1958 conclave who passed a note to Vatican Radio and
that this was precious evidence of the overthrow of Siri at the conclave, hence the reference
by Giuffre in his 2005 article entitled “Comments On The Eclipse Of The Church and
October 26, 1958” to this very same person as “one of the conclave ministers” seemed very
odd, actually suspicious to me when it was initially uploaded, months ago, to this website.
Why after years of referring specifically to Monsignor Santoro as the 1958 Conclave
minister who had allegedly passed out an alleged important note allegedly advising Prince
Chigi to inform Vatican Radio that no matter what the smoke was white and positive do
you now drop all reference to the supposed ministers identity?. For years Giuffre and his
supporters used this Santoro information as precious evidence, now in 2005 Giuffre writes
an article and all he can muster is “one of the conclave ministers”. It was suspicious to me
because it signaled that Mr. Giuffre was concerned about the veracity of his own research?
In fact I will quote, in full, Mr. Giuffre in his article referenced above from his fourth
paragraph:
“The fact that the new Pope did not emerge onto the balcony that night, even though one of the
conclave ministers sent out a confirmation that “no matter what, the smoke is white and
positive.” Which was made public, gives clear evidence that something had gone wrong inside
the conclave”. (Reference to the original article that originally resided at
http://www.realnews247.com/giuffre_on_oct_26_1958.htm a copy of which is kept
unchanged in my archives)
Giuffre refers to a conclave minister, inside the conclave, who is left unnamed but who
passed out a note that indicated that “no matter what, the smoke is white and positive” and
this he then says is “clear evidence that something had gone wrong in the conclave”.
Sometime before Jan. 28, 2006 the website publisher changed this paragraph to read as
follows:
“The fact that the new Pope did not emerge onto the balcony that night, with no official
explanation ever emanating from the Vatican why there were voluminous clouds of white smoke
billowing out of the Sistine Chapel stovepipe, without interruption, and for so long a time, gives
compelling evidence that something most serious must have gone wrong inside the conclave”
(reference to the totally revised article that now resides at exactly the same address
giving the reader the impression that nothing had changed
http://www.realnews247.com/giuffre_on_oct_26_1958.htm a copy of which is also kept
unchanged in my archives)

68
You will immediately notice that, in this unannounced new version, there is no longer any
reference to “one of the conclave ministers” nor is there any further reference to a
“confirmation” note that had ominously declared that “no matter what, the smoke is white
and positive”. When an article is substantially revised or updated or changed it is
customary to notify the readers of your website (or book or article) that said article has
been updated, changed or revised. It is also necessary, in cases such as this to advise why
these changes were necessary, especially when these changes regard the elimination of
what was hitherto for 17 years presented by these supposed researchers as precious
evidence of a revolution in the conclave of 1958 and therefore a major piece of evidence
for the Siri Thesis. These researchers remove all reference to what they had for 17 years
declared to be a major piece of evidence without so much as a word? No explanation?
Quietly, sanitized, history rewritten as if it just never happened!
The timing here is very interesting .You see during the first week in January 2006 Mr.
Hutton Gibson released his “WAR IS NOW” issue #66 in which his readers were advised
that after proper fact checking we had discovered that allegations made by Giuffre for
almost two decades, and considered by him as precious evidence, of a revolt in the
conclave of 1958 were in fact false. No “note” had ever been passed out of the 1958
conclave “surreptitiously” or otherwise claiming that ““no matter what, the smoke is
white and positive” by Monsignor Santoro or as Giuffre lately put it “one of the conclave
ministers” because Santoro was not at the 1958 Conclave, he was not the Secretary of the
Conclave because he most probably had died 15 years before the event in 1943.Now rather
than openly admit and acknowledge that Mr. Gibson was correct and that Giuffre and his
supporters ( including the website publisher at www.realnews247.com ) had made “a
major error of fact” that could easily have been verified decades before with proper
research and fact checking they quietly revised their writings to eliminate previous
references to conclave ministers, notes, messages and all of this supposed evidence that for
years was presented , by this group of novice researchers, as precious fact . Credibility is
the issue in question here. As researchers they failed to check their facts and when others
checked the facts and declared their allegations false these researchers did not have the
courage to admit their shortcomings but rather the chose to quietly sanitize their article.
They refused to admit error ,refocused their article and the website publishers comments to
focus on their now failsafe fallback position of the white smoke that was seen on October
26, 1958 by hundreds of thousands of people, reported worldwide, commented on radio on
shortwave and written about in newspapers. The article was changed, sanitized of all
evidence that pointed to their collective shortcomings as researchers hoping that no one
would notice, care or comment. There are many words to describe these actions and not
one of them is either goodwill or love of truth.
These were not the only changes and revisions that were made. This website publisher
removed all of his earlier, personal comments that appeared, in the original version of this
article, under the heading of “Note from this website’s publishers;” and in this new
version, he extensively rewrote, revised, updated and added an AP wire article , supposed
testimonies and much more. In essence the supposed precious evidence of Santoro and his
non existent note from the article of Silvio Negro, Italy’s most respected journalist were
jettisoned; in favor of what these researchers feel is an unassailable fallback position of
“THE WHITE SMOKE”. Rather than openly and honestly admitting the errors pointed out

69
by Mr. Hutton Gibson they immediately change their tactics midstream and continue to
generate confusion where in fact none really existed, that is, if Giuffre and his supporters
had actually done the research that they claim to have done.
In essence here is their new fallback position as revised after the appearance of Gibson’s
newsletter #66. I quote from the first page, paragraph number 4, the article that appears
under Giuffre’s name at http://www.realnews247.com/giuffre_on_oct_26_1958.htm :
“The fact that the new Pope did not emerge onto the balcony that night, with no official
explanation ever emanating from the Vatican why there were voluminous clouds of white smoke
billowing out of the Sistine Chapel stovepipe, without interruption, and for so long a time, gives
compelling evidence that something most serious must have gone wrong inside the conclave”

So their new position, as outlined in this newly revised article, is now that the Siri Thesis
must be true because:
1) These researchers claim that there was no explanation for the white smoke
that was ever forthcoming from the Vatican (this claim is patently not true as
Chigi gave a full explanation on 26 October 1958 which was published by
Silvio Negro on 27 October 1958!)
2) These researchers claim that the white smoke was voluminous and therefore
was evidence of a positive election ( Yes it was in fact voluminous and for that
very fact according to Prince Chigi it was proof of a negative vote rather than
a positive vote as is alleged by Giuffre and his supporters)
3) These researchers claim that the white smoke came out uninterrupted for a
long time (Yes the smoke did in fact come out for a long time and for that
very fact that it was long, according to Prince Chigi it was proof of a negative
vote)
4) According to these researchers these three points therefore constitute
“compelling evidence” (Yes I agree that in fact these three points do in fact
constitute compelling evidence of the very opposite result than that which is
claimed by Giuffre and if the research that Giuffre claims to have done, had
actually been done, he would have known the facts that Prince Chigi pointed
out on 26 October 1958. The Siri Thesis in its entirety is totally without a
shred of merit)

In the following instances I will first list the claims or allegations made by the
www.realnews247.com website publishers in their section “Note from this website’s
publishers;” of Giuffre’s article and follow this with the answers provided by Prince Chigi
on October 26 1958.This will once and for all put an end to these ridiculous allegations!

70
WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #1
Further the website publishers www.realnews247.com gives us a full explanation of how
they understand the stove in the conclave to actually work. Here is what they say:
“Black smoke is produced at a conclave by burning wet straw in the stove. (Black smoke
indicates to the outside world that no pope was elected.) White smoke is produced by burning dry
straw in the stove. Prolonged and consistent white smoke indicates that the Pope has just been
elected. Why say that the white smoke must be "prolonged and consistent"? Because to get the
fire started after each particular balloting, the first batch of straw placed in the stove must always
be dry, which necessarily causes a few puffs of white smoke to ascend. If no pope had been
elected on that particular ballot, then once the dry straw catches fire, wet straw is quickly added
to produce the steady black smoke.”

So from the website publishers notes www.realnews247.com we now learn that “Prolonged and
consistent white smoke indicates that the Pope has just been elected.” Further we learn from him
why the smoke must be prolonged and consistent, “ Because to get the fire started after each
particular balloting, the first batch of straw placed in the stove must always be dry, which
necessarily causes a few puffs of white smoke to ascend.”

PRINCE CHIGI’S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION #1

Prince Chigi was the Marshall of the conclave in 1958 and here is what he explained on
October 26, 1958 that was reported by Silvio Negro on October 27, 1958:

“Be that as it may, the rule to avoid being mislead is this: if the “fumata” is long, for the
mere fact that it is long it is already negative; the good one will always be a short “fumata”
and of a white that is almost transparent, for, in that case, only the ballot papers are burnt,
and nothing else. Unfortunately, it is a rule that never agrees with the anxiety of he that is
bound to provide the first news”.102

So we see that Prince Chigi in the Silvio Negro article of the 27th of October 1958, “Due
prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28
ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); had quickly provided a detailed explanation and placed this incident (the
incident of the confusion over the white smoke) into it’s proper perspective .Prince Chigi’s
explanation and analysis, of the appearance of the white smoke on Oct 26th, 1958 is in fact
the exact opposite of what the website publisher at www.realnews247.com. Prince Chigi
who had officiated at 3 conclaves claimed that the rule used to avoid being mislead is that
if the smoke “fumata” is long for the mere fact that it is long it is already negative! The
good one Chigi says is always short, and of a white that is almost transparent because only
paper ballots are burned.

71
WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #2
Further according to this website publisher www.realnews247.com if a pope is truly elected we
would see a great amount of white smoke for a long period:
“On the other hand, if a Pope has just been elected, then those charged with tending the stove in
the Sistine Chapel continue to push dry straw only into the fire in the stove, producing white
smoke. There is only one logical reason that significant quantities of dry straw would be loaded
into the Sistine Chapel stove for five full minutes, such as happened on October 26, 1958 at 5:55
PM: a Pope had been elected by the cardinals, he had accepted, and he had chosen a name.”

PRINCE CHIGI’S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION #2

Prince Chigi was the Marshall of the conclave in 1958 and here is what he explained on
October 26, 1958 that was reported by Silvio Negro on October 27, 1958:

“Be that as it may, the rule to avoid being mislead is this: if the “fumata” is long, for the
mere fact that it is long it is already negative; the good one will always be a short “fumata”
and of a white that is almost transparent, for, in that case, only the ballot papers are burnt,
and nothing else. Unfortunately, it is a rule that never agrees with the anxiety of he that is
bound to provide the first news”.103

So we see that Prince Chigi in the Silvio Negro article of the 27th of October 1958, “Due
prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28
ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); had quickly provided a detailed explanation and placed this incident (the
incident of the confusion over the white smoke) into it’s proper perspective .Prince Chigi’s
explanation and analysis, of the appearance of the white smoke on Oct 26th, 1958 is in fact
the exact opposite of what the website publisher at www.realnews247.com. Prince Chigi
who had officiated at 3 conclaves claimed that the rule used to avoid being misled is that if
the smoke “fumata” is long for the mere fact that it is long it is already negative! The
good one Chigi says is always short, and of a white that is almost transparent because
only paper ballots are burned.

WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #3

Further we learn, and it is alleged by the websites publishers www.realnews247.com notes
that no one ever offered an explanation for the white smoke:
“It is significant that those who took control of the Vatican on that night have never offered any
coherent explanation to this day for the five minutes of white smoke on October 26, 1958. Over 47
years have since passed at the time of this writing.”

72
PRINCE CHIGI’S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION # 3

Here is Prince Chigi’s detailed response to the issue of the white smoke as reported in the
second article written by Silvio Negro on Oct. 27, 1958 appearing under the title of “Due
prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28
ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.);

Prince Chigi speaks out

The old Romans have been more cautious, mindful of past experiences. In fact, it’s not a
puff or two of white smoke that counts; what counts is that black smoke must never be
seen. That white smoke appears at first, even when the “fumata” is black, is an inevitable
thing, since the fire cannot be lit with damp straw; it must be lit with paper or dry straw,
and in that case the smoke is, necessarily, white. Only then are damp straw and other
ingredients added. Therefore, the early signs are not to be taken as final, no matter how
conspicuous they might appear; what is required, rather, is patience, even because, in the
face of all possible expedients, the smokestack which so many eyes are now fastened upon,
remains capricious, and never does fulfill in full the intentions of he that operates, down
below, the tongs and the shovel.

“But how is that possible, with all the advancements that chemistry has achieved?”
remarked some disillusioned people, yesterday. One might respond that if the chances of a
misunderstanding were, this time, so much greater than in the past, the thing is in fact due
to the circumstance that yesterday they had made innovations, convinced that the panacea
would be found in certain chemical preparations. Be that as it may, the rule to avoid being
mislead is this: if the “fumata” is long, for the mere fact that it is long it is already negative;
the good one will always be a short “fumata” and of a white that is almost transparent, for,
in that case, only the ballot papers are burnt, and nothing else. Unfortunately, it is a rule
that never agrees with the anxiety of he that is bound to provide the first news”.104
So we see that Prince Chigi in the Silvio Negro article of the 27th of October 1958,
“Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255,
27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); had quickly provided a detailed explanation and placed this
incident (the incident of the confusion over the white smoke) into it’s proper
perspective .Prince Chigi’s explanation and analysis, of the appearance of the white smoke
on Oct 26th, 1958 is in fact the exact opposite of what the website publishers, Giuffre and
“The Siri Thesis” supporters have claimed, for 17 years. Further Prince Chigi claimed that

73
this situation, this exact situation had certainly happened in the past and one can understand
why, only when one is totally familiar with how the stove really operates.

WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #4

Further we learn from the websites publishers www.realnews247.com notes that Prince Chigi gave
a press interview:
“Notice above that Sigismondo Chigi, the conclave marshal, gave a press interview after the
excitement caused by the white smoke of 5:55 PM on October 26, 1958 was over. Chigi related that
the smoke varied in color more than he had ever seen in the three conclaves at which he had been
present (presumably the 1922 conclave which elected Pope Pius XI, the 1939 conclave which
elected Pope Pius XII, and this 1958 conclave).”

PRINCE CHIGI’S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION # 4

It is interesting to note that Giuffre and the website publishers at www.realnews247.com

are in a habit of providing “sound bites” in the form of brief excerpts from article however
they never provide the references for the articles in question that then could be
independently located, read and confirmed. From this very same article unreferenced above
by the website publishers Prince Chigi confirmed that the reason that such varied colors
appeared was the result of the fact that chemistry was indeed employed at the conclave of
1958. Here is what Prince Chigi (in the article written by Silvio Negro on Oct. 27, 1958
appearing under the title of “Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il
Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott. p. 1 (C.d.I.); has to say on this matter:

“But how is that possible, with all the advancements that chemistry has achieved?”
remarked some disillusioned people, yesterday. One might respond that if the chances of a
misunderstanding were, this time, so much greater than in the past, the thing is in fact due
to the circumstance that yesterday they had made innovations, convinced that the panacea
would be found in certain chemical preparations. Be that as it may, the rule to avoid being
mislead is this: if the “fumata” is long, for the mere fact that it is long it is already negative;
the good one will always be a short “fumata” and of a white that is almost transparent, for,
in that case, only the ballot papers are burnt, and nothing else. Unfortunately, it is a rule
that never agrees with the anxiety of he that is bound to provide the first news.”105

So it is cleat that www.realnews247.com has offered detailed commentary on matters that

they are totally ignorant of.If they had been fully informed then they would have known
that “certain chemical preparations” were used in the conclave of 1958 and that this fact
(the using of certain chemical preparations) explains, according to Prince Chigi himself the
reason for the varied smoke color. The question that comes to my mind is this having
quoted a brief excerpt from the article in which Prince Chigi refers to the varied nature of

74
the smoke why would these researchers not continue to read this article in full and thus
provide Prince Chigi’s answers in full as we have done?

WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #5

Further we learn from the websites publishers notes www.realnews247.com that:

“It might be of interest that Fr. Charles-Roux first came to the attention of those spearheading this
investigation when Mrs. Deidre Manifold, author of Fatima and the Great Conspiracy and other
books, mentioned to this webmaster that a certain priest would be able to relate what had happened
within the 1958 conclave. Mrs. Manifold asserted that he was Fr. Charles-Roux, and that he was
actually inside the conclave. (This conversation took place in the early 1990s during the Saturday
evening dinner at a weekend conference organized by Holy Family Monastery in Berlin, New
Jersey; Deidre. Manifold was an invited speaker, and had traveled all the way from Ireland for the
occasion.) However, while granting interviews about this subject on several occasions, Fr.
Charles-Roux has never confirmed to date that he was, indeed, inside that conclave”.

AUTHORS RESPONSE TO WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #5

The allegation made by Mrs. Manifold that Fr. Charles-Roux was actually inside the
1958 conclave is in total error, we have in our possession the complete AAS list of the
Clerics who participated in the 1958 and 1963 conclaves and Fr. Charles-Roux is not
listed among those who participated ,and as such ,claims made by Mrs. Manifold and
repeated by the website publishers at www.realnews247.com are not correct and it is
clear that the website publishers suspected as much because they indicated that the
presence of Charles-Roux at the conclave had never been confirmed. Why was this
unsubstantiated allegation repeated at all if www.realnews247.com was not prepared
to confirm its veracity one way or another? The AAS lists are readily available at
most major USA seminaries as well as larger USA Catholic Universities. The website
publishers at www.realnews247.com should refrain totally from commenting on
facts and issues that they have not taken the time to independently investigate and
fact check.

WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #6

Further we learn from the websites publishers www.realnews247.com notes that:

“Both the late Prince Paul Scortesco and the late Malachi Martin have stated in writing that
outside communications entered the the 1963 conclave. Martin writes of the "little

75
brutality" of 1963, leaving some close to this investigation wondering if Malachi had
remained silent on the unmentioned "big brutality" of 1958, the year which marked the
cataclysmic turning point for the Church.”

AUTHORS RESPONSE TO WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #6

The allegations made by the website publishers at www.realnews247.com are nothing
more than the repeating of hearsay. Since neither Martin nor Scortesco were present
at the conclaves of either 1958 or 1963 their allegations that outside communications
entered the conclave of 1963 are nothing more that unsubstantiated rumor or gossip.
We have in our possession the complete AAS list of the Clerics who participated in the
1958 and 1963 conclaves and Fr. Malachi Martin is not listed and was not present in
either the conclave of 1958 nor that of 1963. We also have the same details for the lay
participants and as such are able to ascertain that Scortesco was also not present at
either conclave.

WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #7

What could threaten the very existence of the Vatican City State other than the nuclear
weapons that were available for the first time in history to the Ruling Elite behind the
intertwined Masonic/Communist/Zionist powers? Informed observers now know that at
that time these Judeo-Masonic forces controlled both the upper echelons of the executive
government in both the Eisenhower administration in the USA and the Khrushchev regime
in the USSR. In 1958, only the USA and the USSR had nuclear weapons. The Vicar of
Christ found himself in a predicament comparable to what the early Popes experienced
during the first centuries A.D. Within a few years, the Church herself was forced into the
catacombs again where no nation could or would defend her against the dominant powers
of the day.

AUTHORS RESPONSE TO WEBSITE PUBLISHERS ALLEGATION #7

The totally unwarranted and insinuations made by the website publishers at

www.realnews247.com outlined in Allegation #7, that the USA and the USSR had nuclear
weapons ( we should note that England had them as well at this time) and that this fact
somehow threatened the very existence of the Vatican are absolutely incredible, totally
unsubstantiated allegations, without a shred of evidence for support, dangerous assertions
that are totally without merit on the face of it. The allegation that participants in the

76
conclave of 1958 were subjected to credible threats against themselves and the Vatican in
the form of the explosion of a HYDROGEN BOMB OVER VATICAN CITY have also
has been claimed by Giuffre in personal correspondence in my possession. Such totally
fictional allegations do a total disservice to any attempt at credible research into the
problems that befell the Catholic Church after 1958.
I could go on at even greater length regarding the removal of all references by the website
publishers of www.realnews247.com to all other materials previously referenced by this
same site including extensive excerpts from Ab Initio and www.eclipseofthechurch.com
specifically http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/Eclipse1958.htm . Why was it necessary
that all of this material be removed, without notice of any kind? Material that prior to June
28 2006 and for some 17 years had been cited ad nausea as evidence confirming the
existence of a revolt in the Vatican in the conclave of 1958. With a few simple key strokes
the shortcomings in the supposed research, all of the errors, concerning Santoro and his non
existent note were removed, without the need for anyone to admit their errors of fact and
analysis! All of this material was removed because, Hutton Gibson had earlier in the month
of Jan. 2006 exposed some of the errors in the Siri Thesis that had hitherto been considered
as fact, and Gibson exposed Giuffre and his supporters as novice researchers who failed
repeatedly to check their alleged facts!
The conclusion to this entire unfortunate series of events is this, THE SIRI THESIS IS
WITHOUT MERIT!

FAIR USE NOTICE

This brief article contains copyrighted material the use of which may not always
have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of scientific,
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice
issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article or on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted
material from this article or this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair
use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

77
All images, photocopies of articles, photocopies of books, magazines, journals, books, all
illustrations and extended portions of articles previously published and used, in whole or
in part, in this article are and remain the property of their respective copyright owners.
To the best of our ability we have identified the source of any information that we have
used.

78
1
http://www.archives.nd.edu/episodes/visitors/rhb/essays02.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
2
http://www.archives.nd.edu/episodes/visitors/rhb/essays02.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
3
http://www.archives.nd.edu/episodes/visitors/rhb/essays02.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
4
Mr. Giuffre on http://www.thepopeinred.com (web address current as of October 31, 2005).was recently described as
follows :
“ Known as the world’s foremost researcher into the 1958 conclave and Siri, Mr. Giuffre published a number of
compelling articles in the late 1980s which have become known around the world, and some articles since that time”.

5
.Silvio Mattacchione had originally been introduced to the “The Siri Thesis” by an acquaintance in the UK .In time Silvio
Mattacchione began to communicate extensively with the American from Texas most identified with this thesis, Mr. Gary Giuffre.
Silvio Mattacchione and Mr. Giuffre exchanged personal communications by phone, fax, and email almost daily for approximately 7
years. Silvio Mattacchione assisted Mr. Giuffre in many ways, including personally translating ( in August 1999) complete chapters
of original Italian texts of Cardinal Joseph Siri’s writings that originally appeared in various issues of RENOVATIO over many
years but later compiled into an anthology that appeared under the title “Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia”originally published in Italy
(OPERE DEL CARDINALE GIUSEPPE SIRI PUBBLICATE SOTTO GLI AUSPICI DELLA PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA
TEOLOGICA ROMANA- COMITATO D'ONORE Card. WILLIAM BAUM-Card. PIETRO PALAZZINI- Prof. don LUIGI
BOGLIOLO, s.d.b. Mons. MAURO PIACENZA Mons. ANTONIO PIOLANTI Padre RAIMONDO SPIAZZI, o.p.
ASSOCIAZIONE "OPERE DEL CARDINALE GIUSEPPE SIRI"-CONSIGLIO DIRETTIVO Prof. don DARIO COMPOSTA,
s.d.b. (Presidente) Padre AMBROGIO FSZER, O.p Mons. BRUNERO GHERARDINI Mons. GUIDO MERANI Comm. LUIGI
RIGHI SCHWAMMER, Prof. FRANCESCO LEONI,Don NICOLA LANZI(Segretario - Redattore) REDAZIONE Padre LUIGI
CARROZZ,, C.R.S. - Prof GIUSEPPE PARODI di PARODI- OPERE DEL CARDINALE GIUSEPPE SIRI XIII. PARTE I -
OPERE TEOLOCICHE- QUESTO VOLUME VIENE PUBBLICATO GRAZIE AL CONTRIBUTO DELLA MIRA LANZA
S.P.A. DI GENOVA E DEL PROF. ARNALDO CANZIANI,1987, Giardini Editori E Stampatori, Piza,Italy ), translating letters to
and from Arch Bishop Arrigo Pintonello. This series of translations of the writings of Cardinal Joseph Siri was provided to Mr.
Giuffre ( at no cost) by Silvio Mattacchione in the 4th quarter of 1999.This series of “Siri”translations were eventually uploaded
( late 2004) on www.novusordowatch.org and now appear on various sites on the world wide web. In all fairness it is very important
that the readers of this article are made fully aware of the fact that, even though, unfortunately, I had never independently fact
checked the allegations made by Giuffre, having assumed their accuracy, from 1998 until 2003 I was a supporter of Mr. Giuffre and
“The Siri Thesis”. From 2003 until April 2004 I had reason to question and then doubt the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Giuffre
regarding Siri and I had, indeed, mentioned to several people that ”“something is wrong with this Siri issue, something is missing
and we do not have the whole picture” and by March 2005 I was in fact convinced that no actual proof whatever had ever been
forthcoming for the allegations that Cardinal Joseph Siri had been elected pope (Pope Gregory XVII as claimed by Giuffre) in 1958,
1963 and twice in 1978 and began to independently check the facts. However it was not until October 13, 2005 that I finally
identified the factual errors in the Siri Thesis.
6
Based upon a very preliminary analysis it seems that “The Siri Thesis” outline, as prepared by Mr. von Peters, consists of a
total of 22,031 words in a total of 31 pages, 382 paragraphs, 1,507 lines of which it seems that approximately 8 pages, or 80
paragraphs, totaling about 323 lines or about 4803 words are directly concerned with prophecy. So just over 20% of all that
is written is concerned with prophecies.

7
Mr. Giuffre is neither a historian nor experienced investigative journalist. He was not trained in historical research.
Mr.Giuffré was born in Houston, Texas in 1949, studied illustration and art history at the University of Houston, where he
received his Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree in 1972.
8
The title “The Siri Thesis” as well as the compilation (available on many websites on the internet) was written by William
G. von Peters, Ph.D. The compilation that appears under the title of “The Siri Thesis” was originally copyright 1995 by
William G. von Peters, Ph.D. The title “The Siri Thesis” is copyright by William von Peters. Prior Copyright to source
documents, newsletters, etc., provided by Gary Giuffré or others remains with them. Original copyright by von Peters 1995
updated 8/20/96 and 8/28/2005.

9
Giuffre and Spigornell would have us believe that Prince Chigi was stunned by the event and was unable to explain what
had transpired, yet Giuffre and Spigornell fail to cite that Prince Chigi provided a detailed explanation as regards the issue
of the white smoke, as reported in the article written by Silvio Negro on Oct. 27, 1958 appearing under the title of “Due
prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.);.This detailed
explanation , by Prince Chigi, is totally contrary to the allegations made by Giuffre and Spigornell.
10
Silvio Negro (1897-1959) Born the 15th April 1897 in Chiampo, in the locality of Valloscura . Attended and graduated
"Pigafetta" the classic grammar school of Vicenza,. He was enrolled in the Arts Faculty at the University of Padova. After
his degree he moved to Rome and began to write for many important national newspapers and reviews from the
“L’Osservatore Romano ",” IL caffè “to the review “Epoca ". In 1926 he took a permanent position with “Corriere della
Sera ", as a reporter. He soon became their official commentator for religious and political issues. Silvio Negro as a person
was dedicated to the collection of old photographs and wrote several books including "Vaticano minore" (1936) winner of
the Bagutta prize; "L'Ordinamento della Chiesa Cattolica" (1940); "Seconda Roma, 1850-1870" (1943); "Album Romano,
fotografie di un secolo" (1956); "Roma, non basta una vita" (1962); "La stella boara" (1964). Silvio Negro died in Rome 3
November 1959.Mr. Giuffre at a recent conference in the 2nd quarter of 2005 while making a presentation on “The Siri
Thesis” implied, without actually saying so, in so many words, that the death of Silvio Negro had been the unfortunate
consequence of the article written by Silvio Negro and published on the evening of Oct. 27, 1958.Clearly in light of the
revelations made in this article this allegation has no merit. There is no record of foul play in the death of Silvio Negro.

11
What follows is a complete list of articles written by Silvio Negro in 1958.Silvio Negro was the most respected and
accomplished journalist in Italy.
La sorte di Villa Chigi, 5, 5 gen., p. 5;
Negli ordini religiosi nuovi si preferisce vestire in borghese, 8, 9 gen., p. 3;
Ogni romano può valere tanto quanto Pasquino, 17, 19 gen., p. 3;
[S.N.], Enorme scalpore suscitato da un articolo del cardinale Ottaviani, 19, 22 gen., p. 1;
[S.N.], Penosa impressione in Vaticano per il tragico gesto del principe, 25, 29 gen., p. 5;
Con le sue pazze collezioni ha fatto disperare lo Stato, 26, 30 gen., p. 3;
[S.N.], Il principe Doria Pamphili si è spento improvvisamente a Roma, 31, 5 feb., p. 7;
Fermo richiamo del Papa alla spiritualità di vita dei religiosi, 38, 13 feb., p. 5;
Antichi documenti vagano da una strtada all’altra di Roma, 41, 16 feb., p. 3;
"Quasi" trovata a Vulci la chiave della lingua etrusca, 44, 20 feb., p. 3;
Nota del Vaticano a Palazzo Chigi per uno scritto ingiurioso di Peyrefitte, 48, 25 feb., p. 1;
L’ultimo sonno dei pontefici, 52, 1 mar., p. 3;
Vogliono dragare il Tevere per trarne un favoloso tesoro, 57, 7 mar., p. 3;
Il più antico teatro di Roma si apre dopo un lungo letargo, 61, 12 mar., p. 3;
Sistemi antiquati non permettono alla polizia di tener testa ai criminali, 63, 14 mar., p. 5;
La polizia ha bisogno di aggiornare i suoi sistemi, 67, 19 mar., p. 7;
Il Papa esorta i giovani cattolici a "guardare con speranza all’avvenire", 68, 20 mar., p. 2;
La massima biblioteca di Roma costretta a chiudere i battenti, 75, 28 mar., p. 5;
E’ stata scoperta a Tarquinia una tomba etrusca dipinta, 76, 29 mar., p. 3;
Di sera i riti pasquali che prima si celebravano al mattino, 79, 2 apr., p. 7;
Primi i tedeschi poi i francesi tra i turisti della Pasqua a Roma, 81, 4 apr., p. 5;
Il dramma del vecchio poeta fra i fantasmi del mondo che fu, 87, 11 apr., p. 3;
Troppe e troppo poche le biblioteche di Roma, 99, 25 apr., p. 3;
[S.N.], Il cardinale Stritch in clinica per un improvviso grave malore, 101, 27 apr., p. 7;
Una nuova sconosciuta città vota con Roma ad ogni elezione, 108, 7 mag., p. 5;
Rivelazioni a Villa Savoia che sta per diventare parco pubblico, 119, 20 mag., p. 3;
Un giro di cancellate per la dignità del Colosseo, 128, 30 mag., p. 3;
Roma ha fatto eccezione rispetto al resto del paese, 130, 1 giu., p. 7;
Uomini politici e belle signore negli splendidi giardini del Quirinale, 131, 3 giu., p. 3;
L’infortunio artistico di un grande Papa urbanista, 135, 7 giu., p. 3;
Il nostro castagno resiste all’assalto di un flagello mondiale, 147, 21 giu., p. 7;
[S.N.], Benedetta la nuova tomba del cardinale Bessarione, 149, 24 giu., p. 5;
Farà il Codice delle missioni il cardinale nato nel Caucaso, 153, 28 giu., p. 3;
Il geniale esperimento di un agronomo in Lucchesia, 158, 4 lug., p. 3;
Ieri magre pannocchiette oggi pannocchie giganti, 161, 8 lug., p. 3;
Clamoroso ingresso in Vaticano della pittura e della scultura moderne, 163, 10 lug., p. 3;
Per la prima volta la radio entra nei conventi di clausura, 166, 13 lug., p. 5;
[S.N.], Una levatrice impazzita getta dal secondo piano un bimbo di tre mesi, 177, 26 lug., p. 9;
[S.N.], Confermato da varie circostanze che l’ostetrica è alterata di mente, 178, 27 lug., p. 9;
L’Engadina si è fatta ricca con le cose che la rendevano povera, 190, 10 ago., p. 3;
I vecchi cognomi d’Engadina sono gli stessi di Milano, 194, 15 ago., p. 3;
Quando Roma era ridotta a soli ventimila abitanti, 196, 19 ago., p. 3;
 Udienza senza etichetta ogni mercoledì a Castelgandolfo, 199, 22 ago., p. 3;
Fu per pura combinazione che la Gibson sparò su Mussolini, 204, 28 ago., p. 5;
La tesi degli autotrasportatori contro le limitazioni al traffico pesante, 208, 2 set., p. 2;
Sono dodici i vescovi consacrati abusivamente in Cina, 215, 10 set., p. 5;
[S.N.], La scomparsa dell’ing. Velani grande tecnico, grande patriota, 217, 12 set., p. 5;
Un vetro invisibile per la Colonna Antonina, 222, 18 set., p. 3;
Poteri non delegabili, 239, 8 ott., p. 1;
Piangono le suore infermiere porgendo il crocefisso al Papa, 240, 9 ott., p. 1;
Preghiere e pianti per Pio XII negli ultimi istanti, 241, 10 ott., pp. 1-2;
Un prete e una zingara gli annunciarono il triregno, 241, 10 ott., p. 3;
[S.N.], Possibile non probabile che venga eletto uno straniero, 241, 10 ott., p. 5;
Una difficile eredità, 242, 11 ott., p. 1;
[S.N.], Più comodi che in passato gli alloggi degli eminentissimi, 242, 11 ott., p. 5;
In Vaticano si prevede l’elezione di un italiano, 243, 12 ott., p. 1;
Pio XII sarà tumulato presso la tomba di San Pietro, 243, 13-14 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.);
Cinquantamila fedeli attesero invano per vedere la salma, 244, 14 ott., p. 1;
[S.N.], Arrivano a Roma i cardinali mentre in Vaticano si prepara il Conclave, 245, 15 ott., p. 1;
[S.N.], Esclusa la nomina di un Papa straniero si prospetta una soluzione di transizione, 246, 16 ott., p. 1;
Suor Pasqualina si prepara a tornare al suo convento in Svizzera, 246, 16 ott., p. 3;
Il Governo non intende esercitare alcuna influenza sulla scelta del Papa, 247, 17 ott., p. 1;
I francesi appoggerebbero Roncalli e Spellman sosterrebbe la candidatura di Agagianian, 248, 18 ott., p. 1;
Previsioni di un Conclave breve mentre scoppia lo scandalo Galeazzi Lisi, 249, 19 ott., p. 1;
Galeazzi Lisi si dimette dalle cariche vaticane, 249, 20-21 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.);
Qualche possibilità per Mindszenty d'intervenire al prossimo Conclave, 250, 21 ott., p. 1;
I pronostici sono favorevoli ad Agagianian ma è sempre difficile prevedere l’esito dei Conclavi, 251, 22 ott., p. 1;
Il Vaticano smentisce l’esistenza dei presunti "diari" di Pio XII, 252, 23 ott., p. 1;
Domani i candidati entrano in Conclave, 253, 24 ott., p. 1;
Aumenta l’attesa per le "fumate" di domani, ma non si deve credere che il Papa sia stato già scelto, 254, 25 ott., p. 1;
Morto improvvisamente il cardinale Mooney, 255, 26 ott., pp. 1-2;
Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.);
Minoranze tenaci si oppongono alle candidature più favorite, 256, 28 ott., p. 1;
Giovanni XXIII: nome che annuncia un programma di assestamento e rinnovamento, 257, 29 ott., p. 2;
[S.N.], Come conquistò il cuore di Venezia, 257, 29 ott., p. 3;
Mons. Tardini pro-segretario di Stato, 258, 30 ott., p. 1;
La terza "obbedienza" dei cardinali ha chiuso formalmente il Conclave, 259, 31 ott., p. 1;
L’aumento del numero dei cardinali potrebbe equilibrare il Sacro Collegio, 261, 2 nov., p. 1;
Il solenne pontificale in un quadro stupendo, 263, 5 nov., pp. 1-2;
[S.N.], "Consacreremo la nostre forze al servizio della pace, della giustizia e della vera libertà, 264, 6 nov., p. 5;
Il Papa sorridendo smentisce le pretese indiscrezioni sul Conclave, 265, 7 nov., p. 3;
[S.N.], Il Leone di San Marco nello stemma del Pontefice, 272, 15 nov., p. 5;
Tutti Cattolici nel Sud-America ma il clero è più scarso che altrove, > 273, 16 nov., p. 5;
Ventitrè nuovi cardinali: Mons. Tardini Segretario di Stato, 274, 17 nov., p. 1;
[S.N.], I nuovi cardinali, 274, 17 nov., p. 2;
[S.N.], Domani il Papa visiterà la villa di Castelgandolfo, 276, 20 nov., p. 5;
Giovanni XXIII ha visitato la Villa pontificia di Castelgandolfo, 278,24 nov., p. 5;
Solenne e fastoso rito in Laterano per la "presa di possesso" di Giovanni XXIII, 279, 24-25 nov., p. 7 (C.d.I.);
Inattesa visita del Pontefice al capezzale di un infermo, 238, 28 nov., p. 5;
Non scompariranno tutti i "pro" nella normalizzazione della Curia, 285, 30 nov., p. 5;
[S.N.], Il Papa visita sul Gianicolo il collegio di Propaganda Fide, 285, 1-2 dic., p. 9 (C.d.I.);
[S.N.], Il problema dell’inserimento della nostra agricoltura nel M.E.C., 287, 3 dic., p. 5;
Giorni febbrili per i sarti che stan cucendo le nuove porpore, 293, 11 dic., p. 5;
Giovedì tra tante porpore una cappa magna marrone, 296, 14 dic., p. 5;
Angosciosa protesta del Papa per la minaccia di scisma in Cina, 297,16 dic., pp. 1-2;
[S.N.], Gronchi imporrà oggi la berretta al Card. Fietta, 298, 17 dic., p. 5;
Il Papa conferisce nel Concistoro le insegne della nuova dignità a venti cardinali, 299, 18 dic., p. 5;
Il Papa impone con solenne rito il "galero rosso" ai nuovi cardinali, 300, 19 dic., p. 5;
[S.N.], Montini ha preso possesso della sua chiesa titolare, 302, 21 dic., p. 5;
[S.N.], Il Papa esorta i popoli all’unità e alla pace, 304, 24 dic., pp. 1-2;
Commovente visita di Giovanni XXIII alla città dolente di Regina Coeli, 306, 27 dic., pp. 1-2;
[S.N.], "A Venezia si può andare anche con l’aeroplano", 307, 29-30 dic., p. 1;
12
H. Spigornell is the alias of a long time friend, translator, collaborator and supporter of Gary Giuffre and the Siri thesis.
Her true identity is known to me but it would serve no useful purpose to disclose it. My purpose is only to clarify the truth,
surrounding the events of the Conclave of 1958.
13
Monsignore Vincenzo Santoro was definitely not the “Secretary of The Conclave in 1958” (having most probably died in
1943) and in any event by consulting the ACTA APOTOLICAE SEDIS-COMMENTARIUM OFFICIALE ( for both
1939 and 1958) we were able to definitely confirm that Monsignor Santoro was not the “Secretary of The Conclave in
1958”, but he was however the “Secretary of the Conclave for 1939” that elected Pope Pius XII, and in that conclave of
1939 Monsignor Santoro definitely did pass a note to Chigi confirming that the smoke had been white. It is also interesting
to note that the cleric who was the assistant to Monsignor Santoro in 1939, Alberto di JORIO, would , 19 years later be
the actual “Secretary of the Conclave in 1958”

1939 Annuario Pontificio pages 54-55:At the bottom of page 54, under the Office of the Sacred College of Cardinals, the
permanent body not just the conclave structure, is found Santoro Vincenzo Segretario, and underneath, in a secondary
capacity, di Jorio Alberto, Sostituto e Archevista.

The facing page, 55, consists of a list of cardinals.

The name of the cardinal listed directly across from the names of Santoro and di Jorio is: Pacelli Eugenio.

In case Mr. Giuffre, et al would contend that this page would be from a year other than 1939 that allegation can be easily
refuted by the fact that Cardinal Pacelli would not be listed as such for any year after 1939, the year in which he was elected
to the papacy.

The name of the cardinal in the list of the hierarchy, the curial offices, directly above Santoro and di Jorio on page 54, is
Giovanni Mercati, whom the same listing further informs us was created a cardinal in the consistory of June 15, 1936.

Therefore if anyone should have the temerity to dispute the specific edition of the Annuario Pontificio in this photocopy,
these two pages could only have come from 1937, 1938 or 1939 the years after the 1936 consistory and before the 1940
printing of the new edition of the Annuario Pontifico which occurred after the election of Eugenio Pacelli.
I could find no listing at all in the index of the Annuraio Pontificio for Monsignor Santoro, Vincenzo, for any year after
1943. So I think it safe to assume (but needs to be confirmed) that Monsignor Santoro most likely passed away in that year
1943.
Above pages 54 and 55 are taken from from the 1939 Annuario Pontificio clearly showing that Monsignor Vincenzo
Santoro was not only the Secretary of the Conclave of 1939 but he was also the Secretary of The “Sacro Collegio”
( Sacred College) and that Monsignor Alberto di Jorio was his Sostituto ( subsitute) in 1939.
Above is an actual photocopy of page 124 from the Acta of the Chigi level personnel at the 1939 conclave. You can
see clearly the name of Sigismondo Chigi Principe di Campagnano

14
The first known Sedevacantist was Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner who was the original founder and animatrice of Una Voce as
well as Kyrie eleison, who worked in the Vatican and who wrote an article prior to the start of the 1958 Conclave claiming
that Roncalli would in fact be elected. Dr. Gerstner had, in fact been, an official employee of the Vatican (from 1957 until
her resignation in late 1961) appointed by the German Bishops as their representative on the “Permanent Committee For
International Congresses Of The Lay Apostolate (Comitato Permanente dei Congressi Internazionali per
L’Apostolato dei Laci or in short COPECIAL set up in Rome by Pius XII in 1952.).Dr. Gerstner spoke five languages
fluently including Latin, had been granted her Doctorate in Philosophy and had completed extensive studies in Theology.
She was a fearless defender of the Catholic faith, the Catholic Mass and Catholic Tradition. Dr. Gerstner was the founder
and Direttrice of the “Centro Europeo del Movimento dei Cattolici Tradizionalisti” which was responsible for coordinating
the efforts of all traditionalist movements in Germany as well as in all of Europe

15
What follows is a series of email communications between myself and the editor of www.novusordowatch.org that
started on Thursday, February 03, 2005 9:29 PM.I had at that time just provided www.novusordowatch.org a complete
English translation of the Italian article by ,Silvio Negro, entitled Minoranze tenaci si oppongono alle candidature più
favorite, 256, 28 ott., p. 1;of Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) evening edition of October 27, 1958.This was important
because it was the first time that the general public would have had access to the complete article. Previous to this Mr.
Giuffre had usually only made a truncated version of the last paragraph avaliable.From this correspondence the reader will
see that as late as Feb. 4 2005 I had not yet begun to check the alleged facts of the Siri Thesis as they had been outlined to
me and others by Mr. Giuffre.I had however on Feb. 4 ,2005 advised www.novusordowatch.org that the Siri Thesis had
“loose ends everywhere” because “others never looked and followed this systematically”. I further advised that we
needed to look at “1958 as if we just found out about it today and follow all of the leads we can regardless of what others
have or have not done to date!” In essence I advised www.novusordowatch.org in writing that I was going to fact check
every allegation made by Mr. Giuffre. Even though, up until that point, I had been a supporter of the Siri Thesis, I and
countless others, had never independently confirmed and fact checked Mr. Giuffre’s allegations because ,we all ,had
taken everything Mr. Giuffre had said on trust. After all Mr. Giuffre had a reputation as the expert on the conclaves of
1958, 1963 and 1978. We had trusted that Mr. Giuffre’s allegations were accurate and properly fact checked, however with
the passage of time I finally concluded, for my own peace of mind, that it was necessary to independently check every
allegation made by Mr. Giuffre. For years I had corresponded almost daily with Mr. Giuffre .Therefore I never suspected
that my fact checking would reveal fundamental errors of fact. I never suspected that Santoro was not the Secretary
of the Conclave as alleged by Giuffre, I never suspected that the Silvio Negro’s article had referred to anything other
than to the 1958 Conclave as alleged by Giuffre. I could never have honestly suspected such truly fundamental
errors in these basic facts. That is why so many writers , who over the years, repeated these very same allegations, did so
innocently, never once suspecting that the original researcher Mr. Giuffre had in fact, never checked his facts. It was not
until I reread the original Italian article of Silvio Negro, in the original Italian; on Oct. 13 2005 that I finally saw the
errors in the allegations made by Giuffre.There is an important lesson to be learned here for all of us. We must never
become so emotionally committed to an idea or belief that we take that belief and adopt it as our own, trusting that, others
have checked the facts. We must never put aside common sense, never put aside reason. We must fact check everything
that is claimed by anyone. What is even more alarming is that the original Silvio Negro article referenced above has been
available in its entirety on http://www.novusordowatch.org/cds102758.htm under the link 1958 Article in Milan Newspaper
Confirms Valid Papal Election 2 Days before John XXIII and no one accessing this site has ever noticed the discrepancy
that, in fact ,the article was in no way proof of anything claimed by Giuffre and others, but rather the exact opposite.
I should also like to advise the reader that I have personally read more of Cardinal Siri’s works in their original language
than probably any other person in North America. I personally translated and provided a series of detailed Italian to English
translations of key Cardinal Siri articles that originally appeared in Renovatio to www.novusordowatch.org starting in 2004
with the understanding that my name, as the actual translator of all of these materials, would be withheld. I now choose to
advise that I am in fact the translator of all of these articles of Siri and that I translated these originally in 1999.I prepared
these translations starting in September of 1999 and provided them at no charge in 1999 to Mr. Giuffre and at no charge in
2004 to www.novusordowatch.org because I felt that they were important for the general public to see ( other sites now
carry these translations not knowing that I am the translator, it is therefore now a matter of record) .
http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri_rock.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri_theo.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri_hour.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri_ortho.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri_magist.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri_salvation.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri_election.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
http://www.novusordowatch.org/cds102758.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri_margin.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
In addition to these translations I provided a series of predictions in 2005 to www.novusordowatch.org that were
subsequently edited and rewritten, with my permission and uploaded after the election of Benedict XVI at
http://www.novusordowatch.org/whattoexpect.htm . Why have I chosen to make this information available now? I have
done so because , often ,persons who claim to be interested in the truth, but who may in fact not be, may attempt to launch
Ad Hominum Attacks upon myself rather than attempt to refute the arguments that I have presented .It is much easier to
attack my person rather than my argument.

From: Silvio Mattacchione

Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 9:31 AM
To: Novus Ordo Watch
Cc: Silvo Mattacchione
Subject: RE: With a papal conclave coming soon its a good idea to register for the Inside The Vatican FREE NEWSFASH
service
Dear Mario : Yes Monsignore Santoro was inside the conclave and Chigi was of the same family that was served by Bl.
Anna Maria. I have contacted a reporter in Italy to try and get for me 40 articles written by Silvio during this period of time
leading up to and after the conclave. Silvio died in 1959 yet no one has ever thought of contacting his son and trying to get
access to his papers, well not until now, so that is now under way.
Now what we do not know is how did Silvio know this? Did he have access to the note? Did he speak to Chigi? Like
everything else in this project there are loose ends everywhere because others never looked and followed this
systematically! We need to look at 1958 as if we just found out today and follow all the leads we can , regardless of what
others have or have not done to date!
Silvio

From: Novus Ordo Watch [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:16 PM
To: Silvio Mattacchione
Subject: Re: With a papal conclave coming soon its a good idea to register for the Inside The Vatican FREE NEWSFASH
service

Silvio, does this say what I think it says? Does Negro say that Santaro was present inside the conclave and told Chigi that
white was the INTENDED color? Did Santaro have proof from inside the conclave?

I wonder if Negro wrote anything else the night before about this, Oct. 26?

Is Prince Sigismondo Chigi related to the Chigi family who was served by Bl. Anna Maria Taigi? If so, I think that's a very
important "coincidence".... :)

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

----- Original Message -----

From: Silvio Mattacchione
To: Novus Ordo Watch
Cc: Silvo Mattacchione
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 9:29 PM
Subject: RE: With a papal conclave coming soon its a good idea to register for the Inside The Vatican FREE NEWSFASH
service

OK Mario here it is! What follows is a translation from the original Italian by silvio Negro it appeared on the front
page ( evening ) “Corriere della Sera,” ( Milano Italy) 27 October 1958, from page 1

16
Sometime between March 6 through March 8, 2006 this article, originally written by H. Spigornell was extensively
rewritten to remove all references to the alleged Secretary of the 1958 Conclave Monsignor Santoro, the alleged ,but now
proven, non existent note that was allegedly passed out to Prince Chigi, as well as the removal of all references to the Silvio
Negro article of Jan 27, 1958.All of the aforementioned information had been previously referred to as fact and precious
evidence by Spigornell.Clearly these allegations were not facts and the total removal of these false allegations by
Spigornell was prompted by the publication by Hutton Gibson of his newsletter “The War is Now” December 2005 issue #
66 in which Gibson brings to light the fact that Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretary of the Conclave in 1958 and as
such could not have passed out a note from a conclave he had not been present at. Further Gibson brings to light the fact that
the Silvio Negro article of Jan 27, 1958 had been misunderstood by Spigornell and Giuffre and that the Silvio Negro article
referred to the events of 1939 Conclave and not the 1958 Conclave.
17
Sometime between March 6 through March 8, 2006 this article, originally written by H. Spigornell was extensively
rewritten to remove all references to the alleged Secretary of the 1958 Conclave Monsignor Santoro, the alleged ,but now
proven, non existent note that was allegedly passed out to Prince Chigi, as well as the removal of all references to the Silvio
Negro article of Jan 27, 1958.All of the aforementioned information had been previously referred to as fact and precious
evidence by Spigornell. Clearly these allegations were not facts and the total removal of these false allegations by
Spigornell was prompted by the publication by Hutton Gibson of his newsletter “The War is Now” December 2005 issue #
66 in which Gibson brings to light the fact that Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretary of the Conclave in 1958 and as
such could not have passed out a note from a conclave he had not been present at. Further Gibson brings to light the fact that
the Silvio Negro article of Jan 27, 1958 had been misunderstood by Spigornell and Giuffre and that the Silvio Negro article
referred to the events of 1939 Conclave and not the 1958 Conclave.

18
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005,
pages as they originally appeared are archived)

19
I have provided an actual transcription of the last paragraph of the Italian article of Silvio Negro (from the evening edition
of Corriere della Sera ,Milan, Italy for Oct. 27 1958) in question and anyone who can read Italian will soon find that the word
“surreptitiously” does not appear anywhere in this paragraph where it is alleged to have appeared!
“La sera, poi, alla fumata positiva che si ebbe dopo il primo scrutinio e, quindi, in anticipo, caso che può verificarsi anche
questa volta sia al mattino sia nel pomeriggio, la fumata fu bianca come quella del mattino, ma meno densa, e non mancarono
le striature nere finali, per cui le opinioni furono subito ardentemente divise. La radio però, tranquillissima, dichiarò che la
fumata era bianca, e invitò la popolazione a recarsi in piazza per ricevere la benedizione del nuovo Papa. E questo avvenne
solo perché il segretario del Conclave, chi era allora monsignor Santoro, non fidandosi affatto della stufa, aveva fatto
chiamare, a una delle ruote il principe Chigi, e gli aveva passata una lettera in cui gli si diceva di avvertire la radio che, in ogni
caso, la fumata sarebbe stata bianca e positiva.
Silvio Negro”
20
The title is listed as Minoranze tenaci si oppongono alle candidature più favorite, 256, 28 ott., p. 1; in official
bibliographies of Silvio Negro’s writings.
21
I arranged for an Italian photographer in Rome to go to the archives and photograph every single article written by Silvio
Negro during 1958 these are all now in my archives.
22

23
Silvio Negro article under the headline "Even Yesterday 'Fumate Nere' (Black Smoke) Out of the Sistine Chapel" on
Page 1 (the original article is listed as follows in the bibliographies of Silvio Negro’s writings for 1958 , Minoranze
tenaci si oppongono alle candidature più favorite, 256, 28 ott., p. 1;of Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy) October 27,
1958.This is an original copy and an English translation is provided in full see footnote #22
?

Above is a photocopy of Page 122 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis-Commentarium Officiale for 1939 clearly shows that
Monsignor Vincentius Santoro was the “Secretary of the College of Cardinals” as well as “The Secretary of the 1939
Conclave”. This page is the official announcement of Pope Pius XII as the new pope, with Santoro's name as
secretary certifying the election. Thus once and for all putting an end to the claim that Santoro was the Secretary of
the Conclave in 1958.Monsignor Santoro, from what we can now discover, most probably died in 1943.
The above photocopy is from Acta Apostolicae Sedis-Commentarium Officiale page. 877, for the year 1958 and as
such it is the announcement of the election of the new supreme pontiff and the official certification by Msgr. Di Jorio
as Secretary of the Conclave. The two pages reproduced above page 122 from AAS 1939 and page 877 from AAS
1958 is definitive refutation of the claims made by Giuffre regarding Monsignor Santoro.

24
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
25
The following is the actual translation of the last paragraph that has been provided by Mr. Gary Giuffre to interested
parties. It is unclear as whether Mr. Giuffre was the source of this translation used by H.Spignorell or whether
H.Spignorell was the original source who then supplied it to Mr. Giuffre or whether it was the translation of a 3 rd party who
supplied it to both of them:

“Last evening . . . the smoke was white like that in the morning, but less dense, with black streaks at the end, causing
opinions to be suddenly and ardently divided. The radio however, calmly, declared that the smoke was white, and
invited the population to approach the piazza to receive the benediction of the new pope. And this happened only
because the Secretary of the Conclave, Monsignor Santoro, who was not completely confident in the stove, had
made a call through one of the turnstiles to Prince Chigi, and had surreptitiously passed him a letter in which he
told him to alert the radio that, no matter what, the smoke was white and positive.” (Silvio Negro, “Tenacious
minorities are opposed to the more favorite candidacies,” Corriere della Sera, 28 October 1958, Milan, page 1.)

26
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
27
Sometime between March 6 through March 8, 2006 this article, originally written by H. Spigornell was extensively
rewritten to remove all references to the alleged Secretary of the 1958 Conclave Monsignor Santoro, the alleged ,but now
proven, non existent note that was allegedly passed out to Prince Chigi, as well as the removal of all references to the Silvio
Negro article of Jan 27, 1958.All of the aforementioned information had been previously referred to as fact and precious
evidence by Spigornell. Clearly these allegations were not facts and the total removal of these false allegations by
Spigornell was prompted by the publication by Hutton Gibson of his newsletter “The War is Now” December 2005 issue #
66 in which Gibson brings to light the fact that Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretary of the Conclave in 1958 and as
such could not have passed out a note from a conclave he had not been present at. Further Gibson brings to light the fact that
the Silvio Negro article of Jan 27, 1958 had been misunderstood by Spigornell and Giuffre and that the Silvio Negro article
referred to the events of 1939 Conclave and not the 1958 Conclave.
28
http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios-j.htm#Jorio (web address current as of October 31, 2005). JORIO, Alberto di (1884-
1979 ,Birth. July 18, 1884, Rome, Italy. Education. Pontifical Roman Seminary, Rome; "Studium" of the Sacred Roman
Rota, Rome. Priesthood. Ordained, April 18, 1908, Rome. Faculty member of the Interdiocesan Seminary of Perugia,
1908-1910. Pastoral work in the diocese of Rome, 1910-1958. Official of the vicariate of Rome, 1910-1918. Secretary of
the Institute for Works of Religion, 1918-1922; president, 1922-1958. Secretary of the Cardinalitial Commission for the
Special Administration of the Holy See, 1940-1947. Domestic prelate of His Holiness, June 23, 1922. Protonotary apostolic,
April 8, 1933. Auditor general of the Apostolic Chamber, January 24, 1947. Secretary of the Sacred College of Cardinals,
1947-1958. Vicar of the patriarchal Lateran basilica, January 24, 1947. Delegate for the Special Administration of the Holy
See, April 1, 1947. Secretary of the conclave of 1958 and regent of the secretariat of Sacred College of Cardinals, October
9, 1958.

Cardinalate. Created cardinal deacon in the consistory of December 15, 1958; received the red hat and the deaconry pro
hac vice of S. Pudenziana, December 18, 1958. Director of the administrative secretariat for the preparation of the II
Vatican Council, June 15, 1960. Pro-president of the Pontifical Commission for the State of Vatican City, August 14, 1961.
Episcopate. Elected titular archbishop of Castra Nova, April 5, 1962. Consecrated, April 19, 1962, Rome, by Pope John
XXIII. Attended the II Vatican Council, 1962-1965. Participated in the conclave of 1963. Opted for the order of cardinal
priests and his deaconry was restored to title, June 26, 1967. Resigned the pro-presidency, November 4, 1968. Lost his right
to participate in the conclave by being older than eighty years, January 1, 1971.Death. September 5, 1979, Rome. Buried,
basilica of S. Pudenziana, Rome.

29
Sometime between March 6 through March 8, 2006 this article, originally written by H. Spigornell was extensively
rewritten to remove all references to the alleged Secretary of the 1958 Conclave Monsignor Santoro, the alleged ,but now
proven, non existent note that was allegedly passed out to Prince Chigi, as well as the removal of all references to the Silvio
Negro article of Jan 27, 1958.All of the aforementioned information had been previously referred to as fact and precious
evidence by Spigornell. Clearly these allegations were not facts and the total removal of these false allegations by
Spigornell was prompted by the publication by Hutton Gibson of his newsletter “The War is Now” December 2005 issue #
66 in which Gibson brings to light the fact that Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretary of the Conclave in 1958 and as
such could not have passed out a note from a conclave he had not been present at. Further Gibson brings to light the fact that
the Silvio Negro article of Jan 27, 1958 had been misunderstood by Spigornell and Giuffre and that the Silvio Negro article
referred to the events of 1939 Conclave and not the 1958 Conclave.
30
http://www.novusordowatch.org/cds102758.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005). What Follows is the
English translation of the now famous Silvio Negro article of the evening edition of Oct 27 ,1958 (that appeared under the
headline)
"Even Yesterday 'Fumate Nere' (Black Smoke) Out of the Sistine Chapel
Article by Silvio Negro on Page 1 of Corriere della Sera (Milan, Italy),October 27, 1958,Translation from the Original
Italian (Red bold print added for emphasis)
The cardinals have yet to elect the Pope but the ballots, thus far, would not have numbered eight.
Tenacious minorities oppose the most favored candidacies

Rome, October 27, night.

The chimney of the Sistine Chapel today uttered another “Nay” on both the appointments, and this time without giving rise
to suspicions. This confirms what we wrote on the very eve of the vote, and that is, that two steadfast, not to say irreducible,
minorities, had clearly emerged against some of the most popular candidacies, and thus the very swift election that received
the general consensus was not at all probable. That which will name the successor of Pius XII promises to be, therefore, a
genuine Conclave, such as had been those of Benedict XV, which lasted three days, that of Pius XI, which lasted four, and
Pius X’s, which took up five days.

Lengthy Ballots

Now, in place of a flash-Conclave, one speaks of a lengthy and hard-fought election, jumping to the opposite extreme. All it
takes, to be sure, are seventeen votes, that is precisely one third, to block an election, and reasons and solidarity that might
put together seventeen votes are certainly not wanting; rather, there might be many and various. Regrettably, today the non-
Italian cardinals, non-European, rather, are many, and in most cases so little known, that in order to attempt a discrimination
of any consequence for any case that would come about, one would have to be monsignor Montini or monsignor Tardini,
one, that is, of the high exponents of Pius XII’s Secretary of State, whom, because of their office, have built a thorough
knowledge of all the current princes of the Church.

The ordinary observer is surely unable to embark into a similar examination; a good half of the names would suggest
nothing to him. He could but presume, on the basis of what came to pass in previous Conclaves, that in the eight ballots
carried out hitherto only the most famous names, put forward also by the public, certainly appear, and that difficulties have
arisen in regard to these names which may easily be overcome in the next few days. It is still too early to conclude that the
Conclave be already in search of new names, on which the two-third majority might come together. And earlier still it is to
speak, as it is already being done, of a positively lengthy Conclave, of stalled situation, of the necessity of extraordinary
solutions, such as that of seeking the confluence of the two-third onto a person external to the Conclave. But were the
ballots carried out in these first two days really eight, or is it not rather likely that they were merely four? This was a highly
debated subject today amongst the journalists covering the election of the Pope, and the views were all but concurrent. The
majority think the ballots had been eight, in accordance with the Constitution regulating the Conclave, which, after
illustrating the reasons that played in favor of the abolition of the election so called by “access”, as being too complex, says:

“We, confirming the disposition of our predecessor, Pius X, who strongly desired to obviate to this inconvenience, and, on
the other hand, in no way prejudice the expeditiousness of the desired election, newly establish and order that, in place of
such “access”, the cardinals one time only, either in the morning or in the evening, after completing the ballot as provided
for hitherto, should no election have been achieved, are to hold immediately a new ballot, in which they will renew their
votes without taking into account those expressed in the previous one. We also rule that in such second ballot the
ceremonies performed in the former be retained as valid, in order that the cardinals be not compelled to utter a new oath, nor
select new scrutinizers, nurses and revisers, but that these be standing also for the second [ballot] without the need for
renewal.” As clear as it appears that two ballots ought to be held in each session, this morning, however, the “Fumata”
(smoke), or “Sfumata,” as the purists would have it, took place just after 11.00; the effective time, therefore, amounted to
about one and a half hour, since the bell was heard around 9, and after the bell there had been the low common Mass that
takes up half an hour. Is it materially possible that in an hour and a half one could carry out two ballots and, what’s more,
light up the stove? By an approximate reckoning of the time it would require to complete such operations, this appears
highly unlikely.

Let us assume, in fact, that when the cardinals remain alone in the Chapel, everything is ready, and the ballot papers already
distributed, and ten minutes later the preparatory operations are over and all the ballot papers filled in. Fifty people, many of
whom elderly, must immediately after, make it to the altar, pause there in prayer, proceed in front the chalice, utter the
grave ritual words, place the ballot paper on the paten, throw it with the paten into the chalice, and make it back to their
seat. It does not appear exaggerated to think it would take to each of them two minutes to accomplish that, and in that case
the vote alone would take up one and half hours. And there remain yet the verification of the number, the counting of the
votes, which is laborious, the control of the revisers, the proclamation of the result, and the lighting of the stove.

This morning, the buzz has it, the ballot could really only have been one, but for a set of completely different reasons, the
most eminent had given up the second vote as one of the present would have fallen ill. The voice was later denied, since the
secrecy surrounding the works of the Conclave affords some extenuating circumstances in these cases, if not in order to
reassure the families; but the elderly are too many among the electors of the Pope, and not seldom in poor health, for similar
voices not to find their way around.

The Sick Pair

Today again the name of cardinal Canali came out, causing concern, in the sister of the cardinal, and the name had come out
on account of a misunderstanding. It had been learned that the surgeon on the other side of the wheels, doctor De Lollis, had
the Fatebenefratelli hospital send him some case sheets and it was murmured that these belonged to some cardinals,
obviously Roman, whereas they belonged to people who had undergone recent surgical procedures, and whose conditions
the surgeon wished to check upon. It seems certain, on the other hand, that the cardinals that today did not have to use their
nurse colleagues in order to hand over their ballot paper, had been at least two as the archbishop of Malines, Van Roey, is
also forced into bed.

The cardinals make large use of mineral water, to judge from the bottle-cases that pass through the wheel (turn-stile) of the
Borgia courtyard. While the crowd tonight awaited the “Fumata” (smoke) at St. Peter’s square, by the same passageway it
was introduced a conspicuous supply of meat, eggs, vegetables, and fruit.

The Case of 1939

Through the small wheels (turn-stile), located at the entrance of the St. Damaso courtyard passed a large amount of mail, a
large package containing books and documents, addressed to the secretary of the Conclave and closely inspected before
being allowed in, a purplish-blue mozzetta for the archbishop of Quito, Carlo Maria de la Torre, two pieces of woolen
clothing for cardinal Micara. Just minutes before the noon closure the Chinese minister by the Holy See showed up, with the
same retinue as yesterday, and sent in the by now customary roast chicken and soup tureen.

The buzz had it that, on account of a breach at one of the wheels (turn-stile) , a Swiss guard had today been expelled. The
military (guard) had allegedly let in, without authorization, a woman carrying a small bundle of clothing for her son, a
mechanic inside, as a member of the staff. The guard had, in fact, been expelled by the very severe new commander, but on
disciplinary charges that had nothing to do with the Conclave’s wheels (turn-stile) ....

Prince Sigismondo Chigi is always present at the opening and closing of the wheels (turn-stile) , but he no longer wears the
severe costume with which he appeared Saturday night to take his oath at the Sistine Chapel. Yesterday, he was at the
ladies’ lodge, with the commissary of the Conclave, the consistorial counsel Corsanego, when there came the “Fumata”
(smoke) that was taken as good. Since the pair soon after was to show up at the Conclave’s door, for the opening
ceremonies, they rushed to get ready for the occasion and learned of the false alarm only when they came back suitably
appareled.

Today the Vatican radio assured that similar incidents would never happen again. “We will tell you the Pope has been made
only after an irrefutable confirmation” said father Pellegrino, who yesterday was betrayed by an enthusiasm that renders
honor to his habit, and carried by the excitement he reasoned as though the stove of the Sistine Chapel had an understanding
and a will of its own, it could make out what was passing on the roof, it could perceive the anxieties and doubts that had
come of it, and it were even capable of putting a remedy to it with “undisputable” manifestations.

It might be of comfort to Father Pellegrino to learn that what happened yesterday had already occurred in 1939: the
“Fumata” (smoke) that was supposed to be black appeared initially very white, thick, almost chalky, and streaked with black
shadings in the end.

That night, after the positive “Fumata” (smoke) that followed the first ballot and, therefore, ahead of time - a case which
might take place even this time both in the morning and in the afternoon - the “Fumata” (smoke) was white as that of the
morning, but not as thick, complete with black streaks in the end, and hence the opinions were presently heatedly divided.
The radio, however, very composed, declared the “Fumata” (smoke) to have been white, and invited the population
to go to the square to be blessed by the new Pope. And that took place only because the secretary of the Conclave,
then monsignor Santoro, utterly distrustful of the stove, had had prince Chigi summoned to one of the wheels (turn-
stile), and handed him a letter in which he told him to advise the radio that, in any case, the “Fumata” (smoke)
would have been white and positive.

Silvio Negro

31
Sometime between March 6 through March 8, 2006 this article, originally written by H. Spigornell was extesively
rewritten to remove all references to the alleged Secretary of the 1958 Conclave Monsignor Santoro, the alleged ,but now
proven, non existent note that was allegedly passed out to Prince Chigi, as well as the removal of all references to the Silvio
Negro article of Jan 27, 1958.All of the aforementioned information had been previously refered to as fact and precious
evidence by Spigornell.Clearly these allegations were not facts and the total removal of these false allegations by
Spigornell was prompted by the publication by Hutton Gibson of his newsletter “The War is Now” December 2005 issue #
66 in which Gibson brings to light the fact that Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretaty of the Conclave in 1958 and as
such could not have passed out a note from a conclave he had not been present at.Further Gibson brings to light the fact that
the Silvio Negro article of Jan 27, 1958 had been misunderstood by Spigornell and Giuffre and that the Silvio Negro article
refered to the events of 1939 Conclave and not the 1958 Conclave.

32
Reference from http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
33
Sometime between March 6 through March 8, 2006 this article, originally written by H. Spigornell was extesively
rewritten to remove all references to the alleged Secretary of the 1958 Conclave Monsignor Santoro, the alleged ,but now
proven, non existent note that was allegedly passed out to Prince Chigi, as well as the removal of all references to the Silvio
Negro article of Jan 27, 1958.All of the aforementioned information had been previously refered to as fact and precious
evidence by Spigornell.Clearly these allegations were not facts and the total removal of these false allegations by
Spigornell was prompted by the publication by Hutton Gibson of his newsletter “The War is Now” December 2005 issue #
66 in which Gibson brings to light the fact that Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretaty of the Conclave in 1958 and as
such could not have passed out a note from a conclave he had not been present at.Further Gibson brings to light the fact that
the Silvio Negro article of Jan 27, 1958 had been misunderstood by Spigornell and Giuffre and that the Silvio Negro article
refered to the events of 1939 Conclave and not the 1958 Conclave.
34
Silvio Negro was more than just a journalist, he was a highly respected “man of letters” and is still recognized as such in
Italy.Highly reputable totally accurate in his methodology.So it is a calumny against his reputation, and abilities and
integrity to have “The Siri Thesis” supporters mistranslate ,misinterpret misrepresent, what he actually wrote. Silvio
Negro wrote for the Coirriere della Sera from 1926 till his death in 1959.Therefore his reference to the 1939 Conclave came
as a result of his reporting on these events in 1939 before the conclave, during the conclave and after the conclave. What
follows is a list of all of his articles that Silvio Negro wrote during the year 1939.

Il corteo nei quartieri vaticani, 36, 11 feb., pp. 1-2;[s.n.], Il cordoglio fascista vivamente apprezzato in Vaticano, 37, 12
feb., p. 1; Storie e vicende del conclave, 37, 12 feb., p. 3; Deliberazioni per il Conclave prese dalla Congregazione dei
cardinali, 37, 13 feb., p. 1; [s.n.], Come un cardinale diventa Papa, 38, 14 feb., p. 3; [S.N.], La salma di Pio XI deposta
nella cripta dei Papi, 39, 15 feb., pp. 1-2; Vittorio Emanuele II prima del ’48, 39, 15 feb., p. 3; Il Corpo diplomatico rende
omaggio al Sacro Collegio, 41, 17 feb., p. 2; I Sovrani e il Duce assistono a una messa in suffragio di Pio XI. Tutti i
cardinali saranno presenti al prossimo Conclave, 42, 18 feb., pp. 1-2; Il piano di sistemazione dei quartieri per il Sacro
Collegio, 43, 19 feb., p. 5; Nel cantiere del Conclave, 46, 23 feb., p. 2; La cinta del Conclave si estende ai quartieri
monumentali, 47, 24 feb., p. 5; Il testamento di Pio XI, 48, 25 feb., p. 2; Una visita agli appartamenti del Conclave, 49, 26
feb., p. 5; Quanto durerà il Conclave?, 49, 26 feb., p. 2; L’assegnazione delle "celle" ai sessantadue cardinali, 50, 28 feb,
p. 2; Vigilia di Conclave, 51, 1 mar., p. 5; Tutti i sessantadue cardinali sono entrati in conclave, 52, 2 mar., pp. 3-4; Il
Pontefice Pio XII. Come il card. Pacelli è stato elevato alla cattedra di San Pietro, 53, 3 mar., pp. 1-2; La I a giornata del
Pontificato di Pio XII, 54, 4 mar., p. 1; L’imposizione della tiara a Pio XII avrà luogo sulla loggia esterna di San Pietro,
55, 5 mar., p. 1; Centocinquantamila domande per assistere all’incoronazione di Pio XII, 55, 6 mar., p. 3; L’incoronazione
di Pio XII, 60, 12 mar., p. 5; La solenne incoronazione di Pio XII, 61, 13 mar., p. 1; Il discorso del Papa in risposta agli
auguri del Sacro Collegio, 62, 14 mar., p. 5; Il "possesso" di San Giovanni avrà luogo dopo Pasqua, 63, 15 mar., p. 2;
Umberto di Savoia ricevuto da Pio XII in solenne udienza, 68, 21 mar., p. 2; Il solenne rito della Pasqua in San Pietro, 85,
10 apr., p. 6; Da Macerata a Pechino sul mappamondo cinese di Padre Ricci, 87, 12 apr., p. 3; Scanderbeg a Roma, 106, 5
mag., p. 3; Il Sovrano, il reggente Paolo e il Duce alla formidabile rassegna marinara di Napoli, 112, 12 mag., p. 1; [s.n.],
Il Papa prende possesso della Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano, 118, 19 mag., p. 5; [N.], Demografi e statistici a
congresso, 125, 27 mag., p. 2; Il grande saggio ginnico allo Stadio Olimpico. Mussolini acclamato da 250 mila spettatori,
126, 29 mag., p. 2; Fiori di Roma, 128, 31 mag., p. 3; Sfilano le ferree Legioni, 134, 7 giu., p. 1; L’Esposizione del ’42
capolavoro di Roma, 143, 17 giu., p. 3; Trovar casa in piazza di Spagna, 159. 6 lug., p. 3; [s.n.], E 42 opere misurate sul
metro dei secoli per la nuova Roma di Mussolini, 166, 14 lug., p. 3; Distacco della guardia a Palazzo Venezia, 174, 23 lug.,
p. 5; Materia e colore di Roma, 195, 18 ago., p. 5; Al museo del pane si può leggere la storia dell’umanità, 203, 27 ago., p.
3; La Mostra retrospettiva degli artisti salentini, 213, 8 set., p. 4; [S.N.], Gli orti di Cesare, 237, 6 ott., p. 3; Lettere inedite
di Achille Ratti, 238, 7 ott., p. 3; [S.N.], Le Ferrovie italiane, 256, 28 ott., p. 4; Nel palazzo del Re con i visitatori della
domenica, 279, 24 nov., p. 3; La parola del Papa, 303, 22 dic., p. 1; La visita di Pio XII ai Sovrani. Lungo colloquio del
Pontefice con il Re e la Regina in Quirinale, 308, 29 dic., p. 1;

35
Reference from http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
36
http://www.novusordowatch.org/cds102758.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).the English translation of
the now famous Silvio Negro article of the evening edition of Oct 27 ,1958
37
Reference from http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
38
?

Footnote 32 above is a photocopy of the Silvio Negro article of October 27 , 1958 morning entitled“Due prime fumate di
colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); in which Prince Chigi explains
that, unlike other conclaves ,chemical preperations were used in this case ( that is in the case of the 1958 conclave) that
caused great confusion. Here is what Prince Chigi actually said above
“ One might respond that if the chances of a misunderstanding were, this time, so much greater than in the past, the thing is
in fact due to the circumstance that yesterday they had made innovations, convinced that the panacea would be found in
certain chemical preparations. Be that as it may, the rule to avoid being mislead is this: if the “fumata” is long, for the mere
fact that it is long it is already negative; the good one will always be a short “fumata” and of a white that is almost
transparent, for, in that case, only the ballot papers are burnt, and nothing else. Unfortunately, it is a rule that never agrees
with the anxiety of he that is bound to provide the first news.”

39
Dr. von Peters, in 1995, did a great service to all researchers interested in the events of 1958. He compiled and made
avaliable, on the internet,a summary of all of the important , alleged facts regarding the work of Mr. Giuffre and rightly
called this compilation “The Siri Thesis”. Dr. Von Peters gave due credit to Mr. Giuffre as the author of the original
materials that appeared in “Sangre di Cristo Newsnotes”. Dr. Von Peters organized and prepared the compilation, named it
a thesis, thus indicating the reality, that it was merely a hypothesis, bolstered by alleged facts which could in time , be
shown to be either,true in whole or in part, or false in whole or in part.So in essence he invited researchers, who had time
and interest, to either prove “The Siri Thesis” a reality or prove it a fiction.Thus Dr. Von Peters was careful to make no
claims one way or the other.
The Siri Thesis is avaliable on many sites. Here is part of what Dr. Von Peters listed in the compliation that was ,required
by researchers, to be proven, either, true or false.
“Reports of Siri's papal election and forced surrender of office in 1958 are strengthened by the 27 October 1958 Corriere
della Sera .The Milan newspaper stated on the previous evening, white clouds of smoke ascended from the Sistine Chapel
stovepipe for several minutes, to thunderous cheers of "Bianco! Bianco!" from the piazza below. When gray smoke
followed a short time later, Prince Chigi telephoned the Secretary of the Conclave, Msgr. Santoro, who was inside, to
inquire as to what signal the conclave officials had intended for the outside world. in his reply, Santoro instructed Chigi to
notify Vatican Radio that "in all certainty, the smoke was white." Yet no Pope appeared on the Papal balcony. Father
Pellegrino, who had already announced repeatedly on Vatican Radio that a new Pope had been elected, finally concluded in
frustration after a half hour: "It is not possible to cancel out the impression of white smoke upon 300,000 people; the cause
of the error must be sought elsewhere."
These events, alleged by the originator to have been fact, have now been dealt with in this paper and shown to have no
merit. We now know, and have provided verifieable proof, that Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretary of the Conclave in
1958 and further we now know that the details outlined by Silvio Negro in that last paragraph of his 1958 article ( and
appearing under the heading “The Case of 1939” were actually refering to events that took place in 1939 with the election of
Pacelli/PiusXII.

Unfortunately, years later,Mr. Mario Derksen innocently fell victim to the lack of “fact checking” on the part of Giuffre
and his Siri supporters. Mr. Derksen in a very long two part article on “Siri” has repeated the factual inaccuracies.Part 1
appeared at (http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Sep/sep12mdi.htm ) (web address current as of October 31, 2005).- entitled
installment 50:The Eclipse of the Church: 1958 and Beyond - Part One How Holy Mother Church was infiltrated and
Part 2 appeared at (http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Nov/nov18mdi.htm ) (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
installment 51: The Eclipse of the Church: 1958 and Beyond Part Two Mounting evidence that annul the conciliar popes
states as follows:
“ If we agree that Siri was indeed elected Pope and accepted the office, then we can account for the white smoke that was
seen at 6 pm, not just for a few puffs or a few moments, but for a full five minutes (close your eyes and count to 60 for five
times to see how long fives minutes is). Then we can account for the calling of the Palatine and Swiss Guards, the joyful
waving of the conclavists, and the actions of the governor and marshal of the conclave, who prepared to greet the new Pope.
We can even account for the fact that the secretary of the conclave, Monsignor Santaro, who had apparently been inside
the conclave, confirmed to Chigi that the smoke was white. Apparently this was reported by Milan's Corriere della Sera
("Evening Courier"), and curiously enough, the edition was quickly withdrawn afterwards, no back issues being available
shortly thereafter. Why?”
Mr. Derksen, who was totally innocent, unfortunately assumed that Giuffre had “checked his alleged facts”. He assumed
that the “Siri” promoters were accurate in their translations and interpretations of foreign articles and clearly, as I have
shown, this was just unfortunately not the case. How many other commentators world wide have innocently fallen victim to
these errors, how many thousands of emails have circled the globe repeating this totally inaccurate information regarding
the supposed true meaning of the “Silvio Negro article” I dare not think about it.
However even in the renditions above there are further errors.Mr Derksen claims that the Silvio Negro article of Oct.
27th was immediately removed from circulation “, the edition was quickly withdrawn afterwards, no back issues being
available shortly thereafter.”Where did Mr. Derksen get this information? Has this supposed fact been checked? Should
it have been prior to its being repeated in Mr.Drerksens article?Certainly there is no problem whatsoever getting copies
of this particular article from the archives of Corriere della Sera!
In the compliation prepared by Dr.Von Peters it indicates that “Prince Chigi telephoned the Secretary of the Conclave,
Msgr. Santoro, who was inside, to inquire as to what signal the conclave officials had intended for the outside world. in
his reply, Santoro instructed Chigi to notify Vatican Radio that "in all certainty, the smoke was white." ” But Giuffre
and Spigornell stated, in their rendition of the Silvio Negro article that : “And this happened only because the
Secretary of the Conclave, Monsignor Santoro, who was not completely confident in the stove, had made a call
through one of the turnstiles to Prince Chigi, and had surreptitiously passed him a letter in which he told him to
alert the radio that, no matter what, the smoke was white and positive.” (Silvio Negro, “Tenacious minorities are
opposed to the more favorite candidacies,” Corriere della Sera, 28 October 1958, Milan, page 1.)”. So may I ask was it
a surreptitiously passed note that was passed to Chigi or was it a telephone call from Chigi to Santoro as outlined in the
Von Peters compilation?

40
Sometime between March 6 through March 8, 2006 this article, originally written by H. Spigornell was extesively
rewritten to remove all references to the alleged Secretary of the 1958 Conclave Monsignor Santoro, the alleged ,but now
proven, non existent note that was allegedly passed out to Prince Chigi, as well as the removal of all references to the Silvio
Negro article of Jan 27, 1958.All of the aforementioned information had been previously refered to as fact and precious
evidence by Spigornell.Clearly these allegations were not facts and the total removal of these false allegations by
Spigornell was prompted by the publication by Hutton Gibson of his newsletter “The War is Now” December 2005 issue #
66 in which Gibson brings to light the fact that Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretaty of the Conclave in 1958 and as
such could not have passed out a note from a conclave he had not been present at.Further Gibson brings to light the fact that
the Silvio Negro article of Jan 27, 1958 had been misunderstood by Spigornell and Giuffre and that the Silvio Negro article
refered to the events of 1939 Conclave and not the 1958 Conclave.
41
Reference http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:lO3b51NJKjIJ:www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/
sirith2.htm+supporters+of+cardinal+siri+called+&hl=en (web address current as of October 31, 2005).Mr.Giuffre on Jan.
14, 2000 repeats the same totally inaccurate allegations regarding Monsignor Santoro,( it is of interest however to note that
Giuffre chooses to withold Santoro’s name and refers to him only as a “high ranking Vatican official”) who, as Giuffre
claimed was, “a high Vatican official inside the conclave confirmed that a new Pope was elected and accepted office on 26
October, two days before Angelo Roncalli”.What follows is Mr. Giuffre’s objection dated Jan. 14, 2000 to the Thomas Case
article sent to a correspondent named Bill . The section highlighted in green below is the repetition of the totally inaccurate
and impossible set of events that supposedly took place in the 1958 conclave.Mr Giuffre insults Bill (Have you, or Case, or
any of your ilk) insinuating that neither Bill nor Thomas Chase has done any “checking into these issues” yet clearly Mr.
Giuffre, personally did not check his facts ( see section highlighted in yellow) because if he had ever done so he would
have known that Santoro was involved in the conclave of 1939 and NOT at the conclave of 1958! When Giuffre says to Bill
“If somehow, you can muster the capacity to inform yourself,” I would suggest that these words of Giuffre apply more to
Giuffre than to his correspondent. It is also interesting to note that Giuffre uses, as his key evidence, the false allegation of a
high Vatican official inside the conclave confirming that a new pope was elected when in fact no such evidence ever
existed, and then proceeds to personally attack and denigrate his correspondent.

GIUFFRÉ OBJECTION
From: Gary Giuffré
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Why?
Date: Friday, January 14, 2000 1:31 AM

Bill:

It's been some time since we talked on the phone, and I wasn't sure how your ideas might have evolved by this time, yet I
was still surprised to see that you had disseminated the old Thomas Case attack piece against me, without giving me a
chance to answer his objections first. It seems that Case, trashed me with all the others who are included in the mixed bag
known as "traditional Catholics" (even though I have nothing to do with any of the alphabet soup groups) simply because I
will not pay homage at the altar of his false god, JP2. I say, false god, because that is what this hideous characature (sic) of a
"pope" has become to people like Case, since they obviously accept his word over all the true Popes of past centuries, and
even Christ Himself.
As I recall, when I talked to you about my investigation into the post-Pacelli conclaves, at which Giuseppe Siri was
repeatedly elected but overthrown each time by the Masonic super-powers, while his office was usurped by enemy agents,
you indicated no objection to my thesis but seemed to agree that this was, at least, a possible answer to the horrendous
Church crisis since the death of Pope Pius XII.

Now you place yourself squarely in the camp of Case, who employs ridicule rather than to respond to my material as a
whole, by twisting my preliminary comments made in an introductory article, before any of my documentation is presented.

Have you, or Case, or any of your ilk ever spoken with any former Vatican officials or secretaries of the cardinals regarding
the anomalies that surrounded the recent conclaves? Did you know, for instance, that Milan's Corriere della Sera revealed
on their front page, for 28 October 1958, that a high Vatican official inside the conclave confirmed that a new Pope was
elected and accepted office on 26 October, two days before Angelo Roncalli was seen on the papal balcony? Have you ever
been to Rome to check the public documents that pertain to those hidden events that deprived the Church of her rightful
shepherd? Well, I have. And until you and Case have done a little checking into these issues on your own, perhaps you
should reconsider the wisdom and justice of tarring a fellow Catholic with your broad brush, over subjects about which you
know absolutely nothing.

I have been in this fight since the first week in January 1961. Although probably not much older than you, I challenged my
pastor back then, when he glibly announced that the Confiteor, Misereatur, and Indulgentiam would no longer be recited
before the Communion in the Mass. When that first change mushroomed over the next 9 years into a total revamp of the
irreformable, untouchable, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, my family and I organized with other Catholics in Houston to expose
and oppose what was in reality the illegal suppression of the true Mass by the enemies of the Church within and without its
physical structures (see Newsweek, 4 February 1974, page 56).

From the beginning, we relied upon the services of valid, senior clergy ordained by the Church when it WAS the Church. In
1976, our group was one of the first to uncover the duplicity of the cunning SSPX, and to warn other lay associations
around the country that the Lefebvrists were agents of the "phony opposition."

We were already into the investigation surrounding the violation of the conclaves, before you had a clue that something had
gone wrong at your local parish. Without any careful study of the issue, you jumped right into the trap they set for you.
Then, when you got burned by the SSPX, you ran right back into the loving embrace of the same criminal agents who took
away the Mass in the first place, once they offered you a few pathetic crumbs they euphemistically call "Ecclesia Dei" and
the "indult."

You are a "Johnny-come-lately," Bill, - a "babe in the woods." You think that the problem with the "traditionalists" is that
"they left the Church." You don't have the slightest idea what your talking about and have no business putting out your
hodge-podge, which is laced with some truth, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. You have neither the sense nor Catholic
education to know the difference. Consider this as a strong dose of "fraternal correction."

You ought to close down your whole operation and go "back to school" and learn the Catholic Faith. Begin by locating and
reading the documents of all the General Councils of the Church. If you knew what they taught, you would know that the
"conciliar church" cannot be the true Catholic Church founded by Christ. This can be assertained without any reference to
the violated conclaves.

Conversely, if you accept the documents of Vatican II, then you must necessarily reject the definitions of past true Popes.
You can't have it both ways. Think twice before you spread your ignorance around to those even more ignorant than you.
There will be hell to pay for leading others into error. "Affected ignorance," as St. Thomas described it, will be no excuse
come Judgment Day.

Read also the annotations of the eminent English Fathers of the Church who translated the Latin Vulgate into the original
Catholic Bible in English, from which was published the Duoay-Rheims (sic) New Testament in 1582 (not to be confused
with the truncated Challoner version). In their commentaries, the learned fathers explain, over and over again, the prophetic
texts of the Bible, that refer to the latter days, as a culmination of three frightful events in succession: First, the usurpation of
the Chair of Peter by Antichrist; secondly, the banishment from Rome of the rightful Pope; finally, the abolition of the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass - in that order.
Our Lady of La Salette warned: "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist . . . the Church will be in
eclipse, the world in dismay." Melanie of La Salette predicted: "The Church will be eclipsed. At first, we will not know
which is the true pope. Then secondly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease to be offered in churches and houses; it will
be such that, for a time, there will not be public services any more. But I see that the Holy Sacrifice has not really ceased: it
will be offered in barns, in alcoves, in caves, and underground." (Abbot Paul Combe, The Secret of Melanie and the Actual
Crisis, Rome, 1906, page137.)

If somehow, you can muster the capacity to inform yourself, but do not rejoin the true Church, remaining instead with its
persecutors who have driven it "underground," you will be no better than the insidious SSPX which you claim to oppose.
Then may God have mercy on you, and all who are so blind as to follow you.

Sincerely, Gary Giuffré

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
42
43
This is the actual newspaper article of Oct. 9, 1958 by Silvio Negro that reports that Alberto Di Jorio is the
Secretary of the Conclave in 1958.Second column in the square, half way down the page, Negro advises us of the
name and position of Di Jorio.
?
Reference from http://www.eclipseofthechurch.org/Eclipse1958.htm
(web address current as of October 31, 2005).
44
Reference below is a portion of the article written by Silvio Negro “Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi
l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); that appeared Oct., 27, 1958
45
In the article above for October 27 1958 Prince Chigi Speaks Out and explains fully what had happened and explains that
black must never be seen, and that the old Romans knew this and were cautious!
“The old Romans have been more cautious, mindful of past experiences. In fact, it’s not a puff or two of white smoke that counts; what
counts is that black smoke must never be seen. That white smoke appears at first, even when the “fumata” is black, is an inevitable thing,
since the fire cannot be lit with damp straw; it must be lit with paper or dry straw, and in that case the smoke is, necessarily, white. Only
then are damp straw and other ingredients added. Therefore, the early signs are not to be taken as final, no matter how conspicuous they
might appear; what is required, rather, is patience, even because, in the face of all possible expedients, the smokestack which so many
eyes are now fastened upon, remains capricious, and never does fulfill in full the intentions of he that operates, down below, the tongs and
the shovel.”

?
Reference the article written by Silvio Negro “Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato
eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.);
46
Sometime between March 6 through March 8, 2006 this article, originally written by H. Spigornell was extesively
rewritten to remove all references to the alleged Secretary of the 1958 Conclave Monsignor Santoro, the alleged ,but now
proven, non existent note that was allegedly passed out to Prince Chigi, as well as the removal of all references to the Silvio
Negro article of Jan 27, 1958.All of the aforementioned information had been previously refered to as fact and precious
evidence by Spigornell.Clearly these allegations were not facts and the total removal of these false allegations by
Spigornell was prompted by the publication by Hutton Gibson of his newsletter “The War is Now” December 2005 issue #
66 in which Gibson brings to light the fact that Monsignor Santoro was not the Secretaty of the Conclave in 1958 and as
such could not have passed out a note from a conclave he had not been present at.Further Gibson brings to light the fact that
the Silvio Negro article of Jan 27, 1958 had been misunderstood by Spigornell and Giuffre and that the Silvio Negro article
refered to the events of 1939 Conclave and not the 1958 Conclave.
47
Hopefully one positive result of this Siri fiasco is to reinforce the need for us all too seriously check the facts, in all
matters. Before lending credence to what anyone claims. The fact that someone claims and wholeheartedly believes that
something is true does not in any way guarantee that it is in fact true.
48
This item can be viewed at http://www.thepopeinred.com/index.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).

49
This item appeared on http://www.novusordowatch.org/story090905.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).

50
In my archives I have saved, a totally unsolicited email to me dated Fri 12/23/2005 1:31 PM from Mr. Jim Condit Jr. who
is the author of the news story on Fr. Khoat carried on two websites who for the sake of total clearity advises me as
follows:
“As the text of my email/article made clear --- I was only reporting accurately my conversation with Fr. Khoat --- NOT
testifying to the accuracy of it, which I had no way to do. However, I did say, as is true, that Fr. Khoat struck me as a
very sincere priest.”

51
These facts as I have outlined them ,( in my article regarding the debriefing of Khoat upon his return to Houston) were
confirmed to me personally during a telephone interview with Monsignor Ruscitto , who was one of two clerics, together
with Gary Giuffre that interviewed Fr. Khoat upon his return to Houston, Texas from Italy.Monsignore Ruscitto, whom I
interviewed , by telephone,on November 6, 2005 confirmed that Fr. Khoat reported , during their debriefing, that Cardinal
Siri DENIED THREE TIMES THAT HE WAS THE POPE.
52
Canon 233, states that any secret cardinals not made public before the death of the Roman Pontiff ( Siri was not the
pope)die with the Pontiff.
53
Several references exist on the internet for the article written by Thomas W. Case THE TRIDENTINE RITE
CONFERENCE AND ITS SCHISMATIC COUSINS dated Fidelity Magazine, February 1993 which can be found at
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:TlxGiJ7xxG8J:sspx.agenda.tripod.com/
id12.html+supporters+of+cardinal+siri+called+&hl=en (web address current as of October 31, 2005).

“Of course Pope Siri would never have called the Council, the modernist horrors would never have taken place and the
Church would have remained in the pristine state it enjoyed in 1958.

But all is not lost. The word has gone out from the Giuffré camp for the cardinals secretly consecrated by Siri to come out
of hiding now and take their place in the sun. To gather together that is and hold a Conclave to elect a true pope and thus
return the Church to the succession and make It once again One and Holy and Catholic.

Why dignify this fairy tale with the retelling? Because it demonstrates the lengths some people will go to resolve what
seems an unsolvable problem.”

54
?
Copy of the original advert has been retained in the archives of the authors.
55
Reference http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rumor (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
56
Referencehttp://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:DPZvE6e1QYUJ:www.catholic.com/thisrock/
1994/9411drag.asp+supporters+of+cardinal+siri+called+&hl=en (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
It is interesting to note that the very priest/editor/publisher of Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes that originally published the first
articles of Mr. Giuffre eventually called his hypothesis into question not too long after the death of Siri. Here is what
Fr.Daniel Jones had to say:
“ From quite a different perspective comes a form letter from Fr. Daniel Jones, editor of the Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes
and object of a few paragraphs in "Dragnet" some months ago. As you may recall, we reported that Fr. Jones had discovered
the real pope, a Canadian who otherwise is referred to by him as "Fr. John." In his letter Fr. Jones responds to "Beth," who
asked, "Why do you follow Fr. John?"

The answer: "It has been evident to me for many years that the popes of Vatican II have not been legitimate successors of
St. Peter. I thought that Cardinal Siri might have been the legitimate pope in exile. But he died several years ago, and we
have but one witness who has publicly testified that Cardinal Siri told him he was by law the legitimate successor to St.
Peter. There should be at least two witnesses, to make a better case.

"Then I learned that it is almost certainly an attack on the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church to claim that the see of
Peter has been vacant for thirty or more years." (This means, at least, that Fr. Jones is not a sedevacantist, as were some
people who attended the Tridentine Rite Conference discussed on page 7.)

"If Peter is not in Rome, he is elsewhere. There have been several claimants to the papacy since 1960: Clement XV in
France, Peter II in Belgium, Adrian VI in Washington, Michael I in Kansas [also reported on by This Rock; "Pope Michael"
lives with his parents above their store in St. Marys, Kansas], Gregory XVII in Spain, John Gregory XVII in Canada, and I
think Time magazine had an article on one in Philadelphia. A most probably false mystic in Australia, I hear, claims he will
soon be the pope. Jesus said, `By their fruits you shall know them.'"

Fr. Jones went to St. Jovite, Quebec, met Fr. John, was impressed by his spirituality, learned the Third Secret of Fatima,
found out about Fr. John's predecessor, Pope Clement XV (1950-1968) [apparently he booted out Pius XII at God's
instigation], "met [Fr. John's] chauffeur, Fr. Vincent," and otherwise blamed his identification of Fr. John as pope on the
Fatima seer Sr. Lucy. Whew!
57
Introduction to the article of Mr. Giuffre entitled “Exile of the Pope-Elect:Part III” from Sangre di Cristo Newsnotes issue
Number 60 dated April 1989, page 3.
58
Reference http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Nov/nov18mdi.htm (web address current as of November 4, 2005).

59
Reference: http://www.sanctus.cc/siri.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).

60
Reference http://www.sanctus.cc/siri.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
61
Reference http://www.sanctus.cc/siri.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).

62
Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner died on Thursday November 3, 2005 at approximately 3pm. “During the war her family, like so
many of the European traditionalists, were prominent in their opposition to Nazism. She herself was imprisoned by the
Nazis at the age of twenty-one” Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner was the Leader of the German Catholic Traditionalist Movement,
who was also a close friend and collaborator with the majority of Catholic conservative leaders (including Cardinals in the
Vatican , Ottaviani, Bacci, Larraona, Oddi and Carli.)in Europe . She was a fearless defender of the Catholic faith, the
Catholic Mass and Catholic Tradition.Dr. Gerstner was the founder and Direttrice of the “Centro Europeo del Movimento
dei Cattolici Tradizionalisti” which was responsible for coordinating the efforts of all traditionalist movements in Germany
as well as in all of Europe.

I first stumbled across the name of Dr.Elisabeth Gerstner, while reading the Italian book written by Franco Bellegrandi
entitled “Nikita Roncalli”.( Nikita Roncalli,Ediziones Eiles , Rome 1994) .In it Bellegrandi ( a former Knight of The Sword
and The Cape) who worked in the Vatican ,made an unusual reference, to a young journalist Elisabeth Gerstner who in mid
October 1958 prior to the Conclave wrote in a German paper “General Anzeiger fùr den Nieder-Rhein”.Bellegrandi
summed it up as follows:

“There was, however, a German journalist, Elisabeth Gerstner, who smelled the truth in the air and, risking accusations of
insanity, wrote it and hit the mark. In an article titled “Zur Todesstunde Pius XII” appeared on the “General Anzeiger fùr
den Nieder-Rhein” by mid-October 1958, Gerstner wrote in detail, that the Conclave would elect Venice’s patriarch
Roncalli, who would open the door to the future Paul VI (4).”
(reference Nikita Roncalli,Ediziones Eiles , Rome 1994)

Dr. Gerstner had, in fact been, an official employee of the Vatican ( from 1957 until her resignation in late 1961) appointed
by the German Bishops as their representative on the “Permanent Committee For International Congresses Of The Lay
Apostolate (Comitato Permanente dei Congressi Internazionali per L’Apostolato dei Laci or in short COPECIALset
up in Rome by Pius XII in 1952.).Dr. Gerstner spoke five languages fluently including Latin, had been granted her
Doctorate in Philosophy and had completed extensive studies in Theology.She had been awarded a scholarship to study in
the USA, and knew Bishop Fulton Sheen well.Dr. Gerstner began her services in the COPECIAL offices that were then
headed by the convert Dr. Rosemary Goldie.
Marcheza Gabriella Montemayor In her unpublished (I’LL Tell My Cat”) manuscript wrote as follows:

“In Rome, in September of 1963, a group of Catholics who had perceived what was brewing across the Tiber had gathered
to found the association Una Voce, One Voice. The driving force was doctor Elisabetta Gerstner, who, having worked in the
office for the “Apostolate of the Lay” at the Vatican, had been able to closely observe the appearing on the horizon of the
menace threatening Catholicism, which was to take the shape of the most incredible disaster through the Vatican II Council.
She recounts that in the Vatican, at the time, Pius XII had not yet died when the name of the successor, Roncalli, resounded
on everybody’s lips. Encouraged by Elisabetta, among the founders of the Italian chapter of the Association Una Voce was
Duke Filippo Caffarelli, a gentleman and an exquisite musician Along with Duke Caffarelli, it was secretary of Una Voce
Cristina Campo, a renowned writer and a polyglot, a very important asset in an international organization. The Monsignors
Pozzi, Celada, Milani and other clergymen ensured the traditional assistance to the struggle for Faith. A forceful help in the
battle was Don Francesco M. Pulti with his SI SI NO NO… With the adhesion of Mario and Emilia Pediconi, of Carlo and
Paola Belli and others, the battle had become increasingly harder, in spite of the encouragement received by the Cardinals
Ottaviani, Bacci, Larraona, and Carli.”

It is in fact , now,generally not known that Dr. Gerstner was the prime mover behind many of the events that occurred in
the fight for Tradition during the 60’s and 70’s including the founding of “Una Voce” the founding of “Kyrie eleison” the
orchestrating of the now famous “Ottaviani Intervention” the occupation of “St. Nicholas De Chardonay”the “March-On-
Rome”( June 28, 1970) in which thousands from all nations participated to demand an end to the mushrooming heresies in
the Church .

Michael Davies once wrote of her as follows:

“In 1970 a few hundred traditionalists led by Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner staged their own small vigil in St. Peter's Square. This
year thousands came. The plans for 1972 are already underway. Dr. Gerstner is a source of wonder in herself. Coming from
a family with a distinguished record of resistance to Hitler, particularly in smuggling Allied airmen out of Germany (which
even today many Germans consider unpatriotic) she grew up with the understanding that blind obedience to those in
authority forms no part of the Catholic faith. Taking charge of the arrangements for this year's pilgrimage, she managed to
bring groups together whose leaders had seemed inimically opposed to each other and to organize an event which was
outstanding for the absence of any serious setbacks. Blond, attractive, and very charming, as the Italian papers continually
emphasized, Dr. Gerstner is the very opposite to the popular caricature of the traditional Catholic. Her press conferences,
given in the four languages of which she has perfect command, made a great impression on the Italian reporters, particularly
when she demanded: "Dovro forse bruciarmi viva, perche ci ascoltino?" - "Do I have to burn myself alive to get anyone to
listen to me?"
(Referernce http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/1971.htm) (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner, while employed at COPECIAL was in the heart of the action and she was therefore in a position to
offer us, an “insiders story”. It was Dr. Gerstners belief that COPECIAL, had, prior to Vatican II, acted as the antechamber
of the second Vatican Council. In 1958, years before the council, Dr. Gerstner reported these strange machinations to her
German Bishop and to Ottaviani. A veritable who’s who of avant-garde Churchmen regularly frequented the COPECIAL
offices, these included Montini, Bea, Cardinal Mercier, Leo Suens, Jean Danielou, Malachi Martin, Roberto Tucci, Yves
Congar, Josef Ratzinger, Bernard Haring, Francois Dubois-Dumee, Monsignor Achille Glorieux and a host of others. When
the news came that a Council had, in fact been called, it was clear to Dr. Gerstner, that these men, who frequented the
offices of COPECIAL, had in fact not only been working on making Vatican II a reality but they had already moved far
beyond the council. They were the creators of a new Church.(reference for above paragraph is personal conversations with
Dr. Gerstner as well as my paraphrase of the materialon page 110 from the book by M.B.Martinez “The Undermining of
The Catholic Church”)

On the 28th of June 1970 (“March-On-Rome”) Dr.Gerstner and Abbe Coache told the media (in a press conference attended
by Television, Radio and the press) told them all that she had brought 100,000 signatures on a petition protesting the “New
Mass” and demanding its abrogation. She told them of other letters and petitions protesting the “new catechisms” she read
the open letter of “Jean Madiran” which spoke of the “criminal act” of the “Novus Ordo” in which nothing less than the
Divinity of Christ was explicitly denied, she protested the Vatican’s decision to phase out the Latin Tridentine Mass by
1971, she protested the suppression of the St. Pius X Catechism and reminded them all that the new catechisms spoke more
of Mao Tse Tung than of God. Finally Dr. Gerstner advised the press that they regarded themselves not as “traditionalists”
but rather as orthodox Catholics exhorting the Church to abandon its trend towards heresies and unorthodoxy!All that she
feared has come to pass.(see detailed report prepared by Dr. Gerstner for “The Voice” Volume 4, No. 10-July 25, 1970)

I think it safe to say that Dr. Gerstner was the first to sound the “alarm” a true, fearless, devoted daughter of the Church who
defended the true Faith, The true Liturgy and Tradition with her dieing breath..
63
I have included the cover and page 53 of this issue, just in case anyone questions the actual existence of this Gerstner article
and I am prepared to email the original article “Siri Papst?” in its entirety, as it appeared in German, in Kyrie eleison to any
reader that requests it by email

64
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.
65
According to an article by Giuffre under the title of “Exile of The Pope Elect: Part III that appeared in Sangre de Cristo
Newsnotes number 60, April 1989,it was not until 1974 after a chance meeting with a Basque Spanish woman Andree
Marie Gonzalez who was a traditionalist writer , translator , lecturer on communist subversion who advised Giuffre that she
had learned from contacts in the clergy in Spain and Italy that Siri had been made pope in 1963 but his election had been
blocked) So by Giuffres own admission in 1974 he doubted that Paul VI was a legitimate pope, but Gonzalez had stopped
short of saying that Paul VI was not legitimate.
66
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.
67

?
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3, 1986
pages 53-59.
68
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.
69
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.

70
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.
71
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.
72
Giuffre in his article “Exile of The Pope-Elect- Part IV that appeared in the July 1990 Number 65 issue of Sangre de
Cristo Newsnotes page 3-12 , on page 4 states:
“ In October, 1958, the fate of the Catholic Church as well as the entire world would be radically altered by one of the
most secret episodes of the Twentieth Century.The revelation of this virtually unheard of event recently surfaced in
France through the publication of a letter written in 1976 by the late Paul Scortesco, who was a cousin of the Prince
Borghese, a prominent member of the Vatican’s Noble Guard, and President of the 1963 Conclave.Scortesco had
obtained testimonies from the Noble Guard which prompted him to write about the previously concealed election during
the 1958 Conclave of Frederico Cardinal Tedeschini… from the growing inventory of evidence, this writer has come to
believe that, during the 1958 Conclave, an external intervention was directed against one or two of the cardinals, after
one or both of them had received an electoral majority of votes during the many ballots cast.The illegal suppression of
either one of these elections would have invalidated the later, published results of the conclave.If Cardinal Tedeschini
was a victim of such an attack, his plight would have been similar to that od Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, whose thwarted
conclave elections in 1963 and 1978 , were reported by writer, Louis Herbert Remy. ( The Pope:Could He Be Cardinal
Siri?” SOUS LA BANNIERE, No. 06, Vailly-sur-Saudre, France)

Interestingly Giuffre alleges that prior to the 1976 revelation of this Scortesco letter, a letter published in France, that
virtually no one had ever heard these rumors yet as we see Dr. Gerstner had heard these rumors directly from Prince Paolo
Scortesco in 1963.She investigated them immediately and found them to be without merit.Fr. Lawrence Brey, a well know
American,traditional priest who wrote the introduction to the definitive book on the invalidity of the “new mass” by Patrick
Henry Omlor, had heard these rumors as early as 1968 and Giuffre and at least 16 priests and 200-300 lay people had heard
these very same rumors from a Basque woman residing in El Paso Texas in 1974 who had attended the 1974 “Priests
Committee To Restore The Tridentine Latin Mass” conference. All of these people , had knowledge of this event that
Giuffre claims was a virtually unheard of event prior to the publishing of the letter of Scortesco in France in 1976.So
according to Giuffre’s own article as late as Feb. 1974 when he hosted the “Priests Committee To Restore The Tridentine
Latin Mass”, in Houston Texas , the allegations of Miss. A.M. Gonzalez concerning the rumors surrounding the 1963
conclave helped confirm Giuffre’s mounting doubts as regards the legitimacy of Paul VI even though Miss. Gonzalez never
claimed that Siri had indeed been elected. You can read Giuffre’s own account of these events in his “Exile of The Pope
Elect: Part III” from number 60 of the April 1989 “Sangre di Cristo Newsnotes” that I have reproduced below these
comments. It is interesting how we start out with the allegation that virtually no one in the world had heard of this event,
then we learn that Dr. Gerstner (and a number of priests and lay persons and just about everyone in Rome had some pet
conspiracy and ) had heard these claims directly from the source Prince Scortesco and they were immediately investigated
and found to be without merit. This is not not quite how I would define a virtually unheard of event! The introduction to
Giuffre’s article is also very interesting. The commentator makes reference to various compelling sources of evidence of a
cardinal elected to the papacy, prevented against his will from accepting office, living in dangerous exile. All of this in a
book soon to be published way back in 1989.So far, no book, no publishing date, no compelling evidence, no Siri, since he
passed away in 1989, no successor, no smoking gun and in the mean time 17 years have gone by since the introduction to
the Giuffre article was written in Sangre Di Cristo Newsnotes.
73

?
Here is how Scortesco’s death was reported on the following website
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/siri_election.html (web address current as of October 31, 2005).:
“Scortesco obtained this shocking information from members of the Noble Guard. The letter was published in Introibo.
And Scortesco was found burned alive in his bed shortly after the publication of this letter. So Scortesco, prior to
being knocked off, revealed that Cardinal Tedeschini, not Antipope John XXIII, was actually elected first in 1958. And
Cardinal Siri, not Antipope Paul VI, was elected first in 1963.”
yet as I have already stated no one has done independent research on the issue of the death of Scortesco, foul play is
assumed, but no proof has ever been provided in the form of independent verifiable documentation.

74
There are contradictory allegations made concerning the death of Scortesco, some allege he died in 1974, others allege he
died in 1976, some say he was murdered ( burned alive in his bed) because of the rumors he perpetuated in his writings,
however what is verifiable is this, no research has yet been done by anyone to fact check these differing allegations. To date
no researcher has contacted the appropriate authorities in either France or Italy to establish without any doubt the actual ,
country in which the death was alleged to have occurred, the actual place of death, was it his own apartment, his studio,
some other place, the actual date of death, was it 1974, was it 1976, or some other date, the actual cause of death, was he
really burned to death, the actual circumstances of death, whether foul play was or was not suspected, whether the
police( or fire departments) in any jurisdiction in Europe have or do not have a file on Scortesco.Without this information
all that has been alleged , by all parties, regarding the death of Scortesco is nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay,
nothing more than unconfirmed gossip.
75
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.

76
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Nov/nov18mdi.htm (web address current as of November 4, 2005). “Eclipse of
the Church: 1958 and Beyond Part Two”

77
Reference personal communications from Dr. Gerstner .
78
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.
79
I have in my possession, audio CD’s that were produced from almost 40 hours of audio tapes that were recorded for me
by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner.Along with these audio CD’s I also have a series of DVD’s that are digital versions of original
video interviews conducted in Dr. Gerstner’s home in the second quarter of 2005, plus one audio tape made for me by Dr.
Gerstner during the 4 weeks that she was in hospital prior to her death.These audio CD’s and Video DVD’s confirm all that
is in the article “Siri Papst?” and considerably more.

80
Reference http://www.canisciolti.info/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5083 ( web address current as of
26/01/2006 , copy archived in case this page is removed) .A second, shorter article appeared at
http://www.ilgiornale.it/a.pic1?ID=60302 . Both these articles are extremely important as both allegde that Paul VI was
compromised because of his alleged homosexuality .Both these articles support the long held position of Dr. Elisabeth
Gerstner that the heirarchy of the Catholic Church had long been compromised in one way or another. She has been
attacked by both those on the left as well as those on the right but the passage of time and the release of this type of
information serves only to confirm the veracity of her analysis. Attempts by certainTraditional Catholics to discredit her
will not succede because little by little news confirms all that she has written, and recorded.

What follows is the Original Italian as it appeared on the above referenced website on 26/01/2006 followed by my English
translation.

Rivelazioni: Paolo VI era ricattato per la sua omosessualità

Giovedì, 26 gennaio
Papa Paolo VI era ricattato per una sua presunta omosessualità e cercava una via d'uscita chiedendo aiuto al presidente del Consiglio Aldo
Moro. E' quanto emerge dagli appunti riservati del generale Giorgio Manes, pubblicati su "L'Espresso" in edicola domani. "Il Papa -
scriveva il 30 marzo 1967 l'allora vice-comandante dei Carabinieri, riferendo una confidenza fattagli dal socialdemocratico Mario Tanassi
- preme su Moro e anche monsignor Costa (dirigente dell'Azione Cattolica e collaboratore del pontefice, n.d.r.) fu da lui". La ragione è di
massima segretezza e riguarda "i suoi trascorsi giovanili. La Dc vorrebbe salvarlo, ma S. è deciso. Prelati ripetutamente da lui per cerare
appoggio ad un compromesso".

Ipotizzabile, scrive "L'Espresso" è che dietro quella "S" ci fosse il presidente della Repubblica Giuseppe Saragat, che di Tanassi era
compagno di partito. E che l'oggetto del ricatto fosse la presunta omosessualità di Paolo VI, della quale nove anni dopo parlò il suo libro il
francese Roger Peyrefitte. Ma non è l'unica rivelazione contenuta nelle carte di Manes, nascoste per anni dentro due valigie depositate in
banca. Molti sono gli eventi cardine della vita pubblica italiana sui quali emergono informazioni riservate.

In particolare, quelli che hanno visto protagonista il generale Giovanni De Lorenzo, con il quale Manes si scontrò ripetutamente, e che
mise sotto accusa con un celebre memoriale sul presunto golpe progettato nel 1964. Ad esempio, il vice-comandante racconta un
retroscena che riguarda il referendum del 1946, quando gli italiani dovettero scegliere tra Monarchia e Repubblica. "L'allora commissario
Marzano - si legge - possedeva un ingente deposito di armi", utili "per un colpo di forza nel caso il referendum fosse stato sfavorevole al
re".

Avendo però De Lorenzo constatato che "nel nuovo ordine di cose Marzano aveva avuto un posto come direttore automezzi, diffidò di lui,
sgombrando di notte le armi". Cosicché, "il giorno successivo, la polizia le cercò invano". De Lorenzo, scrive Manes, riferisce l'episodio
per "sfatare la sua nomea di monarchico", scomoda per un eventuale sostegno a sinistra nella seconda metà degli anni Sessanta, quando la
presenza socialista al governo divenne una consuetudine.

Comunque sia, interessante è la rete dei rapporti del generale, che secondo Manes sostenne il democristiano Amintore Fanfani nella sua
corsa al Quirinale. Anche con mezzi audaci. "Silurò il candidato Leone - si legge negli appunti - facendo fare un fotomontaggio con la
signora e l'autista tramite Sifar". E quando Leone, "vistolo su un giornale, si rivolse attraverso Andreotti al Comandante generale", per
chiedere l'apertura di un'inchiesta, fu liquidato con un depistaggio: "Quelli del Sifar hanno attribuito" la manovra "agli ambienti del Psdi".

Non mancano, nelle carte di Manes, i resoconti dei contatti segreti tra Pci e carabinieri, le trame con al centro il Vaticano e le manovre del
giovane ministro Andreotti. Un ritratto dell'Italia di allora che è di straordinaria attualità in quella di oggi, dove le accuse dei Ds e le
relative polemiche hanno fatto rievocare la celebre 'atmosfera da Sifar'. Nel caso del vice-comandante Manes, il finale è stato tragico.

È morto nel 1969 in Parlamento, dopo aver bevuto caffè, mentre stava per essere ascoltato dalla commissione d'ichiesta sul presunto golpe
del 1964. Materia su cui proprio 'L'Espresso' fece un clamoroso scoop, che contrappose in tribunale l'allora direttore Eugenio Scalfari e il
redattore Lino Jannuzzi al generale De Lorenzo

What now follows is my English translation from the original Italian article above.

Revelations: Paul VI Was Blackmailed For His Homosexuality

Thursday, January 26

Pope Paul VI was blackmailed on account of his alleged homosexuality, and was seeking a way out turning to Prime
Minister Aldo Moro for help. That is what emerges from the secret notes of general Giorgio Manes, published on
“L’Espresso” [weekly] in newsstands tomorrow. “The Pope” wrote on March 30, 1967, the then deputy-commander of the
Carabinieri, reporting a confidence received from the Social Democrat Mario Tanassi “is pressuring Moro, and also met
with monsignor Costa (Azione Cattolica’s executive and a collaborator of the Pontiff’s, a.n.).” The reason is one of utmost
confidentiality, and regards “his past as a youth. The Christian Democrat Party (DC) would be willing to save him, but S. is
steadfast. Prelates [are] repeatedly calling on him to seek a consensus toward a compromise.”
It is conceivable, writes ‘L’Espresso”, that behind that “S” stood Italy’s President Giuseppe Saragat, and Tanassi’s party
mate. And that the object of the blackmail were Paul VI’s alleged homosexuality, of which the French Roger Peyrefitte
spoke in his book, nine years later. But that is not the only revelation contained in the Manes’ papers, that had been hidden
for two years in two suitcases in a bank deposit box. Many are the pivotal events of the Italian public life upon which
confidential information is emerging.
In particular, the events concerning general Giovanni De Lorenzo, with whom Manes clashed repeatedly, and whom he
charged in his famed memorial about the the alleged coup contrieved in 1964. For example, the deputy-commander tells of
behind-the-scenes activities regarding the 1946 referendum, when the Italians had to choose between Monarchy and
Republic. “The then Commissario (Police Commissioner) Marzano” one reads “possessed a huge cashe of weapons”, to be
used “for a coup in case the referendum had been unfavorable to the King.”
As De Lorenzo, however, was able to ascertain that “in the new state of things Marzano had obtained the position of vehicle
director, he became suspicious of him, and moved the weapons away overnight.” As a consequence, “the following day the
police sought out the weapons in vain.” De Lorenzo, writes Manes, reports the event in order “to explode his monarchist
fame”, which would stand in the way of a possible support to the left in the second half of the 1960s, when the Socialist
presence in government became a tradition.
In any case, it remains of great interest the network of relations set up by the general, whom according to Manes supported
the Christian Democrat Amintore Fanfani in his race for the Quirinale [Presidency of Italy]. Even through bold means. “He
torpedoed the candidate Leone” read the notes “having a photomontage made with his wife [estremely good-looking, as
opposed to Leone] with their chauffeur by the Sifar [secret services].” And when Leone, “having seen the picture on a
newspaper, contacted through Andreotti the Commander general”, to request an investigation, he was dismissed with a
diversion: “Those at the Sifar are blaming the ‘action’ on Social Democrat circles.”
Manes’ papers also include the accounts of the secret contacts between the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and the
Carabinieri, the schemes concerning the Vatican and the doings of the young minister Andreotti. A portrait of the Italy of
the time that is remarkably topical in that of today, where the accusations of the Left Democrats (DS) and the consequent
polemics have stirred a revival of the famous ‘Sifar-like atmosphere’. In the case of the deputy-Commander Manes, the
finale has been a tragic one.
He died in 1969 at the Parliament, after drinking a coffee, as he was about to be heard by the inquiry committee on the
alleged coup of 1964. A matter on which ‘L’Espresso’, in fact, made a clamorous scoop, which put the then director [of
‘L’Espresso’] Eugenio Scalfari and the editor Lino Jannuzzi on the stand against general De Lorenzo.

Il Giornale.it
n. 23 del 28-01-06 pagina 18

Il segreto di Paolo VI «Fu ricattato, chiese aiuto a Moro»

di Redazione

Papa Paolo VI era ricattato e cercava una via d'uscita chiedendo aiuto del presidente del Consiglio Aldo Moro. Lo rivelano gli
appunti riservati del generale Giorgio Manes, pubblicati in esclusiva sull'Espresso di oggi. «Il Papa - scriveva il 30 marzo 1967
l'allora vicecomandante dei carabinieri, riferendo una confidenza fattagli dal socialdemocratico Mario Tanassi - preme su Moro, e
anche monsignore Costa (dirigente dell'Azione cattolica e collaboratore del pontefice, ndr) fu da lui».
La ragione è di massima segretezza e riguarda «i suoi trascorsi giovanili. La Dc vorrebbe salvarlo, ma S. è deciso. Prelati
ripetutamente da lui per cercare appoggio ad un compromesso». Ipotizzabile, scrive l'Espresso, è che dietro quella «S.» ci fosse il
presidente della repubblica Giuseppe Saragat, che di Tanassi era compagno di partito. E che l'oggetto del ricatto fosse la presunta
omosessualità di Paolo VI, della quale nove anni dopo parlò in un suo libro il francese Roger Peyrefitte.

© SOCIETÀ EUROPEA DI EDIZIONI SPA - Via G. Negri 4 - 20123 Milano

Il Giornale.it
n. 22 of 27 January 2006 page 18

Paul VI’s Secret: «He Was Blackmailed, Turned to Moro for Help»

Pope Paul VI was blackmailed and was seeking a way out turning to Prime Minister Aldo Moro for help. That is what
emerges from the secret notes of general Giorno Manes, published in eclusive on today’s L’Espresso. «The Pope» wrote on
March 30, 1067, the then deputy-commander of the Carabinieri, reporting a confidence received from the Social Democrat
Mario Tanassi «is pressuring Moro, and also met with monsignor Costa (Azione Cattolica’s executive and a collaborator of
the Pontiff’s, a.n.).»
The reason is one of utmost confidentiality, and regards “his past as a youth. The Christian Democrat Party (DC) would be
willing to save him, but S. is steadfast. Prelates [are] repeatedly calling on him to seek a consensus toward a compromise.”
It is conceivable, writes L’Espresso, that behind that «S» stood Italy’s President Giuseppe Saragat, and Tanassi’s party
mate. And that the object of the blackmail were Paul VI’s alleged homosexuality, of which the French Roger Peyrefitte
spoke in his book, nine years later.

Additionally now that the taboo’s on speaking on this subject have been relaxed , in light of all that has transpired , other
authors are now speak openly of the alleged homosexuality of Pope Paul VI as can be seen in the article Paul VI's
Homosexuality: Rumor or Reality? Located at
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02tPaulV_Accusations.html all of these events serve only to further confirm
the veracity of all of the claims reported by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner prior to her death on November 3, 2005.The truth of
these affairs is now finally emerging,soon we will understand better the “why” of the changes!

81
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.
82
Reference from the article by Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner entitled “Siri Papst?” originally published in Kyrie eleison no. 3,
1986 pages 53-59.
83

?
Reference personal email communication to me from Dr. Gerstner from March 19, 2005, archived for future reference. ( I
have removed Dr. Gerstners email address so as not to cause hardship on her family so soon after her death).Dr. Gerstner
always referred to Archbishop Pintonello as “Pinto” and to me as “Thomas”.

-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Gerstner [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 11:46 AM
To: Silvio Mattacchione
Subject:
And Pintos heartless answer? You read it to me, but I wished I could read
exactly what he said, this villiacco.BUT, of course he was not an Eminenza
and as he told me many times:"If Siri had been elected, I was not in the
conclave,but I ask you,you knowing how close I was to him,would he not have
confided that to me,his ONLY friend in the Curia? Also, for this also
Gabrielle rip could have given her testimony: at the very beginning, when I
think it was my other villiacco cardinal friend Staffa had introduced me to
him,praising me for having founded Una Voce, he said to both of us:"Io
personalmente non posso,non voglio fare parte di questo movimento. Tito
Casini e un po matto,(io,Thomas avevo appena tradotto la sua TUNICA
Stracciata in tedesco,anche questo librosubito confiscato) continuava Pinto:
Io ho sempre preferito e benvenuto la Messa in italiano. " Thomas,io fuori
di me:" Ma il cardinale suo amico Siri ha ancora un mese prima dell elezione
di Roncalli scritto questa opuscola magnifica in difesa del Latino liturgico
etc etc. " Egli:" mia amicizia col cardinale Siri e basata su tutt un altro
andare assieme,ci conosciavamo daprima della guerra, e percio eravamo
ambedue tanto ma tanto sgustato dell elezione di Paolo Sesto ma non c era
piu niente da fare." Ha chiesto poi se noi sapevamo che Montini aveva di
nascosto da Papa Pacelli tradito i sacerdoti enviati di nascosto in Polonia
e Russia cosi vennero arrestati alla frontiere,che egli collaborava con
Togliatti. Niente di nuovo per noi. Nella settimana dopo,ancora egli non
viveva ancora a Pomezia ma sul Monte Sacro dalle Suore sono andata con mia
amica Mucci da lui. Quando Mucci doveva per un momento ritirarsi egli mi ha
chiesto:" Ha mezzi,la Signora Bonomi?" He,dearest Thomas just as Siri ONLY
interested in money for "i miei nipoti" disse,perche suo fratello aveva
sofferto sotto il fascismo,credo anche in prighione per un tempo. Come Siri,
la scusa di dover provedere per la famiglia.Forze,se noi avessimo avuto solo
lui, per appogiare.but we had hundreds and thousands of priests worldwide to
support,now that they were kicked out of convents and parishes... I think if
we had had a nice sum for him,he would have consecrated one of our priests
as a bishop maybe, because he was jalous of Lefebvre now. FOR ONE THING I
TAKE AN OATH: He has NOT been in succession of Siri,because Siri NEVER
admitted he had been the one in maybe 63. "Non avrebbe confidato a me questa
cosa inaudito, Lei si ricorda, gentilissima signora, che eravamo amici da
tanti tanti anni ,ci davamo il TU, anzi,diceva, NON HO MAI NEANCHE
MENZIONATO a lui questo assurdo rumore che egli fosse eletto e poi creato
una successione nascosta, perche Siri non scherzava e si era completamente
ritirato e ha come tutti quanti accettato Novus Ordo Missae accendando Papa
Giovanni e Paolo VI... etc etc etc....

--
Dr. Elisabeth Gerstner
84
From the book “Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia, 1991, Giardini Editori, Pisa. pp. 52-54 in the series“Opera Del Cardinale
Giuseppe Siri - Vol. XIII; “ that appeared under the chapter title THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF and which
originally appeared in “Renovatio,” VII (1972), inst. 2, p. 155-156.
85
http://www.sedevacantist.com/oreilly.html (web address current as of October 31, 2005).

86
http://www.sedevacantist.com/oreilly.html (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
87
http://www.sedevacantist.com/oreilly.html (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
88
http://www.sedevacantist.com/oreilly.html (web address current as of October 31, 2005).

89
http://www.worldthreats.com/al-qaeda_terrorism/Interview_with_Paul.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203%20
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45812%20
90

91

?
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=82274 (web address current as of Jan.1, 2006).
“VATICAN CITY, JAN. 1, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says that terrorism, nihilism and fanatic fundamentalism are
the current threats to world peace.

The Pope's words echoed in St. Peter's Basilica on the first day of 2006, crowded with faithful, during his homily on the
solemnity of Mary the Mother of God. The Church today also observed World Day of Peace.

"In the face of the situations of injustice and violence that continue to oppress different areas of the earth, in the face of the
new and more insidious threats against peace -- terrorism, nihilism and fanatic fundamentalism -- it is more necessary than
ever to work together for peace," the Bishop of Rome exclaimed during the homily.

The Holy Father reflected on the ideas he expressed in his first message for a World Day of Peace, the theme of which is "In
Truth, Peace."

Benedict XVI appealed for a "thrust of courage and confidence in God and in man to opt for undertaking the way of peace."

"It is something that all must do: individuals and nations, international organizations and world powers," he said.

In particular, the Holy Father referred to the United Nations, calling it to a "new awareness of its responsibility in the
promotion of the values of justice, solidarity and peace, in a world ever more marked by the widespread phenomenon of
globalization."
92

?
Reference article of Dec 20 2005 in the New York Times by Eric Lichtblau entitled “F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups,

New Files Show” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?

hp&ex=1135141200&en=171df5b870cdd147&ei=5094&partner=homepage (web address current as of December 20,
2005).

“WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous
surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the
environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show….

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community
Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the
bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals.

The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information
Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to
information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.”

93
94
Copy on hand in our archives for reference.
95
Copy on hand in our archives for reference.
96
Karl Barth, “Renewal and Unity of the Church”, Rome, 1969, Silva Editore.

97
Reference: http://www.sehaisetediluce.it/una_grande_santa.htm (web address current as of October 31, 2005).

98
Reference: http://misterloop.tripod.com/infamous.pdf (web address current as of October 31, 2005).

99
Reference: http://misterloop.tripod.com/infamous.pdf (web address current as of October 31, 2005).
100
As Catholics it is our responsibility, actually our duty, to ensure that we check the allegations made by all parties before
giving any credence to any claims that may ever be made and attributed to “Traditionalists” as a group.The fact that a
person or organization claims to be “of tradition” or “sede vacante” does not relieve one of the responsibility to seriously
“fact check” every claim made.Catholics must always be watchful and expose any falsehood, any obfuscation, any
exaggeration any deceipt, intentional or otherwise within tradition. Those of tradition must always be on guard because
collectively they can and will all be held responsible for claims that are attibuted to them and that are eventually, easily
disproven and shown to be bogus.Catholics must always immediately and publically expose error as well as those who
perpetrate it.

101
Reference personal correspondence from Mr. Giuffre to one J.B. dated Tuesday, August 10, 2004, 11:03 AM regarding
the subject of Pius XII ( original message BCC to me by Mr. Giuffre and is in my archives) the correspondent J.B. asks “If
Siri was truly elected Pope, why did all the traditional cardinals (Siri himself, Wyszynski, Ottaviani, Bacci, etc.) fully
endorse and support Roncalli and Montini?” .To which Mr. Giuffre responds with the absolutely incredible and totally
unsubstantiated allegation that participants in the conclave of 1958 were subjected to credible threats against themselves
and the Vatican in the form of the explosion of a HYDROGEN BOMB OVER VATICAN CITY. Here is what Mr. Giuffre
states in his email to J.B. on Tuesday , August 10, 2004, 11:03 AM, each reader must personally decide whether this
explanation has merit or not:

“Regarding the apparent acceptance of the status quo (of the antipopes) by Siri, Ottaviani, Wyszynski, and Bacci, it is
necessary to examine each of these individuals, one at a time.

When Siri was shoved aside five minutes after his election by ominous and credible threats against the Church (which
ultimately involved the possibility that a hydrogen bomb would be exploded over Vatican City) he was completely
unprepared for such an emergency just five minutes into his pontificate. From May 1957 until the day that the cardinals
filed into the Sistine Chapel to prepare for the conclave on 25 October 1958, there had been a unprecedented level of
nuclear bomb testing conducted by the USA, and its pretended adversary, the USSR, and the number and megatonage of the
devices being detonated had finally reached their peak between the time of Pius XII's funeral and the beginning of the
conclave. Anything could have been used as a pretext for all-out war, and Western Europe was again to be the main
battlefield, as it was caught in the crossfire between the two "superpowers." Italy itself was a particularly vulnerable target
since US offensive missiles, ostensibly targeting Moscow, had been positioned on the peninsula, and this had been reported
in the Italian newspapers, a few days after the death of Pius XII, but not in the USA. Within 36 hours of Roncalli's
emergence upon the papal balcony, the Kremlin announced a unilateral moratorium on atomic bomb testing, and within
less than a day after that, the US government announced a similar, self-imposed suspension of further nuclear blasts. This
mutual test ban would last nearly three years - until a little over a year before the next conclave.

When the cardinals saw that Siri, for the sake of preventing the annihilation of the Pope, the papal electors, and the back-up
electors of the Pope (the clergy of Rome), went along with the coup dé'tat, they followed suite (sic)”… There are different
versions of the story about the threat or combination of threats that were brought to bear against Siri and his electors, but
the issue of the A-bomb invariably figures prominently among them. Had there not been a bombing of the Vatican… After
the initial terror campaign to drive Siri off the throne had been accomplished, his primary concern was to avoid causing a
schism - but he facilitated the Great Apostasy instead.

Much of my information on these events comes from a secretary (now deceased) of one of the cardinals, and a former
Vatican official, now in his nineties,
with whom I hope to meet again this Fall, in Rome. One thing is for sure -
whatever threat or threats forced Siri off his throne, were sufficient to
keep him off for another 31 years….”.

102
Reference below is a portion of the article written by Silvio Negro “Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi
l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); that appeared Oct., 27, 1958

103

?
Reference below is a portion of the article written by Silvio Negro “Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio
che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); that appeared Oct., 27, 1958
104

?
Reference below is a portion of the article written by Silvio Negro “Due prime fumate di colore incerto e poi l’annuncio
che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); that appeared Oct., 27, 1958
105
?

Footnote 32 above is a photocopy of the Silvio Negro article of October 27 , 1958 morning entitled“Due prime fumate di
colore incerto e poi l’annuncio che il Papa non è stato eletto, 255, 27-28 ott., p. 1 (C.d.I.); in which Prince Chigi explains
that, unlike other conclaves ,chemical preperations were used in this case ( that is in the case of the 1958 conclave) that
caused great confusion. Here is what Prince Chigi actually said above
“ One might respond that if the chances of a misunderstanding were, this time, so much greater than in the past, the thing is
in fact due to the circumstance that yesterday they had made innovations, convinced that the panacea would be found in
certain chemical preparations. Be that as it may, the rule to avoid being mislead is this: if the “fumata” is long, for the mere
fact that it is long it is already negative; the good one will always be a short “fumata” and of a white that is almost
transparent, for, in that case, only the ballot papers are burnt, and nothing else. Unfortunately, it is a rule that never agrees
with the anxiety of he that is bound to provide the first news.”