The following is my response to Jim Condit, Jr. who took issue with my two piece essay discussing the "Siri Theory," and why it is that it is interesting despite the fact that in the end it does not hold water.
First of all, is Griff Ruby your real name? Forgive me if I say it sounds like a made up name.
Before I go any further, I should point out that we have
already met. You spoke at the 2004 ISOC conference and
I was in attendance. At that time, another "Mr. Condit"
had been in the news a lot recently in connection with
the disappearance of a young woman. Many of us there at
the conference couldn't help but wonder about that. If
you recall, I was the one with the temerity to put it to
you straight out, and if I recall, your answer was that
you were not related to him in any way you knew. So I
suppose I deserved this kind of question.
Yes Griff Ruby is my name, and I will even forgive you for your
comments about it that you make later on. Griff is
short for Griffith and Ruby is my family name. It's
on my birth certificate. I have a great grandfather
and a great-great-uncle and at least one other male
ancestor/brother/cousin-of-ancestor named Griffith so
it is hardly inappropriate in my family to have been
given this name.
The Welsh nature of my name shows from Welsh
ancestors (along with many others from the British
Isles, and a little bit from Spain and France), but my
family name comes from Switzerland where my father's father's (... to the n) father's family relocated
to in about 1300, giving birth to and baptizing their
first child in that area in 1301, and then their name
was Rubi.
And - Ruby? - are you Jack Ruby's son? His
nephew? In Jack's case "Ruby" was short for
Rubinstein. So if Ruby is your real name, are you a
Jewish convert?
As you note, the infamous "Jack Ruby" is actually
named Rubinstein and as such not related to me
at all. (Now how come no one ever asks if I am related
to Lloyd Ruby, the greatest driver never to win the
Indianapolis 500? - while I am not related to him either
at least his accomplishments are of far more interest
and value than Jack's.) As it happens, I am not a
Jewish convert nor am I aware of any Jewish drop of blood
in my veins. My father was variously Methodist and
Lutheran as he grew up but lost interest in it when he
married. My great grandfather on my mother's side had
been a classic fire-and-brimstone Baptist preacher who
had so repelled his daughter my grandmother that
she married an atheist, and that was my mother's
upbringing.
Now, you may object to the cavalier, condescending
way I have asked these questions - however - this
is the way, in part, you treat what you call "The Siri
Theory."
If you say you are being condescending, well then I will
take your word for it.
I will give you credit for recognizing why so many
thinking Catholics are interested in it - even though
it has become "well known" only through about 8
articles published in 1988-89 in Sangre de Cristo
Newsnotes (circulation about 800) and written by Mr.
Gary Giuffre, the original article which focused Gary
on this question published by the Frenchman Hubert
Remy (The Pope: Could he be Cardinal Siri?) -
and, more recently, through the articles by Mario
Derksen on NovusOrdoWatch.com -
Thank you for that credit. Now, would a real Jew/Mason/Illuminati/KGB/CFR/Trilateralist/Opus Dei/Bilderberger
conspirator allow the truth to be discussed as why the
Siri theory could ever have been of any real possible
relevance at all, when confusion is best fostered by
merely drowning it in silence or laughter, all the while
saying absolutely nothing about the logical reasons why
anyone should canonically find such a theory to be of
interest?
And the reason for the (still) pressing urgency of the
Siri Thesis is that it explains everything. It explains
the MECHANISM by which the Church was hi-jacked and
eclipsed ("coincidentally" fitting nicely with Our Lady
of La Salette's prophecy).
Explained. Past tense, explained. While Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was alive, one could claim that perhaps the later Vatican
leaders could not be truly infallible popes since the
Church already had one in Pope Gregory XVII (though
perhaps he didn't know it, or only acted on it secretly,
leading a double life as Novus Ordo "cardinal" who
called John Paul II his pope at every turn and went
along with the Novus Ordo himself, but secretly as a
pope as well along the lines I give in my essay).
But he's dead now, and so are all of his successors
(face it; there were none). That might have held even
until the death of John Paul II since he had been elected
while Siri was alive. Explain, if you can, what happened
with Benedict XVI. Is he a true pope (as the Siri Theory
MUST conclude)? Or are we now forced to cast about
for some other theory to explain what we have now?
The way I see it, the Siri theory is at a crossroads now.
For those who love only (or mainly) the conspiratorial
and secrecy aspects of it, no doubt they can multiply
conspiracies to the skies. But for those whose main
interest is the canonical question as to where the Church
is and how it can still be indefectible, and the mechanism
of how the V-2 disaster occurred, there simply has to be
a tremendous consensus or feeling of "what do we do
now; where do we go from here?" With the election of
Benedict XVI the Siri theory hit a major league dead
end. Where CAN it go from here, except to vanish into
vast conspiracies to manipulate your mind with secret
machines and the like?
There is a "where to go from here," and it is the endeavor
of my articles to point to precisely where that is. It
won't give us much in the way of juicy conspiracies, for it
does not depend on them at all (though I certainly allow
that there have been conspiracies).
This is why all the efforts of just about every traditional
Catholic priest to ignore it, shun it, or ridicule it - have
not succeeded one whit in killing interest in it. In fact,
everywhere I have gone, those putting on conferences
and events about the crisis in the Church are "not
interested", while those attending the same conferences
as participants -- are intensely interested.
Traditional priests reject the Siri theory because they
enjoy one advantage that you and I do not. They have
been trained in the theological and canonical and
philosophical and logical sciences, and with their
Latin they have been privileged to read all the great
theological and canonical works in their original Latin
(have you any idea just how many theologians have
never had their work translated into English?). They
know better. The fallacies of the Siri theory are an
open book to them, though to you and me as mere
laymen we can at best only make out the barest
outlines of those reasons, or even be wholly ignorant
of them, and excusably so. In particular they understand
the canonical issues that surround a papal resignation
and know that if the man himself and all cardinals
unanimously accept his resignation, no matter what the
cause, then that resignation is valid, and the man's
papacy has ended there and then.
And they are interested precisely because the body of
arguments advanced under the umbrella of the "The
Siri Thesis" SAVES the indefectibility of the Church -
something all the other positions do not.
"all the other positions," except one: Mine! It's a pity
that you have not taken the time to become familiar
with it, to mull it over, pray about it, meditate on it, and
see that it not only solves everything the Siri theory
ever could have solved, but even solves other things
you might not have ever thought of. See my five-part series What is your picture And I don't have
to speculate as to what went on behind closed doors.
The real key to what it is that has been going on all
these years (the "mechanism," so to speak) has been
hiding out in plain sight all these years.
Actually, it occurs to me just now that perhaps the
Bayside/Palmar de Troya "model" might also be a kind of
attempt to address these issues since it claimed that
the "real" Paul VI who was validly elected as pope and
so therefore infallible had been kidnapped and placed in
some secret Vatican dungeon while a remarkable look-alike
was put in his place, who not being the pope but only a
mere impostor was not infallible but could do anything he
wanted. He would be the public lie, to explain the V-2
madness, and the real Paul VI in the dungeon would be
where the real Church was. As we both know of course,
the clock ran out on that theory when Paul VI died (and
presumably the double was done away with as well).
Your unwarranted conclusions that this or that did, or
did not happen, at the 1958 conclave - are simply
your opinions. You do not know what happened in
that conclave exactly, and neither do I.
And yet you are ready to stake your soul on and base
your entire belief as to where and how the visibility of
the hierarchical nature of the Church is now located,
based on mere speculations as to what might have
happened behind those closed doors of the conclave,
and in my articles I even admit and allow that it might,
MIGHT, have indeed followed something along those
very lines. Then again it equally might have done any
of a thousand other things, most of which would be
things that neither you nor I would even imagine or
think of at all. I don't know, and as you say, neither
do you.
However, what we do know is that white smoke does
not go up while the Vatican radio announces for 30
minutes that "We have a Pope", while the Swiss Guard
is called out of their barracks, etc. etc. etc. - with the
priest manning Vatican radio concluding the half hour
with the words (paraphrase): "They are telling me a
mistake has been made. This is not possible - the
answer must lie elsewhere" - and with an article the
next day in the largest paper in Italy about the note from,
I believe Cardinal Navarro (sp?), handed to the Swiss
Guard Chigi (sp?) outside the door of the conclave as
the white smoke was still billowing from the conclave
on the early evening of October 26, 1958 - with the
note saying (paraphrase): "No matter what, the smoke
is white and positive." Please note, this note was
handed out AFTER someone was elected, accepted
a name, and said "Accepto" (I accept) - and this note
was handed out to the Swiss Guard AFTER the
conclave was OVER.
As I recall (from news reports from the period) the white
smoke only lasted a few minutes, and then while still
puffing out that chimney it turned to black. And apparently
the same thing happened again in 1963. But in any case
all of that is immaterial. Allow, if you wish, that Siri
was elected, and that he accepted and took the name of
Gregory XVII. But then he resigned, such that then he
is no longer pope. It doesn't matter why a pope resigns,
if he resigns then he is no longer pope, as several have
including Celestine V. It is just that in this case, Gregory
XVII's pontificate would therefore have lasted only a few
minutes rather than months or years as did the other
papacies from which the man resigned.
Now, in case you don't know, any threats coming into
the conclave at that point (after a Pope has accepted
the office) --- threats which you take as lightly as many
of the traditional priests who have buckled before
expediency, obfuscated, lied, and prevaricated over
PROPERTY DISPUTES (not even under any life threatening
pressure) - any threats coming into the conclave at
that point, on October 26, 1958, under canon law,
invalidates all the rest of the proceedings after that.
But don't you see that this is where a little bit of the
interior life would come in handy, for then you would at
once realize (as all saints have always realized) that all
threats (apart from that of eternal damnation) are meant
to be taken lightly. ("And fear not them that kill the body, and cannot kill the soul: but rather fear Him that can destroy both soul and body in hell" Matthew 10:28.) What difference does it make as to what threat
might have caused Siri (assuming he won the balloting)
to either refuse the election or resign therefrom? None
whatsoever! Peter was crucified upside down. All other
popes for several centuries all to a man died a martyr's
death (red martyr). One has to go three centuries
to arrive at the 31st pope Pope St. Militiades who
has the distinction of being the very first Successor
of Peter to die without being martyred for the Faith. And I don't have
the faintest clue what you are talking about with regards
property disputes (?!?) What popes ever had that?
Oh and by the way, if such threats were to have the
power to invalidate all further proceedings of the
conclave (not the case in the case of a papal conclave,
however much such things could apply elsewhere as
canonical principles), then all that puts one on to is the
classic sedevacantist position that there has been no
pope since Pius XII. There are other ways, better than
that, though still inadequate, to reach that same
conclusion.
So, no matter what "they" did - Siri, if he was the one
elected, arguably walked out of that whole mess as
Pope on October 28, 1958, evening after Roncalli had
marched out on the balcony to the cheers of the world
Jewish press.
That's a mighty big "if." It could have been someone else
elected. After all as Pius XII's evident heir apparent he
was a papabile, and as we know, "He that enters a conclave
as a papabile emerges as a cardinal." And all the cardinals
accepting Roncalli falsely is canonically impossible. All
the cardinals in that conclave had been chosen by Pope
Pius XII and his undisputed predecessors. All of them to
a man accepted Siri's resignation (assuming he was
elected and initially accepted in the first place) or else at
least one of them would have spoken out. The visibility of
the Church would have depended on that happening, but it
never did, and now that all of them are dead, it never will.
What was done since then by Siri or anybody else in
relevant offices or positions? It is the other great
question (how did "they" keep all the cardinals quiet)
along with the first great question on this subject -- what
exactly happened in the conclave of 1958.
Ah yes, key indeed. What did cardinal Siri do since that
conclave (and even the 1963 conclave for that matter)?
Most important to note is that he never did any of the
things I had him doing in my fictionalized account in my previous two Siri theory articles. He never founded a secret church, with secret
Curia, secret bishops, secret cardinals, secret priests
and parishes, and ultimately a secret successor to take
his place once he was dead. If he was pope, then he
squandered his 31-year pontificate not doing a single
blessed thing. Not one!
Whatever happened, the Siri Thesis leaves the
indefectibility of the Church intact. Regardless of what
Siri did, didn't do, failed to do, was not able to do
because he was under pressure from the KGB,
MOSSAD and CIA (you don't seem to have any
appreciation for this possibility, just as you seem to
have no adult appreciation of the fact that for the
forces of evil to direct the world, usurping the Papacy
was the WHOLE BALLGAME).
To leave the indefectibility of the Church intact (which
my theory still does but the Siri theory no longer can,
now that "His Holiness Pope Gregory XVII" is dead)
one must also have the Church hierarchical still as an
ongoing institution somewhere. I wonder sometimes
if the canonical pessimists, some of the sedevacantists,
and Siri theory enthusiasts tend to believe that the Church
would much sooner disappear off the face of the earth
rather than teach error (and since error alone is all that exists anymore (as claimed by these types), the Church would therefore have had to have
disappeared, at least as a hierarchical organization). But
the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church teaches
that it can in fact do neither one. It must continue to be
infallible, but also it must continue as a visible
organization somewhere. Both are absolute imperatives.
For the Siri theory to sustain the indefectibility of the
Church there absolutely MUST be a "Pope Paschal III"
(by whatever name) and his Curia and Cardinals and
bishops and priests somewhere, as I recounted in my
fictionalized account. Where are they, the REAL ones,
that is? If you could point me to them then I would gladly
take back everything I have ever said against the Siri
theory. But I know you cannot, because these things
do not exist. After Siri died, the call was put forth for
any and all of his "secret cardinals" to please come
forth and hold a conclave. As we know, nobody came forward,
not even any crank or crackpot. There was none such to
come forward.
The most you or anyone could possibly say would have
to be "Well, there must be one out there somewhere, out
yonder, who knows?" But you don't know who that would be, or
where to find them, as neither do I, or even Hutton Gibson
(which may have something to do with why he is no longer a
Siri theory supporter, according to one source - I regret my
information naming him in my previous Siri theory article having been from a couple sources that are out of date and furthermore rather careless about verifying their "facts").
"There must be one out there somewhere." Some tiny secret
group must be the Church, and I am morally obligated to join
it to save my soul. But where is it? I sure would like to
meet up with this secret clique you postulate and who would
know where it all really is, so I can also join the Church
and save my soul, as one must join the Church once one
is conscious of that duty (which of course I am).
Oh, and one more thing on this: "The City which is on
the hill cannot be hid." What kind of Church is it to
utterly abandon the reach for souls all around the
world? ...to leave even all of us who have somehow
"figured it all out" and who seek them, totally unable to
find them? No amount of persecution, torture, let alone
mere idle threat could ever justify the Church abandoning
its Apostolic mission so completely.
At least the Siri Thesis, as primarily developed by Mr.
Gary Giuffre - attempts to deal with the real issues, and
provides a very plausible explanation of the MECHANISM
by which the "Eclipse of the Church" has happened in
our lifetime.
It was an attempt, and I believe I gave it credit for that
in my articles. But as the clock ran out on the Paul VI
double theory when Paul VI died, the clock has now also
ran out on the Siri theory. But there does still exist a
valid theory whose clock has not run out and will not until
Vatican II itself is formally revoked. I have a thesis
about Lumen Gentium which I have been posting on The Daily
Catholic for quite some time, and also expounded in my book The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church,
and a few other places. Everyone, to a man, who has ever
taken the time to understand it has also seen the truth of
it. I urge you to do the same.
The Society of St. Pius X does not provide such
analysis or explanation on this uniquely ESSENTIAL
issue;
True, but irrelevant. One does not need to work out
all the little nooks and crannies of Canon Law and
Ontology that are needed in order to see it in its details,
in order to have nevertheless proceeded exactly as
is required to continue the lawful and visible Church
which the SSPX has in fact done.
Michael Davies does not; the Wanderer does not, etc.
etc. etc.
Also true. But again, so what?
I would suggest to you that the "eclipse of the Church"
could not happen without a MASSIVE, PROLONGED
DECEPTION - one in which the forces of Judeo-Masonry
planned for the predictable reactions against their
usurpation.
Close. It's actually been a clever misdirection, one of
the skills used by stage magicians to make the most
impossible of things seem to have occurred. The Vatican
simulates the Church - a church somehow "inexplicably"
falling into gross spiritual ruin, while the real Church (our traditional clergy) is dissimulated by a seeming lack of official status such that billions can look right at it and
still fail to recognize it for what it is.
An "eclipse of the Church" would not be very effective
if it only lasted for 5 days or five weeks, as Fr. Hermann
Kramer seems to imply in his otherwise excellent
commentary in his "The Book of Destiny." In order to
have a "frightful crisis" as another Catholic visionary
predicted, you have to have, well, a frightful crisis.
And we are in it.
I have not read this book by Fr. Hermann Kramer.
WHY? Why have none of the "movements" and/or
"reactions" to the usurpation of the Vatican and the
resulting DEMOLITION of Catholic tradition and
practice which has taken place inside the structures
of the Church - been even SLIGHTLY interested in
what happened in 1958 - the point of departure
from Catholic normalcy within the structures of the
Church to - in its place -- outright anti-Christ revolution.
Why no interest?
Actually, from what I have seen, many sedevacantists
seem to assume that the Church had something happen
then since they accept Pius XII but reject everyone that
came after. The political maneuverings that could lead
the college of cardinals to choose a man known for his
history of heresy to lead them could no doubt be of
interest to them as well.
But again, all I have seen any of the Siri writers talk
about is 1958 (or occasionally 1963). What about
today? Where is the Church today? Not a one of
them has ever talked about that. And for that matter,
my articles (especially the first of the two) even go on
to lay out clearly and explicitly how this would have
worked, by comparing Siri to Pope Silverius and
the V-2 non-popes to Vigilius, something that the Siri theory enthusiasts have only vaguely hinted at. Not a one of them has ever committed these thoughts so clearly to writing as I have. Why does it take me, a
professed non-Siri theory person, to be the first to
express it in a manner that actually could possess any
real theological stature, such that it's appeal could
actually seem like a rational thing?
You at least recognized that the Siri Thesis was raising
an important issue heretofore unaddressed (how about
THE important issue, i.e., how do we adopt a position
which does not destroy the indefectibility of the Church
through this period?)
I think I have been extremely fair with it. Yes it did
address these issues as the other commonly held positions
did not. But it can't now, at least not without a
continuing Church hierarchical to point to. I don't doubt
that anyone who still wants to continue waving the flag
of Siri theoryism might well write up all the reasons
why Benedict XVI is no pope, bringing up all the dirt of
his past life and the numerous grotesqueries of his
present administration. But they can't point to where
the Church therefore IS.
And I am very serious about my questions at the top to
you. Is Griff Ruby your real name? I use my real name.
Hubert Remy uses his real name. Gary Giuffre, the
author of the articles which began the circulation of the
Siri Thesis in earnest, uses his real name. Even the
high profile Hutton Gibson uses his real name, although
I believe you have mischaracterized his position on this
matter. So, are you using YOUR real name? And, are
you of Jewish ancestry, which is often the reality if and
when one's name is actually Ruby? Why do I ask?
Because confused and faithful Catholics are confronted
on all sides with "Jewish converts" or crypto Jews
posing as believing Catholics - who are ever so eager
to "help" Catholics through this period. Problem is: their
"help" is usually to walk the confused and unsuspecting
Catholic out of the front door of the Novus Ordo Church,
only to guide him back into it through the back door; the
Novus Ordo Church is, after all, a Jewish-Masonic
creation; put simply, it is THEIR church - their FALSE
church - so no wonder so many Jews are "eager" to
convert to this monstrosity they have created, posing as
the True Church. So, are you of Jewish ancestry?
I believe I answered those questions above. No one
has "put me up" to doing what I do, rather I do what I
do for the salvation of souls. In my mere lay capacity
I can do one thing, and that is point people to the
Church for their guidance and sacraments. That I do.
What I do find quite disconcerting here is your ready
willingness to believe that were I Jewish that would in
any way increase the chances of my being involved in
some conspiracy or other. This kind of selective
suspicion smacks of a kind of anti-semitism that the
Church has never supported, and that even Fr. Fahey would
have condemned. I seem to recall a similar bias in those
tapes of the political spots you were putting on the radio
and which you shared with some of us at that conference.
I mentioned that I myself am not Jewish. Might I also
mention that Jews are people in need of salvation just
exactly like everybody else, neither more nor less likely
to come to the Church for Faith than anybody else.
One reason I ask is, -- I caught your advice along the
way of the two articles on the Siri matter: avail yourself
of the services of your local traditional priest, obey the
bishop he obeys, --- WHOA! --- really? These bishops
have, as far as I know, no more ordinary jurisdiction
than you or I or a mouse. Some of them like to try and
bulldoze the faithful desperate for the sacraments into
thinking they do, but they do not.
Well, this is precisely why it is you need to become acquainted
with my theory, since in fact they do possess such jurisdiction
if anyone could these days. They are not the ones doing the
bulldozing (from what I have seen they all prefer to act
well within their limits, preferring to "err" on the side of
presuming too little rather than too much), rather it is I
who have been doing the careful canonical, doctrinal, factual,
and ontological investigation into the full extent of their
true authority. One interesting feature of the nature of
the authority delegated to them is that it is not required of
them to be even aware of their authority, hence their ignorance
of the theory in no way deprives them of the authority so
delegated.
Be all of that as it may however, you must either show me
someone (name and address required, vague speculations that there
might be someone out there somewhere will not do here) whose
claims are superior to any and all of these, or else accept these
traditional bishops one and all as the true and lawful successors
of the Apostles which they in fact are. Or do you have a problem
with answering to a living authority?
And a number of the "priests" operating are of doubtful
validity, as you may know the Society of St. Pius X allows
those ordained under the new rite and by bishops consecrated in
the new rite - to function for the society. How can these be
valid?
The SSPX examines the specific circumstances of the ordination of
each priest being welcomed to its order. The new "rite" may
indeed "lack intrinsic validity," but that is not the same as
being "intrinsically invalid." The V-2 "rites" of ordination are
sacramentally "doubtful," thus requiring further investigation so
as to ascertain the validity of each case. The SSPX makes that
investigation, ordaining if and only if it is found that it was
in fact invalid in a particular case.
Same goes in triplicate for the "priests" of the Society of St.
Peter and the Society of St. John.
This does matter and is a valid concern, however where the
sacraments are not valid the graces will not be seen, and I do
instruct people to watch for the evidence and holiness that
results from the true sacraments. They cannot be simulated
nor can it be claimed that the sacraments are of no detectable
effect. I allow that some number of FSSP or ICR priests may
have not been validly ordained (many were ordained by the SSPX,
a few before the changes, and the rest require investigation),
although it does seem that at least a significant proportion
of them at this time do seem to have a valid ordination, at least a significantly higher proportion thereof than of Novus Ordo presiders in general.
How is a layman to find his way through all of this?
It isn't hard, just look for wherever authentic Catholicism
with all its fruit is to be found. And any well-established
traditional order will be quite happy to show you that
authentic faith and the good fruit of holiness it bears in
their congregations.
This is precisely why your advice to be quite satisfied with
getting traditional -- or traditional looking -- sacraments
--- has begun to smack of the enemy when it is not coupled
with insistent demands to know what happened in 1958 and with
the focusing of people on this subject so that they will be
investigating in the right direction, and will recognize the
solution when it arrives in God's good time - AND - will
recognize those who are trying to direct Catholics' attention
away from these questions - trying, in effect, to run out the
clock.
Three things here: I detect a teaching of extreme distrust.
What is the layman to do, who can he trust, where can he go for
the reliable sacraments of the Church? Where do you go to
church? Whose Mass have you decided to trust blindly? This is
unacceptable as an attitude to instill in the Faithful, as they
and and must always learn to trust in the indefectible Church.
Point two is that I have little interest what happened in 1958
since the real news took place in 1964. I could every bit as
fairly accuse you of being suspect for not drawing attention to
the momentous event of 1964 that made the present situation all
possible. Point three, as for clocks running out, all the clocks
have already run out except mine. Palmar de Troya/Bayside Paul
VI double ran out in 1978. Cardinal Siri theory ran out earlier
this year. The conclavist attempts to find a cardinal ran out
when the last pre-Vatican II cardinal died only a few years ago.
So the solution you offer as satisfactory for our
circumstances -- is quite inadequate - it is in fact the Old
Catholic solution (advocated by Archbishop Lefebve at the end
of the book "Peter Lovest Thou Me" - plenty of proliferation
of bishops, priests, and chapels - without concern over the
Papacy or the Pope, -- and the Papacy and the Pope is the only
POSSIBLE path to a solution of this crisis, as the eclipse of
the true Pope and the true Church - was the CAUSE of all the
symptoms that so many people seem to get great glee out of
decrying to the exclusion of the CAUSE of all the symptoms.
There is nothing in common between the authentic Catholic
bishops I extoll and the Old Catholics. Every traditional
Catholic bishop worthy of the name seeks to find and obey the
papacy, and will all promptly sign up with the next true pope
when there finally is one. In the meantime, their present
squabbles merely reflect the fact that at present no one sits
in St. Peter's chair to bind them together. But whose fault
is that? Peter's chair is empty and the bishops of the
Church act exactly as such a situation warrants. They are
the future of the Church, and when the next pope comes, he
will have to come from them (or at least have to derive his
episcopacy from them to be reliably a bishop). They are the
Church, taken together, and popes all come from the Church,
never the other way around.
You think this email harsh?
I will leave it to readers to decide this for themselves.
You think I am not giving your essays their due? I'm not
trying to deal with each nuance you raised.
There is obviously no question of your having done that, and I
pity you. You thrash about in the dark, so full of your own
words as to be unable to learn what really has been going on
all around you, even with the likes of me to finally lay it
all out for everyone and anyone to be able to see at last and
have the peace that comes from knowing. I see no serenity in
you. You don't understand the present situation and so you
wallow in fear, not knowing where to turn or who to trust.
You think everyone else is all part of some vast conspiracy
the moment they fail to agree with your extraordinary premises.
But let me assure you, the tone of this email is the
appropriate tone for concerned Catholics to take, not the
sometimes smirking perusal of the issue and the crisis
contained in your two articles on the Siri question. And -
don't worry - serious Catholics will continue to look into,
as far as possible, what happened in the 1958 conclave and
to investigate "The Siri Thesis" and all its attendant
questions - as neither God nor Catholics need have any fear
of the truth.
I'm sure many will, with no more success in understanding the
present situation nor of finding that peace and assurance that
God has long provided for in His Church, than you have had.
Meanwhile, the continual suspicion you cast on all recourses
that Catholics have taken to smacks of Canonical Pessimism.
All I wonder is whether you are a total Canonical Pessimist
(acknowledging no valid and lawful and orthodoxy Catholic
clergy at all) or merely a selective one, and if selective
just precisely who it is that met with your muster and how
they managed to winkle their way past your suspicions. As I
asked above, what Mass do you attend? what Mass would you
direct an inquiring Catholic to attend? I really want to know.
Our job is to AT LEAST be looking in the right direction, as
far as we can see where the right direction is - and to not
be distracted by those who are trying to direct our
attention somewhere else - into meaningless dead-end alleys.
I hope at least that we can both be committed to doing that
(looking in the right direction, as far as we can see where
the right direction is), for perhaps deep in there one may
find yet still a seeking in the heart of which our Lord said in Matthew 7: 7,
"Seek and ye shall find."
Postscript
It was asked of me what Latin works or other knowledge priests might have that we laymen don't have access to or don't commonly know such that priests would tend to reject the Siri theory out of hand. I respond in turn to that by citing the example (cited by Siri theory enthusiasts) of Canon 185 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which states that "Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony." This is often claimed as the basis for Pope Gregory's continued hold of the papal chair despite the resignation the cardinals would have required in order to return to the conclave and elect Roncalli. However, when one is learned in the finer points of jurisprudence (which every priest would get in his courses on Canon Law, whichever Latin theologians are referenced therein), one realizes that this only provides a basis for one unjustly threatened and resigning to later on reclaim the papacy. This has it's equivalent in the sacrament of matrimony where again a marital commitment made under duress can be invalidated.
Say for example John gets Jane pregnant and so Jane's father points a gun at John's head and says "Marry my daughter," (a classic "gunshot wedding"). So John gets up to the altar and says "I do." This canonical principle provides John with a legitimate basis to pursue and obtain an annulment, as he has the right to claim (once the gun is no longer pointed at his head) that his marriage vows were taken under duress and as such invalid. However, despite this prerogative, were John to instead simply continue to live with Jane as a true husband to her and father to their children and never seek an annulment, even when the gun is no longer pointed at his head, then no one says that they were living in sin in an invalid marriage. If, despite the circumstances of his marriage, he chooses to remain in it and live in it, then it is valid. Applying this to the situation of Pope Gregory XVII, this canon gave Cardinal Siri the right to assert his papacy (only apparently relinquished) and step into the papal chair at any time should he decide that the threat has passed or else that the brewing disaster to the Church was getting clearly far worse than anything threatened. Unfortunately he went to his grave without ever having done this, just like John and Jane living together as husband and wife "until death do they part." For this reason Canon 185 is useless in supporting a claim that Cardinal Siri retained a papacy throughout the subsequent events of the conclave and later conclaves.
