July 15, 2005
vol 16, no. 196

Project Harvest Moon Revisited

    The clock must eventually run out on all other theories and that is why they must eventually run out of steam because time and evidence is against them. Not so with the fateful facts of Lumen Gentium

    Editor's Forward: Normally, we do not publish responses from readers on specific articles for that rarely accomplishes much and can get into a constant back-and-forth correspondence that turns into a vicious circle. We leave postings and comments to the Blogs to bicker among themselves, but since Griff chose to respond to a letter criticizing his two-part essay intelligently moving us beyond the "Siri Theory" in Project Harvest Moon and Pope Gregory XVII -part one and Project Harvest Moon and Pope Gregory XVII - part two, we felt it is important that it be made public and shared with all. Our reasoning is five-fold.

       First of all, Griff's reputation, good name and family heritage were questioned. Secondly, the letter sent to Griff was copied and sent to The Daily Catholic by Gary Guiffre, the author of the "Siri Theory," and therefore since the letter was already circulating through the net, confidentiality had been compromised, making the letter vulnerable to public domain. Thirdly, it was sent by a public figure Jim Condit, Jr. who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from the Second District of Ohio out of Cincinnati. Note, he is no relation to the infamous Democrat from Northern California (18th District) Gary Condit who was so implicated by the media for responsibility of the missing woman Chandra Levy who California Condit had an affair with and all evidence and accusations against him was basically suppressed from 9-11 on until her skull was found in Rock Creek Park in the D.C. area. Another conspiracy gone unsolved. While Jim Condit's election might have been refreshing and interesting to say the least considering his outspokenness and pledge to reveal the "conspiracies," his viewpoints and methods are truly on the edge and reflect some prejudices no Traditional Catholic should hold. Most of his points are well-founded, including the reasons why the Ten Commandments are being stripped of public places today and subversively replaced by the Noahide Laws which Fr. Louis Campbell himself has presented in several sermons, most notably last July 4th in "Unless your justice..." The difference is that Father does not rely only on theories in pointing out how we should direct our efforts but rather in facts derived from divine revelation and the Sacred Deposit of the Faith such as his sermon Convicted the World of Sin as one example. It is true Father has given credibility to the possibility Siri was elected and this has been expressed here in The Daily Catholic as well as the excellent series "Eclipse of the Church part one and part two last year by Mario Derksen. While both Father and Mario made excellent points and would like to say it is definite fact that Siri was elected, other than incomplete secret government documents recently declassified, the skimpy "last interview" with Siri as related by Hubert Remy, and a few books including Fr. Malachi Martin's Keys of This Blood, there is no definitive proof of Siri's election. Mario does make an excellent point about the need for the enemies of the Church within the conclave to elect first an authentic pope and then a false pope for the former could not teach error whereas the latter could not and would not have the protection of the Holy Ghost. We at The Daily Catholic do not necessarily discount nor promote the "Siri Theory", but rather bring these various viewpoints from our excellent regular contributing Traditional Catholic columnists to help readers sort out the facts and realize how important it is to know the Faith in order to keep the Faith. The eclipse of the True Church did not just happen, there was definitely a plethora of conspiracies to destroy the Church Christ founded and we strive here to present the causes and effects of these possible conspiracies for satan's Medusa-reach slithers into every facet of life and we must be on guard, and we can only do that by being aware of them and praying for discernment by applying Catholic truth to everything posed as possibilities.

       But back to the other reasons we are publishing Griff's response to Condit. Many of Condit's hypotheses, while possessing possibilities and even plausibilities from the Zionist conspiracies to who was really behind the 9-11 attacks, they are still only hypotheses, with very few facts to verify his claims. A hypothesis can only become a theory when it can be substantiated by at least some solid, undeniable facts. Until then, they can only be referred to as "hypotheses." This was the basis of Griff's whole point in which he provides the facts of Lumen Gentium as being the "straw that broke the camel's back" for it is a fact in stark black and white that cannot be disgarded. We at The Daily Catholic believe his arguments are the strongest illustration of how, when, where, what, who and why the devastation of the Church presented to date anywhere, and his points give more credence to where the Church truly is today and the uniting factors for rallying to and for the Mystical Body of Christ.

       This brings us to the fourth reason we are publishing Griff's response. He summarily and intelligently, and as charitably as possible, defuses the arguments launched by Mr. Condit, whose younger sister Jennifer Giroux, by the way, has achieved some fame herself as a regular guest on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, especially during all the commotion about The Passion of The Christ in which she played such a visible role in its promotion. Jennifer was the voice of sensibility. This mother of nine, who met her husband Dan at a Pat Buchanan rally in 1992, has always exhibited a charitable and gentle touch in expressing Catholic truth; much more so, we might add than the acerbic William Donohue who, along with the flamboyant Rabbi Schmuley Boteach she has been pitted against in sometimes bitter verbal clashes on the tube. Donohue, head of the Catholic League of Religious and Civil Rights, and whose purpose is to defend Catholic rights against anti-Catholisism, is basically a classic fence-sitter who rails at the Jews from one side of his mouth while spouting that some of his "best friends are Jews." Sadly some of Donohue's concessions on air smack of Bill O'Reillyism and have been scandalous to Catholic truth. Boteach is the same. In fact this vicious opponent of Mel Gibson's masterpiece is the self-appointed spokesman for VaticanTwoArianism today. We might add that during all the "deicide" talk spawned by Boteach who quoted the heretical V2 documents often, it was never brought up by Donohue or anyone else in rebuttal that regardless, the Jewish leaders rejected Christ as the Messiah, and for that rejection were stripped of their title as the "chosen people" and heirs of Heaven.

       The Catholic Faith is fact and Christ teaches us to love all and strive to bring them to the truth. Not through compromise or dialogue, but conversion. That is and must be our mission with all non-Catholics especially the infidels of Islam and the Jews, just as we pray, not only on Good Friday but every First Friday in the Act of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, "Turn Thine eyes of mercy toward the children of that race once Thy chosen people. Of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Saviour; may It now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life." A "laver of redemption" is not harsh or accusatory and Condit's tone of suspecting every Jew of being a conspirator as Condit has expressed is akin to calling every Traditional Catholic a schismatic. We know that is not the case and rather than railing at the Jews, we should strive to convert them to the truths Christ and His Apostles preached. That is true charity, caring for the spiritual well-being of souls no matter their ethnicity.

       Finally, we publish Griff's response (with Condit's words to Griff in maroon type) so readers will be able to see Griff's logic and strengthen his own reasons when and where the apostasy officially became evident and why Holy Mother Church is still indefectible despite the strong documentation that there has been an interregnum of well over 40 years. His "theory" is not theory but a tragic fact - Lumen Gentium is the key for why the desolation of so many souls and the total lack of fruits and we urge you to re-read his excellent five-part series on Lumen Gentium What is your picture? from earlier this year and when he put the exclamation mark on it last month with A Lesson from Jolly Old England. Griff meticulously backs his arguments up with certifiable facts that eliminate all other theories, and justify the continued obedience to the traditional clerics and their respective bishops who, consecrated by pre-Vatican II bishops, are truly successors of the Apostles, unlike the post-Vatican II bishops and cardinals.

       For all of these reasons we have determined it is necessary to publish Griff's response and do so not to get into endless squabbling between traditional groups, but rather to unite and give the necessary credibility to the only course Traditional Catholics can follow by totally rejecting the Novus Ordo and Vatican II and attend exclusively the Traditional Latin Mass.

    Michael Cain, Editor, The Daily Catholic

   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 -

    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? 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."


    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.

Griff L. Ruby

Griff's book is available from Books for $26.95 or can be read on-line at We at The Daily Catholic strongly urge you to share it with all you can for that could be the gentle shove that moves your friends back to where the True Faith resides forever, rooted in the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church as Christ intended and promised.

    Griff Ruby's STRAIGHT STUFF
    July 15, 2005
    Volume 16, no. 196