Comments on the Eclipse of the Church and the White Smoke of October 26, 1958

It seems necessary at this point to make note of some important principles, some examples of primary evidence, some background, and some testimonies of several people closer to the events of 1958, almost all of which were brought together for the first time in one place in articles published by Gary Giuffré circa 1988-1990 through a small circulation newsletter.

Here are passages from two large circulation newspapers, the [London] Tablet and the Houston Post, regarding the white smoke beginning at 5:55 PM during the conclave on October 26, 1958:

“Too few people realize how easy it is to get the Vatican Radio on the medium waveband (196.2 meters) on any average wireless set in this country. It used not to be so, but so it has been for a year now, since the late Pope inaugurated the powerful new transmitters at Santa Maria di Galeria, and nothing was easier last Sunday than to sit in London listening to the excited uncertainty of the announcer about the colour of the smoke. At five o’clock by our time – six o’clock in Rome – he suddenly said, ‘The smoke is white . . . there is absolutely no doubt. A Pope has been elected. Habemus papam.’ But then the smoke seemed to turn black, and he said that perhaps one ought to wait for confirmation of the news; then it was plainly white again, a great cry of ‘Evviva il Papa’ arose from the crowd in the Piazza, and the announcer threw caution to the winds; the white smoke, he said, had been too much, and too steady, to leave room for doubt. Then caution crept back again and he said that only when the lights went on in the Hall of Benedictions could they feel certain that a Pope had been elected. But, he insisted, the slightly dusky colour of the white smoke could only be due to a technical difficulty of some sort; it was too abundant, there was too much of it, for anyone to think otherwise. Yet the minutes ticked on and no lights appeared; it was twenty past five before the announcer really began to think that a mistake must have been made after all.” (“The Vatican Radio”, The [London] Tablet, 1 November 1958, emphasis added)

Here is a second newspaper account with some phrases again underlined for emphasis; it covers the initial minutes following the heavy, white smoke that had started coming out from 5:55 PM and continued for another 5 minutes, suggesting to all those present, and everyone around the world who was listening to the radio, that the signal meant what it had always meant — that a new Pope had been elected:
“VATCAN CITY (AP) – Cardinals balloted Sunday without electing a pope. A mix up in smoke signals made it appear for about half an hour that Pius XII’s successor had been chosen. For a time, 200,000 Romans and tourists in huge Saint Peter’s Square were certain the church had a new pontiff. Millions of others who listened to radios throughout Italy and Europe also were certain. They heard the Vatican radio speaker shout exultantly, ‘A pope is elected.’

“The scene around the Vatican was one of incredible confusion. White smoke from a little chimney atop the Vatican is the traditional signal announcing the election of a new pope. Black smoke indicates failure. Twice during the day smoke billowed from the chimney. At noon the smoke at first came white but it quickly turned unquestionably black. This was the sign the Cardinals had failed to elect a pope on the first two ballots. At nightfall white smoke billowed from the slender chimney for a full five minutes. For all the outside world knew, a new pontiff had been chosen.

“Clouds of smoke were caught in searchlights trained on the Sistine Chapel chimney. ‘Bianco! Bianco!’ roared many in the crowd. ‘White, white.’

“The Vatican Radio announced the smoke was white. The announcer declared the Cardinals at that moment probably were going through the rites of adoration for a new supreme pontiff. For a long time Vatican Radio stuck to its insistence the smoke was white.

“Even high Vatican officials were fooled. Callori di Vignale, governor of the conclave, and Sigismondo Chigi, the conclave marshal, rushed to take up the positions assigned to them. The Palatine Guard was called from its barracks and ordered to prepare to go to St. Peter’s Basilica for [the] announcement of the new Pope’s name. But the guard was ordered back to barracks before it reached the square. The Swiss Guard was also alerted.

“Chigi, in an interview with the Italian radio, said uncertainty reigned in the palace. He added that this confusion persisted even after the smoke had subsided and until assurances were received from within the conclave that black smoke was intended. He said he had been at three other conclaves and never before seen smoke as varied in color as Sunday’s. He told newsmen later he would arrange to have the Cardinals informed of Sunday’s smoke confusion in the hope that something can be done to remedy the situation Monday.

“Priests and others working within the Vatican grounds saw the white smoke. They started to cheer. They waved kerchiefs enthusiastically, and figures of conclavists – cardinals’ assistants – in the windows of the apostolic palace waved back. Possibly they too believed a pope had been elected.

website publisher returns to comment: some of these phrases appear to have been added later that evening by the AP reporter or editor in an attempt to try and make sense out of the emerging cover story. For instance, in the paragraph immediately preceding this comment, the word ‘possibly’ in the last sentence makes no sense. The “priests and others working within the Vatican grounds” who “saw the white smoke” were cheering, obviously, because they concluded the steady, white smoke meant the new pope was elected. Those “waving kerchiefs enthusiastically” would not be energized, except for the same reason. The “figures of conclavists — cardinals’ assistants – in the windows of the apostolic palace” who “waved back” would have known that they were forbidden to have any contact with the outside world or even to signal those outside the conclave under pain of excommunication until the conclave had concluded with the election of a new Pope.] Let’s continue with this Houston Post article:

“The crowd waited in an agony of suspense. Any pope elected would ordinarily appear on the balcony within twenty minutes. The crowd waited a full half-hour now wondering whether the smoke was meant to be black or white. Doubt set in swiftly. Many in the vast crowd began to drift away. But still there was confusion. News media had flashed around the world the word that a new pope had been chosen.

“Telephone calls poured into the Vatican, jamming its exchange. As time wore on and doubts increased, the callers all asked one question: “Black or white?”

“After a half hour, radios began to clatter excitedly that the answer was still uncertain. Only well after the time when a new pope should have appeared on the balcony above St. Peter’s Square was it certain that the voting would have to resume Monday at 10 a.m. (3 a.m. CST). The crowd now aware of this, dissipated quickly. Grayish wisps of smoke still spiraled from the chapel chimney . . .” (“Cardinals Fail To Elect Pope In 4 Ballots; Mix up In Smoke Signals Causes 2 False Reports,” The Houston Post, October 27, 1958, Section 1, pages 1 & 7.)

Website publisher’s comment: 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).

* * * * * * *

One may wonder what was made of all this white smoke and how much, if at all, did these developments perplex and disturb the Italian faithful? For instance, a number of people have anecdotally told Mr. Giuffre, the author of this article, as well as others who are supporters of this investigation, that the “word on the street” after Roncalli emerged as John XXIII was that “they switched popes on us.” In fact, a veteran Italian news reporter adds her considerable credibility to this popular perception.

In her still unpublished memoirs, Vatican news correspondent, and long time reporter for the Associated Press wire service, Gabriella Montemayor (1912-2005), whose career spanned 50 years, summarized the rumors that circulated among informed journalists in October 1958:

“Siri was alleged to have been elected at the conclave of 1958, from which, instead, came out Roncalli. The three well-known smoke signals, white, black, and then, finally, white, had aroused not a little perplexity and the same comment throughout the whole of the Italian peninsula: Who had been elected at the first white smoke?

“Everyone in Genoa insisted, even from the first day: ‘It most certainly was Siri.’ Could he have abdicated? Had he been forced out? Was it politics or the Holy Ghost? The mystery remains yet today. However, the [new] Vatican which burst unexpectedly before our eyes was a totally different Vatican from that of Pius XII, who had condemned Communism, excommunicating whoever had collaborated in any way with the atheists. The excommunication was surely still legitimate when the new pontificate opened its arms to the Soviets, even as Roncalli was hailed, in a shameless manner, as the “good Pope.” (Gabriella Montemayor, I’ll Tell My Cat, 1993, unpublished manuscript, Rome, chapter 4: “Conclave,” page 28.)

* * * * * * *

A second testimony in this regard was obtained by Mr. Gary Giuffré during an interview conducted in London, England in July,1993 with Father Jean-Marie Charles-Roux, a former Vatican official and intelligence officer. The aged priest claimed that Joseph Cardinal Siri of Genoa had been elected and also accepted the Papal office, but was then immediately shoved aside, without his actually abdicating. According to Fr. Charles-Roux, a very serious threat was delivered to Siri and the assembled Cardinals through Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, shortly after the acceptance of office by the new Pope. Conclave ministers had already begun to burn the ballots with dry straw in the Sistine Chapel stove, sending up white smoke to announce the election of the Pope. Even as the thunderous cheers of the crowd outside could be heard by those inside the conclave, a group of cardinals in league with Tisserant commanded the ministers to change the mixture in the stove to wet straw in order to produce black smoke. When the conclave officials refused the order to send out a false signal that would indicate no electoral results, a group of Cardinals brushed the monsignors aside and began to dump wet straw into the stove. Thereafter, a “shoving match” ensued over control of the stove, and the alternating mixtures of dry and wet straw that were being put into it, caused the smoke to vary from white, to black, to white again, and finally to gray, he said.

* * * * * * *

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.

* * * * * * *

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 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.

Scortesco’s assertions were published in the French periodical Introibo, No. 61, 1988. The Introibo article was based on letters Scortesco had written in 1976. These 1976 letters were in turn based on information Scortesco had received from his cousin, Prince Steno Borghese, a prominent member of the Vatican’s Noble Guard, and “President” of the 1963 Conclave. Scortesco asserted that the threats were delivered into the 1958 and 1963 conclave by the highest masonic lodge, the B’nai B’rith.

Malachi Martin referred to threats against Siri in the 1963 conclave in his 1990 book, The Keys of this Blood, on page 607-609. Martin stated that the outside interference came from “an emissary of an internationally based organization” and further suggested that the threats against Siri and the other Cardinals had to do with “. . . grave reasons of state – – – such as the very existence of the Vatican City State . . .”

What could threaten the very existence of the Vatican City State other than the nuclear weapons (see article, An Ominous Anniversary, linked below this article) 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.

* * * * * * *

Canon Law 2390, from the 1917 code (which was in effect and being observed in 1958), as explained by the eminent canonist Fr. P. Charles Augustine O.S.B., D.D., deals with the issue of outside threats that are intended to cancel the results of a completed ecclesiastical election. Once the canonical election has taken place, any subsequent election of another candidate would be null and void.

In addition, Canon Law 185 deals with the resignation of an ecclesiastical office holder, which, if obtained by threats or grave fear, is invalid.

(Therefore, if, as more than one source claims, outside threats were brought against Siri and his electors immediately after his canonical election on October 26, 1958, then any subsequent resignation forced upon him would have been null and void. Moreover, the attempt to elect Roncalli two days later would also have been null and void. In this regard, the recent comments immediately below of Fr. Charles-Roux are most interesting and relevant.)

* * * * * * *

Fr. Charles-Roux, in addition to having been interviewed by Gary Giuffré in 1993 as related above, spoke out again in September 2004 in the periodical Inside the Vatican on page 41. In this article he stated that, “There were certain irregularities about the election during that 1958 conclave, as Cardinal Tisserant has himself acknowledged.” He then goes on to assert that, per the impossible, the first election in 1958 was “annulled” by Tisserant, the camerlengo. Finally he says, “In any case, I’m quite sure John XXIII chose his name, the name of an antipope [of the 15th century], quite consciously, to show he had been irregularly elected.” (Inside the Vatican noted that Fr. Charles-Roux was one of the priests who said Holy Mass on the set of the film, The Passion of the Christ, during production.) Inside the Vatican and its editor, Mr. Robert Moynihan, can hardly be classified as sympathetic to the Siri investigation. The magazine awarded its 2005 “Man of the Year” to Moynihan’s long time friend, Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), whom we are asserting here is the fifth in the line of Vatican II antipopes.

* * * * * * *

In this regard, an astounding prophecy from St. Francis of Assisi is recorded in the Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, published by Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250. Part of this prophecy is rendered this way by Rev. Gerald Culleton in his book, The Reign of Antichrist, 1951, Academy Duplicating Service, Fresno, California, page 130:

“There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great Schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissension and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.”

* * * * * * *

The above evidence is only a small portion of what this investigation has uncovered which indicates that Joseph Cardinal Siri was elected Pope, and then illegally overthrown, two days before antipope John XXIII came out on the balcony in 1958. It is far from the minds of modern Catholics that there have been at least 44 antipopes throughout Church history — more than two per century — and more than once the antipope occupied the Vatican itself while the true Pope languished in exile. What is beyond question is that an anti-Catholic revolution against the Church’s doctrine, liturgy, sacraments, disciplines, and social teachings began to be introduced through John XXIII almost immediately after his appearance on the world stage. The results of this diabolical revolution have devastated every aspect of Catholic faith, worship and practice within the structures of the Church during the 50 years (1958 to 2008, as of this updated commentary) which have followed. All of this “diabolical disorientation”, to use the words of Sister Lucy of Fatima, began to manifest at the reversal of the white smoke at exactly 6 PM on that most fateful evening of October 26, 1958.

For added emphasis of the critical point, it is necessary to point out that Mr. Giuffré makes clear from the above and from his other writings that the Church itself did not fail on October 26, 1958, but was merely eclipsed, as Our Lady of La Salette predicted in 1846.

The True Church was still there, but was in the early stages of being blocked from the view of almost the entire world by this counterfeit church of darkness (to use the words of the stigmatic Augustinian nun and visionary Venerable Anna Katherine Emmerich–pictured left) which had shoved aside the validly elected Pope on October 26th, 1958 — and replaced him with Angelo Roncalli, John XXIII. Roncalli was presented to the world two days later, on October 28, 1958, on the Papal balcony amidst the wild cheers of the Judeo-Masonic mass media which resounded around the world then and for many years thereafter.

The counterfeit church, however, falls under the frightening reality described by Monsignor Charles Journet as quoted above. It has proven itself to be, in fact, the counterfeit church of Judeo-Masonry, of John XXIII, of Paul VI, of Vatican Council II, of John Paul I, of John Paul II, and now of Benedict XVI. This counterfeit church of darkness lacks jurisdiction, does not qualify as being in the perpetual and uninterrupted succession of St. Peter. At first “to all appearances” it seemed to be “identical” to the true Church, — which illusion eventually, with an escalating vengeance, became ominously apparent. It was this intruding counterfeit church which claimed to take the place of the Apostolic body, but which was separated from it by a break, and was, in fact, a “new institution,” and therefore was not “that indefectible institution set up in the world by Christ.”

And, therefore, it inherited “none of the mysterious privileges attached by Him to the true Apostolic body,” but it only simulates jurisdiction, it only simulates most of the sacraments. It is the appearance of permanence for this counterfeit church which is illusory. Many prophecies of holy persons indicate that when “all seems lost” this monstrous counterfeit church will be swept away like a vanishing shadow as the triumph of the Church bursts upon Christ’s enemies like lightning.

IMPORTANT ADDENDUM: An Ominous Anniversary: October 26, 1958
(This article is in PDF form, so when you click on the link above, please wait a few seconds while the article opens. This article fills in an important piece of the picture regarding the issue of nuclear threats against the 1958 Conclave, but the evidence presented is still only the tip of the iceberg.)

AND AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED in 1988: The Popes and the Dove

For more information, go to: Scripture Scholars, Ancient and Modern and Warnings from Heaven Suppressed

___________

After this page and the above five important articles have been read, the following may be of interest:

– A number of interesting items concerning the ongoing investigation into the 1958 Conclave and Joseph Cardinal Siri can be found here:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri.htm —

– – – – – – – – – –

– For the first time in 47 years, those occupying the Vatican have raised the issue of the legitimacy of John XXIII’s election at the 1958 conclave. This was done on September 3, 2005 when a top Vatican prelate told the Italian daily, La Stampa, that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) would be required, as a condition for reconciliation, to explicitly recognize the legitimacy of the five conclaves since the death of Pope Pius XII (October 9, 1958).

This announced “condition” means that those occupying the Vatican want an explicit recognition from some faction of the perceived Catholic resistance that John XXIII (Roncalli) was the legitimately elected Pope at the 1958 conclave.

Why would the powers-that-be in the 2005 Vatican bring up the legitimacy of John XXIII’s election at the 1958 conclave? — 47 years later?? Here’s why: because of a rising opinion among many Catholics that John XXIII was an irregularly elected antipope, placed on the Papal throne as a usurper two days after the true Pope had been rightfully elected, as explained in the above article. And why is this startling opinion in ascendancy amongst informed and concerned Catholics? This opinion is spreading because no alert person can any longer deny that the ongoing demolition operation against the Catholic Faith which began in 1958 is continuing. Furthermore, this demolition operation has and is being waged against the Catholic Faith from within the very structures of the Church by those occupying the highest positions in the Vatican.

Curiously, an extremely well connected magazine, Inside the Vatican, which gave Benedict XVI-Ratzinger its 2005 “Man of the Year” award in January, 2006, published a report in its February 2006 issue that the leading faction of those who challenge the published results of the 1958 conclave, the supporters of the “Siri Thesis”, have “perhaps thousands of adherents around the world” and “has adherents in virtually every country on earth.” Undoubtedly, this is causing concern among those occupying the current Vatican. This is the only possible explanation why the issue of the legitimacy of John XXIII’s election in 1958 would be acknowledged by a Vatican spokesman, 47 years later.

An article reporting on the above referenced La Stampa story was published in the London Tablet and can be read here (see fourth paragraph):

vatican_raises_issue_1958_conclave_0905.htm

– – – – – – – – – –

– On another front, with regard to the ongoing investigation into the 1958 conclave, a question has been raised about an incident involving a certain Msgr. Santoro. This incident was referred to in a newspaper article by the late Italian reporter, Silvio Negro, which appeared on October 27, 1958 (one day after the white smoke controversy analyzed in the above article). For several years a number of translators of the Negro article had believed that the Santoro incident happened in 1958. It is important to note that there is still some unresolved ambiguity regarding the wording of Negro’s article. Attempts to resolve this ambiguity are still in progress. However, in light of new research, it now seems certain that this Msgr. Santoro was in the 1939 conclave, and not in the 1958 conclave. A number of websites, including this one, followed the lead of the original translators and stated the Santoro incident was yet another indication that someone had been elected Pope on October 26, 1958 (two days before John XXIII appeared on the Papal balcony). Since it now seems certain that the Santoro incident occurred in the 1939 conclave, we have removed it from our commentary to the above article by Mr. Giuffré (it had only been up for a few weeks). The Santoro incident had never been published in a book or on the web by Mr. Giuffré, and it was never a lynchpin of the “Siri Thesis” or the investigation into the 1958 conclave.

Please go here for the original article by Silvio Negro which appeared on October 27, 1958, as well as a clarification on the Santoro incident which is found near the bottom of this linked page:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/cds102758.htm