You might be right. But the way I have sort of imagined the conspiracy playing out would only require one or two other cardinals besides Roncalli to be involved. Think of it: Siri is elected and takes the name Gregory and that ends the conclave. White smoke goes up. But before he can make it to the balcony, one of the cardinals delivers the threat from Mossad. Then Roncalli presents himself as a compromise candidate. That’s all it would have taken, just Roncalli and another in league with the synagogue.
I said before that you are probably right that Mossad “vitiated” the conclave, but then I realized that is Gary Giuffre’s term, who is of course a sedevacantist, as am I (though we don’t like that term since the Holy See is not vacant but rather being occupied by a usurper.)
I have learned a few things reading the essays here and I am grateful for that. I would encourage you to reconsider the implications of your contentions about the 1958 conclave. You are extremely close to sedevacantism. In The Apocalyse of St John (1921) Fr Berry interprets the woman travailing in pains to be delivered as the church struggling to bring forth a pope; Fr Kramer in The Book of Destiny (1955) gives the same interpretation. We are pretty sure that what happened to Siri in 1958 is when what holds back the son of perdition was “taken out of the way,” as St Paul says in 2 Thessalonians. Makes perfect sense to me. Roncalli and the rest of them have changed doctrine. How could that be unless they were bereft of Christ’s promise against indefectibility? Something to think about. God bless.
I actually do agree with you that only Roncalli and one other cardinal would be needed in the 58 conclave. Although I think it would need to be a cardinal of considerable clout for the threat to be taken seriously enough to annul an election. I would say that Spellman was the only cardinal who really had that level of influence along with evidence of being compromised.
Another interesting thing in the Cooney book was that it looks like Spellman was communicating with the CIA in the 1963 conclave, and informed them of the winner before any news agencies were aware. If that was the case, I imagine he would be the most likely cardinal to have been communicating with the outside in 1958 as well.
I'm sympathetic to sedevacantism but I wouldn't fully identify with that position. I do think John XXIII and Paul VI were elected illegitimately and that Vatican II is technically illegitimate as a result. However, I'm also not convinced that any of Vatican II's reforms were inherently heretical, although I do think they were mostly unwise. So, I don't necessarily see the subsequent popes as teaching heresy by following Vatican II. I think the seat was vacant from 1958 to 1978 due to those elections being compromised.
I appreciate the reply. I used to think the same way about Vatican II. Then I studied up. Taken ecumenism. Changing the way Catholics interact with heretics was fundamental. It was not a development of doctrine but a contradiction of what had been defined by both Pius IX and Pius XI. Ecumenism is a heresy. But now they make it official policy. I will pray for you, because I think you’re on the cusp. Otherwise, keep up the hard work and clear thinking.
You should listen to Gary Giuffres YouTube interview with Judith Sharpe. After Roncalli was elected, Spellman apparently told a reporter, “He’s no pope! He should be selling bananas!” The really funny thing about Spellman and the 58 conclave though is that in an attempt to fulfill the Prophecy of the Popes, he rented a boat, filled it with sheep, and rowed up and down the Tiber. (The motto was Pastor et Nauta.) I really enjoyed The Smoke of the Synagogue at Unz, and I suspect you are right that Mossad vitiated the conclave. But I doubt Spellman was in on it.
I am aware of that quote from Spellman, but I don't think it tells us much about whether he was helping Roncalli or not. For example, Spellman reportedly considered Roncalli to be a ridiculous figure in 1942, but Spellman was also supporting Roncalli financially throughout the 30's. He also appears to have been involved in helping Roncalli gain his elite position of ambassador to Paris.
It's not uncommon that high-level political actors will promote unsophisticated frontmen that they may have little personal respect for. As an example, many elite Zionists supported Trump in 2024, even though I would guess that most of them see him as a total clown.
Either way though, I suspect that Spellman had little choice in whether he would help Roncalli or not. If Spellman's blackmailers told him to support Roncalli, then Spellman's own opinion of whether Roncalli should be pope or not wouldn't really matter.
You might be right. But the way I have sort of imagined the conspiracy playing out would only require one or two other cardinals besides Roncalli to be involved. Think of it: Siri is elected and takes the name Gregory and that ends the conclave. White smoke goes up. But before he can make it to the balcony, one of the cardinals delivers the threat from Mossad. Then Roncalli presents himself as a compromise candidate. That’s all it would have taken, just Roncalli and another in league with the synagogue.
I said before that you are probably right that Mossad “vitiated” the conclave, but then I realized that is Gary Giuffre’s term, who is of course a sedevacantist, as am I (though we don’t like that term since the Holy See is not vacant but rather being occupied by a usurper.)
I have learned a few things reading the essays here and I am grateful for that. I would encourage you to reconsider the implications of your contentions about the 1958 conclave. You are extremely close to sedevacantism. In The Apocalyse of St John (1921) Fr Berry interprets the woman travailing in pains to be delivered as the church struggling to bring forth a pope; Fr Kramer in The Book of Destiny (1955) gives the same interpretation. We are pretty sure that what happened to Siri in 1958 is when what holds back the son of perdition was “taken out of the way,” as St Paul says in 2 Thessalonians. Makes perfect sense to me. Roncalli and the rest of them have changed doctrine. How could that be unless they were bereft of Christ’s promise against indefectibility? Something to think about. God bless.
I actually do agree with you that only Roncalli and one other cardinal would be needed in the 58 conclave. Although I think it would need to be a cardinal of considerable clout for the threat to be taken seriously enough to annul an election. I would say that Spellman was the only cardinal who really had that level of influence along with evidence of being compromised.
Another interesting thing in the Cooney book was that it looks like Spellman was communicating with the CIA in the 1963 conclave, and informed them of the winner before any news agencies were aware. If that was the case, I imagine he would be the most likely cardinal to have been communicating with the outside in 1958 as well.
I'm sympathetic to sedevacantism but I wouldn't fully identify with that position. I do think John XXIII and Paul VI were elected illegitimately and that Vatican II is technically illegitimate as a result. However, I'm also not convinced that any of Vatican II's reforms were inherently heretical, although I do think they were mostly unwise. So, I don't necessarily see the subsequent popes as teaching heresy by following Vatican II. I think the seat was vacant from 1958 to 1978 due to those elections being compromised.
I appreciate the reply. I used to think the same way about Vatican II. Then I studied up. Taken ecumenism. Changing the way Catholics interact with heretics was fundamental. It was not a development of doctrine but a contradiction of what had been defined by both Pius IX and Pius XI. Ecumenism is a heresy. But now they make it official policy. I will pray for you, because I think you’re on the cusp. Otherwise, keep up the hard work and clear thinking.
You should listen to Gary Giuffres YouTube interview with Judith Sharpe. After Roncalli was elected, Spellman apparently told a reporter, “He’s no pope! He should be selling bananas!” The really funny thing about Spellman and the 58 conclave though is that in an attempt to fulfill the Prophecy of the Popes, he rented a boat, filled it with sheep, and rowed up and down the Tiber. (The motto was Pastor et Nauta.) I really enjoyed The Smoke of the Synagogue at Unz, and I suspect you are right that Mossad vitiated the conclave. But I doubt Spellman was in on it.
I am aware of that quote from Spellman, but I don't think it tells us much about whether he was helping Roncalli or not. For example, Spellman reportedly considered Roncalli to be a ridiculous figure in 1942, but Spellman was also supporting Roncalli financially throughout the 30's. He also appears to have been involved in helping Roncalli gain his elite position of ambassador to Paris.
It's not uncommon that high-level political actors will promote unsophisticated frontmen that they may have little personal respect for. As an example, many elite Zionists supported Trump in 2024, even though I would guess that most of them see him as a total clown.
Either way though, I suspect that Spellman had little choice in whether he would help Roncalli or not. If Spellman's blackmailers told him to support Roncalli, then Spellman's own opinion of whether Roncalli should be pope or not wouldn't really matter.