CathInfo.com

For all those imbibing of the Siri theory, Matthew posted a good piece in the library that debunks it pretty well:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/was-siri-the-pope/

.

Yes, I wrote a short summary of that guy's arguments. Basically, he demonstrates with factual evidence that most of the claims and supposed facts that the Siri theory rests on are either factually untrue or substantially misconstrued. I really thought the whole thing was effective.

I don't really think the truth or falsity of the theory has much effect on theology, though.

I think it's an evasion, like the Paul VI body double stuff, etc. Some simply can't deal with the reality of the Conciliar papacy, and have to come up with things like the Siri theory to maintain some semblance of mental equilibrium to avoid the otherwise inevitable cognitive dissonance with what was thought about the "indefectible" Church.

Well, the Church certainly is indefectible, that's Catholic doctrine. And it certainly hasn't defected. It's still here, we still belong to it, and it's still teaching the Truth and sanctifying its members. I think the way the Siri theory is used to explain the crisis in the Church is unsatisfactory and makes little sense anyway, so that's why I don't think it changes much whether it is true or false.

Well, I thought the paper was junk.  We all know that there's no smoking gun proof regarding the election of Siri, and that's why it's called a theory.  I find it credible and the most plausible explanation of what happened at V2.  This guy's paper basically begged the question, assuming that it was untrue because there was no smoking gun proof, which is a huge logical fallacy, and he admits his bias.

.

There are various ideas, both public facts and also rumors and similar things, that are adduced as evidence of the Siri thesis. That is what the author of the paper addressed. If it's not possible to refute an idea by refuting the evidence used to support it, then I'm not sure how you would do so.

For example, the most public fact used to support the Siri thesis is the fact that white smoke came out of the chimney for five minutes, followed by black smoke. This has been used by people to argue that it means a pope was elected.

The author refutes this by saying it is false to suppose that white smoke indicates a papal election. The reality is more complex. The true signals are as follows:

Positive result: white smoke
Negative result: white smoke followed by black smoke

This information comes straight from the man in charge of the conclave, who was in charge of three conclaves all together: Pius XI, Pius XII and Roncalli. His name was Prince Chigi, and he was an Italian aristocrat. He gave a simple explanation for how the smoke works. Basically, the white smoke comes from burning the ballots. The black smoke results from putting wet straw into the ballots while they are burning. You cannot simply ignite wet straw (Prince Chigi explained) because being wet it will not light. So, when no pope is elected in a ballot, the ballots themselves must first be burned, causing white smoke, and then the straw must be added, making the smoke black.

And what was the type of smoke that came out on that Sunday afternoon in 1958? It was white and then black -- the signal for a null election result.

Chigi went on to explain that the correct way to interpret the smoke is that you have to wait until the smoke stops coming out before you call it, to be sure that black smoke never comes out. Only after the smoke stops flowing can you know what the true result is. The priest announcing the result on the radio failed to do this and announced that a pope had been elected while the smoke was still flowing; I believe this was the first ballot of the conclave so he would not have a lot of experience on how this works yet.

The exact same mistake had been made in 1939 when Pius XII was elected. The announcer called it too early, said a pope was elected, the bells rang, the Swiss Guards went to their place, etc., but then the black smoke came out. Later, Pius XII came out of the conclave, and no one questions the validity of his election. The author of the article provided photographs of scans of newspapers that reported on this.

All of this makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise, what? The cardinal at the stove started burning white smoke and then some modernist cardinal snuck up behind him and put him in a full Nelson while other modernist cardinals started stuffing wet straw into the stove -- all in a matter of two minutes or so? Or what exactly is the scenario that Siri theorists think happened?

I guess people could say Prince Chigi is part of some sort of conspiracy. This makes little sense to me because this guy was a layman, was not in the conclave, and was not part of Vatican 2. He had been in two conclaves before 1958 and had been trusted by true popes. What motive would he have to be part of a modernist conspiracy? And what evidence is there that he promoted modernism anyway?