This a picture of the Italian Bishop at the death bed of Pope Pius XII notice he is not dressed as a Priest. Also, you can ask Father Kevin Vaillancourt about this Bishop as they have spoken often.

.
Which one is he?

Consecrated in 1958?  That means he is 98 years old...at the LEAST!

Could be early 90s.  It was not uncommon for bishops to be consecrated in their early 30s ... especially to serve in missionary countries.

Here's the only Italian Bishop who's even in the ballpark.

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbettazzi.html

Bishop Luigi Bettazzi.

He was consecrated in 1963 by Cardinal Lercaro, who in turn was consecrated by Cardinal Siri.

To call him a Pius XII bishop would be a huge stretch.

Unlike many others, I have met the Italian Bishop in question. I have seen his papers and they are legit with was seal 1958. I have met Reverend Mother Marie De Montfort and she is an honest woman. I have questioned some of the things that the Catholic Research Institute has published and then later found out that it is accurate. As to Father James Kosik he tends to pick and choose what his Bishops say. So prayers for you and your parish.

So he is actually a bishop consecrated by Pius XII, and you met him? WOW, that is quite amazing. 
If this is true, he would have to be quite elderly, and so my next question would be, .. 
Is he still functioning Bishop, and of course, where is he ? 

We have "papers", pictures, and an allegation of being consecrated by Pius XII himself ... when Pius XII-consecrated bishop has been alive for many years now.

Sounding like Moran to anyone else here?  Maybe Pius XII called him a "Sarto the New".

OUCH!!  A comment like that is really not necessary.
I wouldn't expect this on a Catholic forum.
What if he did meet this Bishop, maybe he knows something we do not.
So please allow him the opportunity to respond, instead of spamming negative comments.

There's too much nonsense like the Moran thing going on, and we don't need anymore of it, the "mystery" bishops who are "pure".  If he knows who it is, he can either name the bishop or else cease spouting nonsense.

Sure, maybe he met someone claiming to be a bishop and saw some "papers" ... very reminiscent of the Moran situation.  Everyone would have been better served had Moran been exposed right out of the gate.

This story loses credibility out of the gate since there's no bishop alive who was consecrated "by Pius XII Himself" as these nuns claim ... just like they claimed that +Pearce had nothing to do with Vatican II.

Most the time, the promotion of a "pure" bishop comes from a place or arrogance and involves the implicit claim that all the Bishops and Priests descending from Archbishop Lefebvre are somehow "impure" or "contaminated" because +Lefebvre was at the Council and signed the docuмents.  Unlike +Lefebvre, this mystery bishop has done absolutely nothing to combat the errors of Vatican II.

We have no need of these mystery bishops.  We have Traditional Catholic bishops out there who have been fighting the good fight for decades now.

There's too much nonsense like the Moran thing going on, and we don't need anymore of it, the "mystery" bishops who are "pure".  If he knows who it is, he can either name the bishop or else cease spouting nonsense.

Sure, maybe he met someone claiming to be a bishop and saw some "papers" ... very reminiscent of the Moran situation.  Everyone would have been better served had Moran been exposed right out of the gate.

This story loses credibility out of the gate since there's no bishop alive who was consecrated "by Pius XII Himself" as these nuns claim ... just like they claimed that +Pearce had nothing to do with Vatican II.

Most the time, the promotion of a "pure" bishop comes from a place or arrogance and involves the implicit claim that all the Bishops and Priests descending from Archbishop Lefebvre are somehow "impure" or "contaminated" because +Lefebvre was at the Council and signed the docuмents.  Unlike +Lefebvre, this mystery bishop has done absolutely nothing to combat the errors of Vatican II.

We have no need of these mystery bishops.  We have Traditional Catholic bishops out there who have been fighting the good fight for decades now.

Is this group associated with home aloners?  Because this is exactly what I would expect from them :  assertion of a Bishop directly consecrated by Pius XII AND no connection with Vatican 2.

So this is your cryptic way of saying that he was APPOINTED a bishop by Pope Pius XII, i.e. appointed by him, but then consecrated by someone else in 1958?  Was Pius XII still alive at the time of consecration?

.
He was consecrated without Pius's approval, although later confirmed by him.