Of course, there have been many false accusations against the “Siri Thesis” but they don’t hold water, at all. Any layperson can tell a cover-up when they see it. Most of these claims are so false, it’s laughable.

Here are Answers to Some Objections against the “Siri Thesis.”

1. The “Siri Thesis” and its supporters have failed to explain everything that happened with irrefutable documentation and courtroom acceptable proof. Therefore, why should I believe it?

A. One of the first tactics of disinformation operatives is to try and discredit the legitimate investigations by repeatedly pointing out that the investigators have not completely explained everything that happened. This objection, regarding the current crisis in the Church, is also sincerely raised by many who are first discovering this information, but who don’t want to accept it unless absolutely necessary — because it would mean a complete change in their world view, as well as massive inconvenience in daily practice.

If there had been no essential changes introduced by the “Vatican II Popes” which violated the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church as defined by the First Vatican Council in regards to the Mass, Sacraments, Canon Law, Ecumenical Council documents, etc. — then no one would be talking about the white smoke of October 26, 1958.

Naturally in the 1960s and even the 1970s, there were almost no Catholics in the world who were seeking to jump to the conclusion that Paul VI was an anti-pope, even though, to quote the late Fr. Francis Fenton at the time, he did “pose quite a problem.” But as numerous disturbing changes turned into a demolition operation against orthodoxy — with anti-Catholics like “Archbishop Joseph Bernardin” in power every where, and the loyal, orthodox priests persecuted, slandered, and driven from the premises of the occupied Catholic Church properties — alert Catholics began to look into what was happening.

Once a Catholic realizes that changes such as falsifying Christ’s words in the consecration of the Mass (i.e., the New Mass in English and other vernacular versions), signing heresies and false moral teaching in Ecumenical Council Documents (i.e., Moslems pray to the same God that Catholic do; anyone has the RIGHT to spread false doctrines and teaching in public), and instituting bad disciplines (i.e., such as Communion in the Hand with no paten) — that such changes could not be imposed on the faithful by a true Pope, then the question immediately becomes: where is the Pope? What has happened to the Papacy?

Catholics would ask this question because they know that Christ will fulfill His promise to be with His Church always.

Next, logically, Catholics would look back to the “scene of the crime” — when all the attacks on the Faith, orthodoxy, and sanity began, namely, October, 1958. And, sure enough, we find the inexplicable event of the white smoke of October 26, 1958, after which no Pope emerged on the balcony, despite compelling and numerous signs that one should have. (See “white smoke” article in Section I on this website’s Home Page.)

Once all the compelling actual and circumstantial evidence is piled up regarding how the “Siri Thesis” would answer everything regarding the current crisis in the Church, many sincere Catholics begin to “see the light” at least for a few seconds. I have noticed over the years at that point that a number of these sincere individuals exhibit a mild panic and begin to throw up objections to salvage the legitimacy of the “Vatican II Popes”, and thereby hold on to their long held views upon which they have based their daily attempts to practice of the Faith. I would ask such Catholics to consider the proposed answers to the following questions:

(To be continued)

* Why didn’t Siri act like a Pope after the October 1958 conclave?

* If God let an antipope usurp the Chair of Peter, then wouldn’t the Gates of Hell have prevailed?

* And more, coming soon . . .

Here’s a website with a list of articles on the rebuttal of these ridiculous false claims: Defense of the Siri Thesis