Cardinal Siri elected Pope in 1958

The election of Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, as pope in October 1958 in the conclave held after the death of Pope XII would have had significant consequences for the Catholic Church and more widely. I don't believe in the Siri Thesis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri_Thesis ) which claims that Siri was actually elected Pope, but following heavy pressure from trhe liberal faction among the cardinals and threats from the Kremlin, he was persuaded to step aside.

Siri had staunchly conservative views, so if he were pope there would have been no Second Vatican Council and none of the changes in Catholic liturgy which were authorised by that council and subsequent decrees of the Vatican.

Assuming that he lived until May 2, 1989 as he did in OTL, and did not resign the papacy, the election of Karol Wojtyla would most probably not have happened, with all the consequences in relation to the ending of communism in Poland and Eastern Europe.
 
The election of Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, as pope in October 1958 in the conclave held after the death of Pope XII would have had significant consequences for the Catholic Church and more widely. I don't believe in the Siri Thesis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri_Thesis ) which claims that Siri was actually elected Pope, but following heavy pressure from trhe liberal faction among the cardinals and threats from the Kremlin, he was persuaded to step aside.

Siri had staunchly conservative views, so if he were pope there would have been no Second Vatican Council and none of the changes in Catholic liturgy which were authorised by that council and subsequent decrees of the Vatican.

Assuming that he lived until May 2, 1989 as he did in OTL, and did not resign the papacy, the election of Karol Wojtyla would most probably not have happened, with all the consequences in relation to the ending of communism in Poland and Eastern Europe.

Eh... I think Vatican II may have still happened (the impetus is still there, as Pius XII I believe made some steps in that direction), but the ramifications of such a council would not have been as detrimental as the OTL council was - for example, Bugnini would be reined in, if even a major figure in the Council.

For one thing, the Liturgical Conslilum (may it forever be maligned) would be more restrained, and less likely to use VII as a shield for every policy they suggested. The Extraordinary Form would probably still be in majority use.

Of course, this means no SSPX, which means no Ecclesia Dei, which means no Summorum Pontificum. Marcel Lefebvre would probably not achieve the infamy he did, and probably die a somewhat obscure former Superior-General.
 
Eh... I think Vatican II may have still happened (the impetus is still there, as Pius XII I believe made some steps in that direction), but the ramifications of such a council would not have been as detrimental as the OTL council was - for example, Bugnini would be reined in, if even a major figure in the Council.

For one thing, the Liturgical Conslilum (may it forever be maligned) would be more restrained, and less likely to use VII as a shield for every policy they suggested. The Extraordinary Form would probably still be in majority use.

Of course, this means no SSPX, which means no Ecclesia Dei, which means no Summorum Pontificum. Marcel Lefebvre would probably not achieve the infamy he did, and probably die a somewhat obscure former Superior-General.

Siri might have been successful in officially blocking some of the more radical changes after Vatican II, such as Mass facing the people and the wholesale abandonment of Latin, chants, and polyphony. I think he would have had to accept a degree of vernacularization, however -- the pent-up demand for the vernacular was not going to be satisfied by allowing just a vernacular Rituale Romanum and a widespread permission to say the Office in translation. But Mass would probably look the same as the Tridentine in most places, but with translated propers.

I say "most places" intentionally, since Siri would have likely encountered the same radical changes that got the green light at V II in OTL. Mass facing the people was a practice that started at the turn of the 20th century or even earlier, and was established in a fair number of places. Church architecture was trending towards designs that departed from the traditional chancel/nave setup of most churches to that point. I'm sure that some churches would even experiment with the liturgy, perhaps by saying everything in the vernacular and/or using unauthorized books. While most churches would have kept on saying regular old Low Masses, there would still be experimentation.

There must be a logical refutation for the Siri conspiracy theories. Nobody outside the Vatican will ever truly know what happened, but I have a feeling that John XXIII got the tiara fair and square. For me the Siri Issue is just sedevacantist fodder.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe in the Siri Thesis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri_Thesis ) which claims that Siri was actually elected Pope, but following heavy pressure from trhe liberal faction among the cardinals and threats from the Kremlin, he was persuaded to step aside.

Why would the Kremlin care so much about Siri? Not that I place any stock in the conspiracy theory, but surely there must have been some rationale behind the blaming of the Soviets besides "OMG Commies!"

Or perhaps not surely, but did the Soviets really have a reason to care about changes in the Catholic liturgy?
 
So let's presume he calls himself Gregory XVII, as the Sirianists presume? Yeah, I agree, under Siri you would have a greatly watered-down Vatican II, perhaps, for example, High Mass is retained, but conducted in the local language with modifications.
An interesting thing to consider are the papabili in 1989. Who are they? Ugo Poletti? Salvatore Pappalardo? (ATL) Joseph Ratzinger? Alfred Bengsch (let's butterfly his death away)? Johannes Willebrands?
Another thing is that Siri probably keeps the tiara, sedia gestatoria, and flabella, leading to much cooler Papal processions.
 
Why would the Kremlin care so much about Siri? Not that I place any stock in the conspiracy theory, but surely there must have been some rationale behind the blaming of the Soviets besides "OMG Commies!"

Or perhaps not surely, but did the Soviets really have a reason to care about changes in the Catholic liturgy?

I doubt the Kremlin cared about Catholic liturgy (big hobbyhorse of mine, but why would an officially atheist state care?) Even before the establishment of the Soviet Union, Popes were emphatically opposed to any form of economic "collectivism" or (more commonly) "socialism", which would include Marxism-Leninism and variants. I think the well-documented Vatican antipathy towards Marxism and Soviet persecution of Christianity was what really got under Moscow's collar. Remember, until 1963 Catholics prayed for the "conversion of Russia" after Low Mass (some priests still do this out of habit).
 
.
An interesting thing to consider are the papabili in 1989. Who are they? Ugo Poletti? Salvatore Pappalardo? (ATL) Joseph Ratzinger? Alfred Bengsch (let's butterfly his death away)? Johannes Willebrands?
Another thing is that Siri probably keeps the tiara, sedia gestatoria, and flabella, leading to much cooler Papal processions.

I dont think that Ratzinger would be considered Papabili in 1989 if Siri was elected Pope as Gregory XVII... Ratzinger distinguished himself during Vatican II and that was one of the reasons that Paul VI made him a Cardinal... If u have a watered Vatican II due to Pope's ultraconservatism Ratzinger would be a rather obscure figure back then... As for who would succeed him i guess that a potential successor would be one of Gregory's XVII creations... Someone who would share the same views with Siri... Now if College of Cardinals wants a transitional Pope (assuming that Siri dies as per OTL he would have been Pope for 29 years...) AND a foreigner an obvious choice would be Cardinal Koenig (yes i know he would be 84 yo by that time but since Siri's reign overlapped Paul's VI reign i guess there wouldnt be any "Ingravescentem Aetatem" )
 
I dont think that Ratzinger would be considered Papabili in 1989 if Siri was elected Pope as Gregory XVII... Ratzinger distinguished himself during Vatican II and that was one of the reasons that Paul VI made him a Cardinal... If u have a watered Vatican II due to Pope's ultraconservatism Ratzinger would be a rather obscure figure back then... As for who would succeed him i guess that a potential successor would be one of Gregory's XVII creations... Someone who would share the same views with Siri... Now if College of Cardinals wants a transitional Pope (assuming that Siri dies as per OTL he would have been Pope for 29 years...) AND a foreigner an obvious choice would be Cardinal Koenig (yes i know he would be 84 yo by that time but since Siri's reign overlapped Paul's VI reign i guess there wouldnt be any "Ingravescentem Aetatem" )

I agree that Ratzinger would probably not have become papabili - Siri would always see ATL Ratzinger as too sympathetic to the "liberals" (OTL Ratzinger's conservatism didn't start until the late 70's, and even then it was gradual).

And as a smaller side-effect, the American President would never have said what he said at EMK's funeral.
 
Does anyone know why Siri was so attached to the papal name Gregory? Did he ever talk about this? Often Popes choose their papal name based on their attraction to a certain philosophy.
 
Another thing is that Siri probably keeps the tiara, sedia gestatoria, and flabella, leading to much cooler Papal processions.

Would Siri have abolished the Papal Court? I know that high-church Catholics are divided on Paul VI's decision to abolish royal court ceremonies and vestments. Personally I am glad the Court is gone. It is very anachronistic to have a renaissance papal court when many modern constitutional monarchs have pruned their coronations. I guess that Pope Benedict will have to say Tridentine missa cantata at the Papal Altar in St. Peter's (if he ever says the Tridentine use publicly). Solemn Papal Tridentine Mass requires a Court.
 
Pius XII made strange comments along the line that there was much to be said for a council but not yet. A council under a Siri Papacy is less than 50/50 and if it does happen it will happen happen latter than OTL. Before then I would see him coming down hard on certain of the more extreme elements of New Thrology, esp. Rahner. This may extend to Courtney Murray, because the Decree on Religious Liberty was the document that Siri had the most trouble accepting (same is true of Lefebvre). If as Pope he condemns Murray this may result in problems with Spellman who on this issue was an archprogressive.

I would see slow incremental liturgical reform even without a council. One year he will make the scriptural readings at Mass optionally vernacular. Next year he reinstates the prayer of the faithful. Probably a revision of the reading cycle comes eventually.

If a council is in fact called late I see it as being very fractious. It would not be a pastoral council and would include some anathemas many of which will generate controversy.
 
Another thing about a Siri Papacy would be if Papa Siri would be willing to reach to an agreement with Eastern Orthodoxs and accepts lifting the 1054 anathemas mutually with Patriarch of Constantinople as Pope Paul VI did in OTL...
 
That's a good point about relations with the Orthodox.

The big question that comes to me is: without a core leading liberal force in the Vatican (Bugnini and co. for the liturgy, and others for their own pet issues), would various liberal dioceses/orders/individual priests started drifting away from Rome and the standard practice of Catholicism, and thereby cause a weakening of the universal Church and a wide plurality of practices?

Would the Vatican be able to rein in these divergent strands of Catholicism? Or would this only cause the split to grow even more?
 
That's a good point about relations with the Orthodox.

The big question that comes to me is: without a core leading liberal force in the Vatican (Bugnini and co. for the liturgy, and others for their own pet issues), would various liberal dioceses/orders/individual priests started drifting away from Rome and the standard practice of Catholicism, and thereby cause a weakening of the universal Church and a wide plurality of practices?

Would the Vatican be able to rein in these divergent strands of Catholicism? Or would this only cause the split to grow even more?

Probably most churches would stay loyal to Rome. Most of the 'conservative' organizations OTL either accepted VII immediately out of loyalty to the Pope or eventually came to terms with it. I'd presume the liberals would do the same, bar a few radicals - after all, without the Church, they'd have not a leg to stand on.
 
Top