Mel Gibson, Sedevacantism, and the 1958 Conclave: A Commentary

Famous Hollywood icon interviewed by Joe Rogan…

Mel Gibson, Sedevacantism, and the 1958 Conclave

Everyone has been talking about it: Mel Gibson’s appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast earlier this month. As of the publication of this post, the YouTube version of the episode has 8.7 million views; and that’s not counting the audio-only version on Spotify, where the podcast has its home.

Joseph Rogan (b. 1967) is an immensely successful secular podcaster. His show, The Joe Rogan Experience, is among the world’s most listened to podcasts.

Mel Gibson (b. 1956) is, of course, a famous Hollywood actor and movie producer. Widely known as the director of The Passion of the Christ (2004), Gibson is also a traditionalist Catholic. More specifically, Gibson is actually a sedevacantist.

In fact, his father, Hutton Gibson (1918-2020), was a lay pioneer in the movement who fought to expose and refute the new religion being foisted on unsuspecting Catholics. His video presentation “Catholics, Where Has Our Church Gone?” is just one example. Hutton was also the editor of the newsletter ‘The War Is Now!’ and author of the book Is the Pope Catholic?, among other writings.

The Interview

On Jan. 9, 2025, The Joe Rogan Experience aired its episode no. 2254 with Mel Gibson as the guest. The entire show can be watched HERE (caution! Rogan repeatedly uses Our Lord’s name in vain and does not shy away from profanity), but it’s really not a terribly good episode: There is no method to the interview, and it is not clear what its purpose is to begin with. The whole show sounds like someone accidentally recorded Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson having a private chitchat about whatever happened to come to their minds.

In any case, at 2 hours and 21 minutes in total length, the conversation naturally also turns to Gibson’s religious views at one point. It is when the topic turns to the corruption of certain clerics, including Jorge Bergoglio (‘Pope Francis’), that Rogan’s 19 million subscribers find out that Gibson does not believe the ‘Pope’ is the Pope.

The video below is queued up to the 28:12 min mark, where Rogan begins to talk about The Passion of the Christ, the Catholic Church, and the ‘Pope’:

Of course Gibson is wrong — or at least theologically inaccurate — when he says that the institution of the Church, even though founded by Christ, can be flawed. Certainly there can be (and are) sinful and flawed human beings in it, but the institution herself is necessarily spotless, being the work of God:

And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 66)

Gibson tells Rogan that there is a “school of thought” according to which in our day the religious establishment in Vatican City is no longer the Roman Catholic Church because it is “running an entirely different religion” at this point (as we continually prove on this web site). The famous Hollywood actor brings up ‘Abp.’ Carlo Maria Viganò‘s use of the term “counterfeit, parallel church” to refer to the Modernist sect headed by Bergoglio, and he makes clear: “I don’t adhere to a post-conciliar church”.

The 1958 Conclave and the ‘Siri Thesis’

Gibson then brings up the 1958 conclave that ostensibly resulted in the election of Angelo Roncalli as ‘Pope John XXIII’ on Oct. 28, 1958; for it is John XXIII who is at the origin of that “post-conciliar church”.

To explain how all of that happened, Gibson turns to what is known as the ‘Siri Thesis’, the theory according to which Cardinal Giuseppe Siri (1906-1989) of Genoa was actually elected Pope after Pius XII, either in the 1958 conclave (instead of Roncalli) or in the 1963 conclave (instead of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI), or both. (Some even hold that Siri received enough votes also at the two conclaves of 1978, which produced Albino Luciani/John Paul I and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, respectively.)

One of the things that gives a certain plausibility to the 1958 Siri Thesis on the face of it is the fact that white smoke poured plentifully from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel two days before Roncalli presented himself on the balcony as the new Pope, and Vatican Radio joyfully announced that there was no doubt: A Pope had been elected!

White Smoke Mystery at Papal Conclave

Article from Oct 27, 1958 Daily Mirror (London, London, England) Pope pius xii, Conclave 1958

It is this incident of the premature white smoke that Mel Gibson brings up with Joe Rogan, but of course it alone is not proof — it is merely circumstantial evidence, and this evidence must be examined critically and weighed also against evidence to the contrary.

What happens inside a papal conclave is extremely difficult to know since Church law (wisely) imposes the strictest secrecy and punishes its violation with automatic excommunication. Gibson tells Rogan what he thinks happened in 1958: “That somebody was elected, and that maybe something else happened, and he was pushed aside and someone else was pushed in.” That is fair enough, but then it would probably be extremely naive to think that something like this hadn’t happened before in 1900 years of papal elections. No, there must be something more that went on, something that can account for the ‘impossible situation’ that followed, for nothing has been the same for Catholics since.

Since John XXIII: Revolution in the Church

Beginning with ‘Pope’ John XXIII and his program of aggiornamento (updating) ushered in by his Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and its subsequent ‘reforms’, the world has witnessed a revolution in just about every aspect of Catholicism, especially in doctrine, morals, and liturgy; it has witnessed the defection of countless clerics and religious as a result of these changes, the complete wrecking of the Holy Catholic Mass, and the ruin of innumerable souls, to the point of mass apostasy and the complete breakdown of Christian civilization.

Although obviously there were other factors as well contributing to these infernal developments, a calamity of such colossal proportions would have been unthinkable without Vatican II and its ‘new orientation’. This abominable council accomplished in a few short years what centuries of outward persecution against the Church could not.

Vatican II and the ‘Conciliar Church’ it engendered are rightly said to constitute a new religion, one that differs essentially from the Roman Catholicism that the world knew under Pope Pius XII and all of his predecessors. That is the reason why the Vatican establishment today, especially ‘Pope’ Francis, is so dead set against it. This virulent opposition manifests itself especially in hatred of the Traditional Latin Mass, but only insofar as it represents that old pre-Vatican II Catholic religion.

They have demonstrated that they are willing to allow people to have the Traditional Mass if this is necessary to keep them from ‘jumping ship’, but only as a temporary concession with various conditions attached until all these stragglers can be brought in line with that new conciliar religion. On the other hand, insofar as attachment to the Latin Mass is a sign of rigid adherence to the pre-Vatican II religion and rejection of the new conciliar religion, the Vatican will revoke the concession (as seen in Francis’ Traditionis Custodes), since at that point the purpose of granting it in the first place has been vitiated.

Thus we see that we cannot really consider the 1958 conclave as just another papal election. Historically speaking, even aside from theological considerations, it was a watershed moment of apocalyptic proportions. We say ‘apocalyptic’ because such a great decline, such massive apostasy, is prophesied in Divine Revelation as being a sign of the end times (cf. Lk 18:8; 2 Thess 2:3-11), one of the principal events that must take place before the Second Coming of Christ:

The Sacred Scriptures inform us that the general judgment will be preceded by these three principal signs: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, a falling away from the faith, and the coming of Antichrist. This gospel of the kingdom, says our Lord, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. The Apostle also admonishes us that we be not seduced by anyone, as if the day of the Lord were at hand; for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the judgement will not come [see 2 Thess 2:3-11].

(Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Creed: Article VII; underlining added.)

Such far-reaching diabolical effect, then, as what we have seen since that ominous conclave of 1958, and which is traceable to it, must have a proportionate diabolical cause. If mere clerical corruption and political scheming could damage the Catholic Church in this manner and to such a radical extent, the Church would not have lasted more than a few generations.

A Mystery of Iniquity

Clearly, then, what took place after the death of Pope Pius XII is something of a very different sort, something directly related to that “mystery of iniquity” (Latin, mysterium iniquitatis) St. Paul spoke about that would be restrained until such time that God would permit the restrainer (Greek, katechon) to be taken out of the way:

Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

(2 Thessalonians 2:3-11)

Is the restrainer St. Paul talks about Pope Pius XII? Not so much Pius XII as Pius XII specifically, but Pius XII as simply the last Pope before the “operation of error” is allowed to strike? It would certainly explain a lot. In fact, it would explain how the catastrophic devastation of the Catholic vineyard after Pius XII was even possible.

Any speculation about what happened at the conclave of 1958 — and, frankly, also that of 1963 — should be seen in this light, against this background. It is about trying to figure out what the heck happened! Because what happened is not business as usual, it is a kind of ‘anti-miracle’: the subsequent systematic demolition of Catholicism throughout the world, perpetrated not by external forces but by men who appeared to be the highest authorites of the Roman Catholic Church.

In this post we will not try to amass all the evidence for and against the Siri Thesis, although in a future post we will gather together as much information as we can about the 1958 conclave, which appears to hold the key to the infernal Modernist occupation of the Catholic structures which continues to this day.

John XXIII – Name of a 15th-Century Antipope?

Before we continue, we should briefly assess Gibson’s contention that Cardinal Roncalli had taken the name of a 15th-century antipope, and that this was unprecedented. It is certainly true that the antipope Baldassare Cossa (c. 1370-1419) had also chosen the name ‘John XXIII’ (r. 1400-1415). However, it is verifiably false to say that no Pope had ever used the same name as an antipope before him.

One counterexample would be Cardinal Pietro Francesco Orsini (1649-1730), who in 1724 became Pope Benedict XIII (r. 1724-1730). The Catholic Encyclopedia relates: “In honour of Benedict XI, a member of the Dominican Order, he took the name of Benedict XIV, which he shortly changed to Benedict XIII as Peter de Luna who had previously borne the name (1394-1423) was a schismatic [antipope]” (source).

Thus we see that merely selecting the same name as a previous antipope does not of itself indicate anything sinister or illegitimate. In the case of Pope Benedict XIII, it was precisely to make clear that Antipope Benedict XIII (1394-1423) had not been a real pope that the name was chosen. However, one could also take the opposite approach and skip the numeral of an antipope precisely because it has already been ‘tarnished’, so to speak, by an antipope. Either approach is defensible — it really depends on the intention behind the choice of name.

Interestingly enough, Fr. Jean-Marie Charles-Roux (1914-2014) once wrote in Inside the Vatican: “I’m quite sure John XXIII chose his name, the name of an antipope, quite consciously, to show he had been irregularly elected” (September 2004 edition, p. 41). That too is a possibility. The point to be made here is merely to clarify that Gibson is wrong in asserting that no Pope had ever used the same name as a previous antipope before.

Evidence Against the Siri Thesis

Clearly, the idea that Giuseppe Siri was the reigning Pope of the Catholic Church either from 1958 or from 1963 until his death in 1989 would have to be considered absurd. In light of all evidence currently available, it is simply unsustainable, regardless of how much we may want for it to be true since it would at least be some kind of an answer as to what happened after Pope Pius XII.

But if circumstantial evidence such as the color of smoke, a Vatican Radio announcement, testimony years later via third parties about what someone allegedly revealed had gone on inside the secret assembly, etc. — if all of that is to be taken as evidence for a Siri papacy, then we must be intellectually honest and consistent and also let the evidence against a Siri papacy speak; and that evidence is nothing short of overwhelming.

For one thing, the fact of the matter is that after the 1958, 1963, and 1978 conclaves, Cardinal Siri simply continued acting as the cardinal-archbishop of Genoa, all the way until his retirement in 1987. At least in the external forum, Siri ended up accepting John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II as Popes; he accepted the revolution of Vatican II; and he even offered the Novus Ordo Missae (‘New Mass’), as can be seen here:

Cardinal Siri with ‘Pope’ Paul VI (image source: Associazione Cardinal Siri Facebook page)

Cardinal Siri offering the Novus Ordo Missae (image source: Associazione Cardinal Siri Facebook page)

Cardinal Siri offering the Novus Ordo Missae in Lourdes, France
(image source: Associazione Cardinal Siri Facebook page; cropped)

It is true that Siri also made some cryptic remarks here and there in interviews and in theological writings that can be interpreted in a way consistent with the idea that he had been chosen Pope, but if these be accepted as evidence for his having held the Supreme Pontificate, what of the much stronger evidence against a Siri papacy? Why should obscure evidence for a Siri pontificate count more than clear evidence against it?

Enter Paul Williams

In 2003, the Siri Theory gained more steam again when Dr. Paul L. Williams, who had worked as an FBI consultant from 1994 to about 2001, published a book in which he claimed to have seen evidence of Cardinal Siri’s election as ‘Pope Gregory XVII’ in a declassified report of the U.S. State Department:

Former FBI Consultant Claims: U.S. Intel Docs Show Cardinal Siri Elected Pope Gregory XVII in 1958

But, alas, there is a problem: Williams’ claim, however true it may perhaps be, cannot be verified; the document he references does not seem to exist. FOIA requests for it have been attempted, but they are returned as unable to be completed on the grounds that such a document cannot be found (and is allegedly not even referenced properly).

In a recent video interview Williams did with Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican, the former FBI consultant doubled down, reasserting his claim to having seen the evidence and reaffirming the authenticity of the document he cited. Nevertheless, he did not really have an answer as to why the all-important declassified document he referenced cannot be produced. The video conversation is most interesting (it’s cued up below to the 40:31 mark, where discussion about John XXIII and the 1958 conclave begins), and we thank Dr. Moynihan for accepting a question asked by Novus Ordo Watch during the livestream (beginning at the 1:00:29 mark):

That Siri would choose the name Gregory XVII in the event of being elected Pope is something that had already been rumored before the conclave: In the Jan. 12, 1958 edition of L’Espresso, priest-turned-journalist wrote of His Eminence:

Recently, in conversing with some friends, Cardinal Siri revealed something rather telling. “If I were to be elected Pope myself,” he said, ”I would take the name of Gregory. It has been a long time since Popes took this name, yet it is a name that is a whole program of vigor and intransigence in the face of the equivocations [errors] of our time. One need only think of the task performed by [Saint] Gregory VII in his time.”

(Carlo Falconi, “Il Delfino del Pentagono”, L’Espresso, vol. 4, issue 2, p. 9; translation via DeepL.)

In a book he published later the same year, the same author repeated this:

According to some intimates … he has already chosen his future name: “If I were to be elected Pope,” he is reported to have said, “I would take the name Gregory. It has been a long time since popes took this name. Yet it is a whole program of vigor and intransigence. One need only think of the task Gregory VII performed in his time.”

(Carlo Falconi, Il Pentagono Vaticano [Bari: Editori Laterza, 1958], p. 95; translation via DeepL.)

Clearly, there are a lot of pieces to this puzzle, and it would probably not be wise to rush to definitive conclusions about this one way or another.

The War against the Papacy

The important thing to remember is that the devil’s war against the Church is above all a war against the Papacy, it is not a war of the Papacy against the Church! As Pope Pius IX wrote in 1853:

…the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair [of St. Peter]; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7)

What, therefore, would happen if the enemies of Christ managed to hinder a legitimate papal election for decades? And what more effective way would there be to hinder such an election than by making everyone believe a true Pope was already reigning?

That such a thing is not out of the question can be gleaned from the testimony of approved theologians who wrote before Vatican II (and thus cannot be accused of bias for or against a sedevacantist position):

We should also not ignore the wise counsel of Fr. Edmund O’Reilly, S.J. (1811-1878), according to whom “we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. …[C]ontingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree” (The Relations of the Church to Society [London: John Hodges, 1892], pp. 287-288).

Indeed, we must accept that we are dealing with mystery here — that “mystery of inquity” mentioned earlier — and that not all the answers are readily available. What has happened since the death of Pope Pius XII is Satan’s last hurrah against the Mystical Body of Christ, and rather than being wise in our own conceits (cf. Is 5:21), let us simply believe faithfully and without wavering what God has revealed (cf. 2 Cor 5:7; Lk 24:25), lest we be deceived by the very “operation of error” (2 Thess 2:10; cf. Mt 24:24) we are, with God’s help, trying to defeat.

Title image source: composite with elements from Wikimedia Commons and YouTube (screenshot)
Licenses: public domain and fair use

Share this content now:

Mel Gibson, Sedevacantism, and the 1958 Conclave: A Commentary