My thanks to Mr. Wright for publishing the article, and also for providing links to other articles where we can read more about a particular topic, as well as for his input and comments.
Even though I am not a theologian, I would like to try to offer a reply to the objections he wrote in footnote no. 4.
Objection: "Some reject this possibility [of St. Peter and St. Paul coming down from Heaven and designating the new Pope], on the grounds that the Church is governed by law, rather than by divine intervention."
Reply: Christ is the head of the Church and may choose His Vicar in what ever way He sees fit. After all, He chose St. Peter not by a vote, He personally gave him that authority.
Objection: "Further, it is objected that such a divine intervention would a) constitute a new public revelation, which is impossible"
Reply: An election of a new Pope is not a revelation of new doctrine, in the same way as the canonization of a new saint is not a revelation of new doctrine, but we are still bound to accept them both as dogmatic facts.
Objection: "... b) destroy the visibility of the Church, if her head is selected by Heaven"
Reply: The Pope is the Successor of St. Peter. Who would argue that St. Peter doesn't have the right to choose his successor, if Our Lord commands him to?
Objection: "... c) break legitimate succession from St Peter, as the succession would not take place according to law or established custom."
Reply: How could it break the succession from St. Peter, when he himself chooses his successor?
I agree that the adhesion of the Church to the Pontiff and all the bishops of the world confirming that election would give further certainty. Perhaps it is not by accident that Bl. Anna Maria Taigi uses the word "designate" instead of elect. But of course, if St. Peter himself designates his successor, which bishop would have the temerity not to confirm that in a formal election?
Thanks for this Peregrinus. Just to be clear, the objections in that footnote are taken from others and expressed in their words, rather than being my own.
As I mentioned on X, this is a fascinating, hope-filled read with reasonable speculation. From my point of view, it is the best explanation for the evident facts of the Crisis.
"It is now the hour for the powers of darkness. The newborn Son of the Church is taken 'to God and to His throne.' Scarcely has the newly elected Pope been enthroned when he is snatched away by martyrdom. The 'mystery of iniquity,' gradually developing through the centuries, cannot be fully consummated while the power of the Papacy endures, but now he that 'withholdeth taken out of the way.' During the interregnum, 'that wicked one shall be revealed' in his fury against the Church.
It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come
The Church, deprived of her chief pastor, must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during these trying days. This place of refuge prepared for the Church is probably some nation, or nations, that remain faithful to her. In those days, the Church shall also find refuge and consolation in faithful souls, especially in the seclusion of religious life."
Couple this exegesis with the enormous difficulty of having to combat Antichrist and his empire *without* a restored Church -- with a Pope actively ruling, teaching and sanctifying as the supreme representative of Christ -- and it makes sense why the restoration would come *first*.
I completly agree with this view, but there is yet another layer of plausibility to add to it: we now saw the damage caused by wicked enemies. They destroy the church from within while acting as wolves in sheepsclothing. Yet what I find probable is, that the most supreme betrayal of the church does not come from open or occult enemies, but from lukewarm souls. Thus it is probable that antichrist or his followers will larp as liberal catholics and the final fight will be between essential worldly affected "catholicism" (or "fiftyism") and true catholicism.
Is the Passion of the Church also discussed in the Catechisms before the V2 new versions, such as the one by JP2 that's had to be amended over and over again, where the explanation of the catechism required a larger book than the catechism itself ?
There is currently the temptation to see the Church as merely a human institution, and to despair of its ever returning to normality. Like the friends of Job, many want to ascribe the current crisis strictly as a punishment for the sins of Catholics, especially her clergy and religious; and neglect to see that all sufferings and crosses are sent by God as a means to purify and sanctify us.
As the reading in today's Gospel reminds us:
Jn. 15.
1 I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman 2 Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
"I [Dr Franco Adessa] submitted to Fr. [Luigi] Villa the possibility of a possible murder of Pius XII. Father told me what was said and what was known in the Holy Office:
«We think that Pius XII was killed for tworeasons: If Pius XII had lived yet another year and ahalf, the Masonic world’s plan to place their man,Montini, at the top of the Church would fail. In 1960, Pius XII would certainly have published the Third Secretof Fatima that contained the sentence: “Satan will actually succeed in reaching the top of the Church;” furthermore, Freemasonry could not impose Roncalli, as their“transitional pope,” because at that time he was already ill with cancer and had been given only five years to live. If Pius XII had remained alive for another year and a half, Roncalli could never be elected pope, because the news of his disease would be widespread and would prevent him from getting the necessary votes for his election to the papacy. And Montini would never become Cardinal, nor a Pope.»
The trailblazing researcher into the 1958 conclave, Gary Giuffre', provides evidence for who threatened Cardinal Siri after he had accepted the papacy, even the probable nature of the threat, and much more in both the articles & Interviews 1, 2 & 3 at whitesmoke1958.com.
Little known info from Giuffre's interviews on the double agent for the Judeo-Masonic powers, womanizer & limited hangout specialist Malachi Martin, whom he knew personally & whom Giuffre' says was involved in the 1958 coup:
Minor correction: The mandate to recite the St Michael prayer (along with other "Leonine prayers") was suppressed by the Vatican's "Inter Oecumenici" instruction on September 26, 1964, which went into effect the following year. So it was under the homosexual crypto-Jew "Saint" Paul VI, not the Modernist & Freemason "Saint" John XXIII.
Thank you for the correction. I noticed another mistake - he didn't suppress the Last Gospel (also done in 1964), and I forgot to mention his first liturgical change, in 1959, when he removed the word "faithless" from the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, a very symbolic change showing not just the direction of his pontificate but ultimately indicating who has been in control of the Vatican since then, just as the Great Seal of the United States says a lot with the Masonic pyramid and the 13 stars arranged into a hexagram, as well as the 12 gold stars on the EU flag, for the 12 tribes of Israel, which has nothing to do with Europe, although it is a distinct possibility that some of the European nations are actually descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes.
Creative analogy, especially the point that “their activity is not a condemnation of the Church’s ability to save, but rather a confirmation of it.” I think the harder question that naturally follows from your point is whether continuity of activity by itself is enough to demonstrate continuity of the thing being represented, particularly in a crisis where multiple bodies all claim to be acting “for the Church” at the same time.
Nice to see the P6 removal of the tiara taken as a major symbol of the Apostasy.
And fascinating to see its parallel with Caiaphas' tearing his vestments. Thanks.
I wrote on this topic a year and a half ago in the links below. I said there that if this action were done in the OT or even the medieval Church, no one would have simply yawned at it, and argue stridently that 'this act is not theologically significant', as I have heard often when I bring up the subject. And this dismissal of the importance of P6's symbolic 'abdication' comes from conciliar BroCons, synodalists, Trads, and sedevacantists alike.
But, "There is no canon that says a pope must wear a tiara", misses the point; the action is clear, "I am no longer 'that' kind of pope", and hence, no pope at all. And since no subsequent 'pope' has actually been installed in a coronation ceremony, they have all shared in Montini's abdication. In terms of symbols summarizing volumes of linguistic and enacted apostacy, it is hard to imagine a clearer one than the crownless man on the throne.
Thanks again, and for all your insights in this contemplation.
My thanks to Mr. Wright for publishing the article, and also for providing links to other articles where we can read more about a particular topic, as well as for his input and comments.
Even though I am not a theologian, I would like to try to offer a reply to the objections he wrote in footnote no. 4.
Objection: "Some reject this possibility [of St. Peter and St. Paul coming down from Heaven and designating the new Pope], on the grounds that the Church is governed by law, rather than by divine intervention."
Reply: Christ is the head of the Church and may choose His Vicar in what ever way He sees fit. After all, He chose St. Peter not by a vote, He personally gave him that authority.
Objection: "Further, it is objected that such a divine intervention would a) constitute a new public revelation, which is impossible"
Reply: An election of a new Pope is not a revelation of new doctrine, in the same way as the canonization of a new saint is not a revelation of new doctrine, but we are still bound to accept them both as dogmatic facts.
Objection: "... b) destroy the visibility of the Church, if her head is selected by Heaven"
Reply: The Pope is the Successor of St. Peter. Who would argue that St. Peter doesn't have the right to choose his successor, if Our Lord commands him to?
Objection: "... c) break legitimate succession from St Peter, as the succession would not take place according to law or established custom."
Reply: How could it break the succession from St. Peter, when he himself chooses his successor?
I agree that the adhesion of the Church to the Pontiff and all the bishops of the world confirming that election would give further certainty. Perhaps it is not by accident that Bl. Anna Maria Taigi uses the word "designate" instead of elect. But of course, if St. Peter himself designates his successor, which bishop would have the temerity not to confirm that in a formal election?
Thanks for this Peregrinus. Just to be clear, the objections in that footnote are taken from others and expressed in their words, rather than being my own.
As I mentioned on X, this is a fascinating, hope-filled read with reasonable speculation. From my point of view, it is the best explanation for the evident facts of the Crisis.
As for the restoration before the defeat of Antichrist, I do favor this view and could not help but be reminded of Fr. Sylvester Berry's commentary on Chapter XI of the book of Apocalypse (https://archive.org/details/apocalypseofstjo00berr/page/124/mode/2up):
"It is now the hour for the powers of darkness. The newborn Son of the Church is taken 'to God and to His throne.' Scarcely has the newly elected Pope been enthroned when he is snatched away by martyrdom. The 'mystery of iniquity,' gradually developing through the centuries, cannot be fully consummated while the power of the Papacy endures, but now he that 'withholdeth taken out of the way.' During the interregnum, 'that wicked one shall be revealed' in his fury against the Church.
It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come
The Church, deprived of her chief pastor, must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during these trying days. This place of refuge prepared for the Church is probably some nation, or nations, that remain faithful to her. In those days, the Church shall also find refuge and consolation in faithful souls, especially in the seclusion of religious life."
Couple this exegesis with the enormous difficulty of having to combat Antichrist and his empire *without* a restored Church -- with a Pope actively ruling, teaching and sanctifying as the supreme representative of Christ -- and it makes sense why the restoration would come *first*.
I completly agree with this view, but there is yet another layer of plausibility to add to it: we now saw the damage caused by wicked enemies. They destroy the church from within while acting as wolves in sheepsclothing. Yet what I find probable is, that the most supreme betrayal of the church does not come from open or occult enemies, but from lukewarm souls. Thus it is probable that antichrist or his followers will larp as liberal catholics and the final fight will be between essential worldly affected "catholicism" (or "fiftyism") and true catholicism.
Is the Passion of the Church also discussed in the Catechisms before the V2 new versions, such as the one by JP2 that's had to be amended over and over again, where the explanation of the catechism required a larger book than the catechism itself ?
There is currently the temptation to see the Church as merely a human institution, and to despair of its ever returning to normality. Like the friends of Job, many want to ascribe the current crisis strictly as a punishment for the sins of Catholics, especially her clergy and religious; and neglect to see that all sufferings and crosses are sent by God as a means to purify and sanctify us.
As the reading in today's Gospel reminds us:
Jn. 15.
1 I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman 2 Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Thank you, very good read.
"[Pius XII] suffered due to health issues (exacerbated by his physician)...."
There is evidence that Pius XII was poisoned in 1958 by his Jewish & Masonic physician, the corrupt Dr Riccardo Galeazzi-Lisi, since Roncalli, the "chosen candidate" of the judeo-Masonic powers, had cancer & wouldn't be elected if Pius lived much longer: http://https://prairieprogressive.medium.com/the-tale-of-pope-pius-xiis-perfidious-personal-physician-b64a642f6a9e (only part can be read without a subscription)
See also this short article:http://catholicapedia.net/Documents/Chiesa_viva/Chiesa_viva_486_en-_FINAL.pdf, p. 2:
"I [Dr Franco Adessa] submitted to Fr. [Luigi] Villa the possibility of a possible murder of Pius XII. Father told me what was said and what was known in the Holy Office:
«We think that Pius XII was killed for tworeasons: If Pius XII had lived yet another year and ahalf, the Masonic world’s plan to place their man,Montini, at the top of the Church would fail. In 1960, Pius XII would certainly have published the Third Secretof Fatima that contained the sentence: “Satan will actually succeed in reaching the top of the Church;” furthermore, Freemasonry could not impose Roncalli, as their“transitional pope,” because at that time he was already ill with cancer and had been given only five years to live. If Pius XII had remained alive for another year and a half, Roncalli could never be elected pope, because the news of his disease would be widespread and would prevent him from getting the necessary votes for his election to the papacy. And Montini would never become Cardinal, nor a Pope.»
The trailblazing researcher into the 1958 conclave, Gary Giuffre', provides evidence for who threatened Cardinal Siri after he had accepted the papacy, even the probable nature of the threat, and much more in both the articles & Interviews 1, 2 & 3 at whitesmoke1958.com.
Little known info from Giuffre's interviews on the double agent for the Judeo-Masonic powers, womanizer & limited hangout specialist Malachi Martin, whom he knew personally & whom Giuffre' says was involved in the 1958 coup:
rumble.com/v359b0a-you-really-think-you-know-malachi-martin.html
The above was edited (omitting Martin's sexual immorality) from interviews 1-3, which are also at youtube.com/@garygiuffre
Part 1 from 46 to 52 min.
Part 2 from 47 to 52 min & 56 to 58 min.
Part 3 from 56 min.
Go there to hear about Martin in context.
On evidence for a probable nuclear threat:
whitesmoke1958.com/2021/05/27/grave-reasons-of-state
Question: how could a Modernist heretic & Freemason, John XXIII even be elected if Siri did not invalidly abdicate? Giuffre' answers this as well.
Minor correction: The mandate to recite the St Michael prayer (along with other "Leonine prayers") was suppressed by the Vatican's "Inter Oecumenici" instruction on September 26, 1964, which went into effect the following year. So it was under the homosexual crypto-Jew "Saint" Paul VI, not the Modernist & Freemason "Saint" John XXIII.
Thank you for the correction. I noticed another mistake - he didn't suppress the Last Gospel (also done in 1964), and I forgot to mention his first liturgical change, in 1959, when he removed the word "faithless" from the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, a very symbolic change showing not just the direction of his pontificate but ultimately indicating who has been in control of the Vatican since then, just as the Great Seal of the United States says a lot with the Masonic pyramid and the 13 stars arranged into a hexagram, as well as the 12 gold stars on the EU flag, for the 12 tribes of Israel, which has nothing to do with Europe, although it is a distinct possibility that some of the European nations are actually descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes.
Creative analogy, especially the point that “their activity is not a condemnation of the Church’s ability to save, but rather a confirmation of it.” I think the harder question that naturally follows from your point is whether continuity of activity by itself is enough to demonstrate continuity of the thing being represented, particularly in a crisis where multiple bodies all claim to be acting “for the Church” at the same time.
Nice to see the P6 removal of the tiara taken as a major symbol of the Apostasy.
And fascinating to see its parallel with Caiaphas' tearing his vestments. Thanks.
I wrote on this topic a year and a half ago in the links below. I said there that if this action were done in the OT or even the medieval Church, no one would have simply yawned at it, and argue stridently that 'this act is not theologically significant', as I have heard often when I bring up the subject. And this dismissal of the importance of P6's symbolic 'abdication' comes from conciliar BroCons, synodalists, Trads, and sedevacantists alike.
But, "There is no canon that says a pope must wear a tiara", misses the point; the action is clear, "I am no longer 'that' kind of pope", and hence, no pope at all. And since no subsequent 'pope' has actually been installed in a coronation ceremony, they have all shared in Montini's abdication. In terms of symbols summarizing volumes of linguistic and enacted apostacy, it is hard to imagine a clearer one than the crownless man on the throne.
Thanks again, and for all your insights in this contemplation.
https://williamthesamaritan.substack.com/p/nulla-carona
https://williamthesamaritan.substack.com/p/remota-coronam