Let me begin by dispelling any accusations that I am either actively hoping for Francis’ death or making sport of speculating as to when it might happen. I am perfectly content to acknowledge that his life, like that of everyone else, is in God’s hands. He alone knows the day and the time.
That said, it is perfectly reasonable for us to observe, based on official Vatican updates and other public knowledge, that Francis is likely to pass into eternity rather soon.
Without going into an extensive review of what has been reported, the most relevant details regarding his condition include word that Francis is on “high flow oxygen,” as well as evidence of “slight renal insufficiency” (decreased kidney function).
As I recently wrote, the Vatican communications team doesn’t exactly have a track record of transparency when it comes to papal health, i.e., they aren’t typically big on details, especially those that might suggest that death is near.
For example:
On March 31, 2005, Vatican Radio reported, “The pontiff [John Paul II] seems to be reacting well to the antibiotics that he has been administered, and, at the very end of the evening, his condition appears to have stabilized.”
It wasn’t until the following day, the day before his death, that spokesperson Joaquin Navarro Valls reported that John Paul II is in “very grave” condition.
We saw the same thing with Benedict XVI. Reports went from lucid and stable to confirmation of his death in a matter of two days.
Regarding Francis, details such as “high flow” oxygen and diminished kidney function (however slight) seem to suggest that his condition is fast approaching very grave status as well.
Then there’s last night’s “Rosary for Pope Francis’ health in St. Peter’s Square,” led by Cardinal Pietro Parolin. A few observations:
One, as I recall, no such event was held for the most Marian pope ever, Karol “Totus Tuus” Wojtyla. Secondly, Francis isn’t known for having a deep devotion to Our Lady. In fact, on several occasions he made it a point to insist that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix.
Does last night’s Rosary event suggest that Francis is teetering on the precipice of death?
Sure, but it may also indicate something more sinister and calculating.
Why, one wonders, why was Cardinal Pietro Parolin chosen to lead the Rosary?
Perhaps Parolin – a career diplomat and current Vatican Secretary of State – was chosen for merely practical reasons, but I suspect that it may be evidence of a deliberate effort on the part of the crack Bergoglian PR team to present him to the world in a less political and more pastoral light, as a spiritual leader, a steady and comforting hand during a time of uncertainty.
And why might they do this?
Well, they might do this if he’s the chosen one, the man handpicked to succeed the dying Francis. More on this later.
All of the above being so, many Catholics (clergy included) are openly conjecturing, and understandably so, about what might happen at the next conclave.
Some of that commentary merits a response. For instance:
- “My hope is that the cardinals in profound prayer seek what the Lord desires and choose whomever the Holy Spirit wants.”
This quote comes from a priest whose name is irrelevant. The hope that he expresses here seems unassailable insofar as seeking the Lord’s will is always the right thing to do. That said, context is important:
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the cardinal electors of Bergoglio’s successor will overwhelmingly, if not to a man, enter the Sistine Chapel determined to do one thing in particular, namely, to elect a new head for the conciliar church. Barring a profound act of divine intervention beforehand, this is exactly what they will do.
So, what does this mean vis-à-vis God’s will?
Consider that St. Augustine described evil as “a privation of a due good which belongs to a thing according to its nature.”
The nature of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is such that it “cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost” (Catechism of the Council of Trent). The conciliar church, by contrast, is demonstrably deprived of this due good (and others), therefore, we can say without hesitation that it is evil.
Even so, might the Holy Spirit want a particular man to serve as head of that evil church?
We could just as reasonably wonder if the Holy Spirit might prefer one particular man, as opposed to another, to serve as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, or the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps He might, but let’s not imagine that this is anywhere near the same dynamic that is at play when the cardinal electors of the Catholic Church enter into a papal conclave to elect a true Vicar of Christ, a Roman Pontiff upon whom the entire Church will rely as its rule of faith.
The point is simply this: The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in a unique way – not only in a conclave, but also in carrying out her mission in various other ways – so much so that we can say that divine guidance belongs to the Church according to her very nature.
The same is no more true of the conciliar church when it seeks to elect its head than it is when the Water Buffalo Lodge looks to appoint a new Grand Poo Bah. Unfortunately, that truth is lost on many. For example, I recently came across this gem from a prominent personality within the Resist-the-Pope movement:
- “The Holy Ghost doesn’t determine the choice of a pope, but there’s always the influence of the Holy Ghost in Church proceedings. After all, the Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church, it was founded by God incarnate, and we have the promise of infectability. So, there’s always going to be that influence, that wild card influence, so that you never can entirely predict what’s going to come out of a conclave.”
You recall seeing evidence of the influence of the Holy Ghost on such “Church [sic] proceedings” as the Synod on Synodality and the Synod on the Family, don’t you? How about at Vatican Council II, which every post-conciliar claimant to the Chair of Peter claims to be an exercise of the Supreme Magisterium?
No, me neither.
Bottom line: When it comes to the upcoming conclave, keep in mind that it’s going to be a conciliar event, not a Catholic one.
Can such a gathering yield a true pope?
The short answer, as I see it, is no. How could it? Again, barring divine intervention, it promises to be a mock proceeding carried out by a false church.
To be clear, it is de fide that the one true Church of Christ most certainly does have, and will always have, whatever she may need in order to elect a true pope. How that might take place given the present state of affairs is anyone’s guess, but holding another three ring conciliar conclave ain’t it.
This being so, perhaps we should focus not so much on hoping that the electors land on God’s choice, but rather on begging the Lord to intervene in such a way that the entire conciliar enterprise comes crashing to an ignominious end altogether.
As for who the leading candidates are to succeed Francis, some commentators are dreaming of Cardinal Sarah’s elevation, others, Cardinal Burke. While neither one is nearly as hostile toward tradition as Francis, both are men-of-the-Council. For my money, I’d rather see the elevation of a man who is even more radically committed to implementing the false Vatican II religion than Francis.
Why? Because a tradciliar© “pope” will only serve to deceive the naïve all the more.
In this sense, the soon-to-be-over Bergoglian reign of terror has been a great blessing in that it has opened the eyes of many former “tradservatives,” me included. Francis’ anti-papacy is a shining example of how God brings good from all things for those who love Him (cf Romans 8:28), and for this we should be grateful.
Other commentators have been busy evaluating the current makeup of the conciliar college of cardinals, weighing the relative number of conservatives, liberals, and moderates.
It remains to be seen if such calculations actually provide any meaningful insights into who the next CEO of Conciliar Church, Inc. might be, i.e., we won’t know until after the fat lady sings. (No, I am not talking about Cardinal “Nighty Night Baby” Tobin.)
When it comes to this sort of speculation, it seems to me that far too little attention is being paid to the St. Gallen effect. Sure, the only key player in that group who is still alive is Walter Kasper, but efforts of that nature aren’t necessarily going to die with him.
Recall that the St. Gallen group, in the years leading up to Conclave 2013, was actively plotting and planning how best to promote their successor of choice, activities that necessarily took place behind Benedict’s back, without his knowledge much less his input. As we all know now, it succeeded fantastically, and Francis is the result.
This being the case, it would be incredibly naïve to overlook the very strong possibility that St. Gallen 2.0 has been in full swing for some time now, with the approval, if not the direct supervision, of Francis himself.
In short, while it may not be Parolin, I tend to believe that the Bergoglians have already handpicked Francis’ successor. Whether or not they can secure the necessary votes is another matter.
