Fellay of Souls: Will Failure to Embrace Sedevacantism Lead Souls To Fry In Hell ?

 Bishop Bernard Fellay, General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, refuses to simply say "no" to Modernist-occupied Rome and continues to seek "full communion" with Ratzinger. Fellay would be well-advised to remember that EVERY pseudo-Traditionalist group that made the horrible mistake of recognizing Ratzinger as pope and "reconciling" ended up having their Faith destroyed, sacraments compromised or invalidated, and morals brought down to the level of the Vatican II sect. We learn from history that we don't learn from history.

Think of what has happened to:

The Fraternal Society of St Peter


It was formed in 1988 by 16 priests who left the SSPX because they disagreed with Arch. Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops without papal approval. These men thought they could have "Catholic Tradition" at the same time as being in "full communion with Rome" (exactly what Bishop Fellay is now claiming the SSPX should do). Well, the FSSP has now experienced how Rome inevitably treats those who are foolish enough to make a compromise deal with it. Since the days of the FSSP's founding, Rome has done the following to them:


1.Demanded that the FSSP priests concelebrate the novus ordo "Mass" at least once per year (on Holy Thursday's chrismal Mass)

2.Demanded eleven years after its founding that the FSSP's priests “must celebrate with the postconciliar [novus ordo] missal if, by chance, a celebration takes place in a community which uses the modern Roman Rite” This was demanded even though at the time of its founding in 1988, the FSSP was granted the "exclusive use" of the traditional Mass!  Notice: eleven years. It may take time, it may not - but eventually modernist Rome will make all its sheep fall in line.

3.Demanded that the FSSP allow its priests the right to say the novus ordo Mass if they so desire (agreement made in 2000). Because of the deterioration of the formation of Society of St. Peter priests, some of its priests wanted to say the new mass on other occasions also, and Cardinal Hoyos forbade the society’s leadership from preventing this.

4.Demanded that the FSSP not criticize the New "Mass", and even admit that the New "Mass" is the official rite of the Church - something to which a traditional Catholic would never agree.

5.Removed and replaced the FSSP's superiors with men who were more to its liking: About twelve years after the FSSP's founding and initial agreement with Rome, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, acting as head of Ecclesia Dei, imposed his own choice of superior general on that society and his own choice of rectors to replace the two that the same cardinal ordered removed from their positions in charge of that society’s two seminaries.
6.Here is a revealing quote from Fr. Gabet, former North American District Superior of the FSSP, which reveals the all but novus ordo mentality:

"We see Vatican II, and we look at those documents, and we see them, like Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in light of Tradition. It is not just Vatican II, but it is all the councils. Vatican II is certainly one of them — from Nicea all the way to Vatican II." Source: This interview at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1610361/posts

 This info was gleaned from www.truetrad.com.  A web site dedicated to preventing the SSPX from entering the sect of Ratzinger. I made some editing for brevity and put quotations around New "Mass", etc. The web site goes on to note that this is what happens when you enter Ratzingers web:



1.An organization either begins with a "compromise mentality", or else develops one (such as the SSPX leadership, many priests, and many faithful are now doing!)

2.This mentality progresses into the desire to be in "full communion" with Rome even if it means concessions on important matters. The organization's leaders develop an overconfidence in their ability to defend against the crushing power of modernist Rome, as well as a misplaced trust in Rome's sincerity. They forget the last 20 years of history.

3.An agreement is made. Concessions are made by the organization.

4.There is a waiting period before Rome does anything. Rome is patient. It might be 10 years!

5.Demands begin to be made. Changes. A backing down from the former "hardliner" stance. New leadership is put in. The new leaders lack the spirit of the founders. Softening on condemnations of the errors of Vatican II, the New Mass, etc.

6.The organization begins to lose its focus, zeal, and begins to crumble.

7.Eventually there will is very little substantial difference between it and the New Church."

 They see the poison, they see through the deceit and they even refer to the Vatican II sect as the "New Church." Yet, they still cling to the idea that Ratzinger can be a Modernist heretic and remain pope! Only when the real culprit is publicly rejected, and Ratzinger is denounced as an anti-pope can they be free of any notions of "reconciliation." You don't negotiate with the pope, you obey. And you don't negotiate with Satan, you renounce him with all his pomps and works. If not, you may be spending Eternity with him.

"Punk Priest" Move Over---Now You Can Go "Breaking Bad in The Land Of Oz With Monsignor Meth" !

I couldn't have made this story up if I tried. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

"The Catholic priest busted for allegedly dealing crystal meth was suspended after church officials discovered he was a cross-dresser who was having sex in the rectory at Bridgeport's St. Augustine Cathedral.
Monsignor Kevin Wallin was relieved of his duties in May, but the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport had continued to pay him a stipend until his Jan. 3 arrest -- a day he was planning to fly to London on vacation.
Now dubbed "Msgr. Meth" by some, Wallin seemed to live a life that easily could have been ripped from the script of "Breaking Bad," the popular AMC series about a high school chemistry teacher turned crystal methamphetamine producer. At one point, Wallin was selling upwards of $9,000 of meth a week, according to his indictment.
In his post-priesthood, Wallin, 61, bought an adult specialty and video store in North Haven called Land of Oz that sells sex toys and X-rated DVDs. Investigators believe the shop helped him launder thousands of dollars in weekly profits.
Wallin's arrest sent shock waves through the Bridgeport and Danbury communities where he was known as a charismatic speaker who was involved in many charitable activities, and who enjoyed Broadway musicals and show tunes. He often attended musicals with his mentor, former N.Y. Cardinal Edward Egan and parishioners.
"There is an evil invading our world and it has come to our church," said Maria Spencer-Fonseca, a long-time parishioner at St. Augustine as she stood outside the cathedral Thursday. "This was a work of evil -- and I am praying for the monsignor."
"I can't fathom it," said 77-year-old Therese Ruppert, a parishioner at the Church of St. Peter in Danbury, where Wallin was pastor from 1996 to 2002. "He was so spiritual. His sermons were wonderful. He had such knowledge of theology."

 Of course, the "bishop" will plead ignorance to what was going on. Why was this man getting a stipend if he was relieved of his duties? The part that really got me was the parishioner who claims he was "spiritual" and had "such a knowledge of theology." Let's not forget that Ratzinger has two earned doctorates, one of which is in sacred theology. He received them before Vatican II and he took the Anti-Modernist Oath in 1951 when he was ordained a priest. He knew theology, but he didn't believe it and live it. In the same way, you can know Greek mythology but you don't believe it or run  your life in accordance with it. Arch-heretic Fr. Karl Rahner was noted for his devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, yet his heresies belie that it was a false and lying devotion, bereft of any benefit to himself and probably more for show; to appear holy and above reproach. As our Lord said, "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." (St. Matthew 7:15).

  If any member of the Vatican II sect wants one of their "priests" really checked out, accuse him of being a secret Traditionalist who offers the Traditional Mass somewhere. Now THAT'S something the "bishop" would NEVER tolerate!!

The Mystery of Faith....Or The Mastery of Fake

Much has been made by "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect regarding the change of wording in the so-called "institution narrative" of the 2011 edition of their "mass." One of the strongest arguments against the validity of the New Rite was the change in the Words of Consecration over the wine from "for you and for many" to "for you and for all." The Catechism of the Council of Trent had made it clear that Our Lord was expressing the EFFICACY of His Sacrifice (i.e. the many who would actually be saved) and NOT the SUFFICIENCY (i.e. that all receive sufficient grace for salvation). In the words of the Catechism of Trent:

"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine." (Emphasis mine)

 Now, Ratzinger has changed the word "all" back to "many", therefore the "conservatives" assert that any question regarding validity is cast aside. There are three problems with this line of reasoning:

1.  Since 1968, the revised rite of ordination to the priesthood and consecration to the episcopacy have been rendered invalid, and if there is no valid priest the will be no valid Mass regardless of what words are used
2. There is ample evidence that reciting the words in the form of an "Institution Narrative" (i.e. as simply telling the story of a moment in history) does not confect the Sacrament since the intention to consecrate is not present
3. The words "the mystery of Faith" are still absent from the consecration formula over the wine

I will leave the arguments for points 1 and 2 for another day, and call the readers attention to the oft overlooked third argument.

Here's what The Catechism of Trent has to say about those sacred words:

"The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.

Another reason why we call the blood of the Lord the mystery of faith is that human reason is particularly beset with difficulty and embarrassment when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord, the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, and this death is designated by the Sacrament of His blood."

Pre-Vatican II theologians differed as to what constituted the words effectuating Transubstantiation. Some held the "short form" theory, that only the words "This is the Chalice of My Blood..." are sufficient. Others, including Aquinas, hold that all the words, the "long form" is necessary. Since the Church has not definitively pronounced which is correct, the safe course of using the long form and omitting nothing, must be held in practice. To do otherwise would put the validity of the Mass at stake.

Assuming we have a validly ordained priest, and further assuming that pronouncing the Words of Consecration as an "Institution Narrative" does nothing to invalidate the Sacrament, the omission of the words "the mystery of faith" render validity dubious at best. Furthermore, the phrase was taken out of the Consecration Formula and placed before the so-called "Memorial Acclamation" which states "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." That is NOT the "mystery of faith"--- it actually is supposed to denote the alleged Transubstantiation that just took place!  How many members of the Vatican II sect know this and understand what it means? It's ambiguous place outside the Consecration Formula, lending itself to be misunderstood, is a subtle DENIAL of the Real Presence.

 In other words, the Novus Ordo Missae contains a denial of the Real Presence doctrine. For if a given expression has always had a particular meaning in its original context, and the very same expression is used in the very same setting but with an altogether different meaning attached by its ambiguous placement, which different meaning is explicitly acclaimed, then one may reasonably infer that the original meaning was not only suppressed, but that the innovator has intended its denial. This shows a defect of intention within the rite which is another reason to hold it as dubious at best!

Lest anyone say that the words "the mystery of Faith" do not appear in pre-Vatican II Eastern Rites, and they validly consecrate, let the theologian Capisuccus explain:

 "And this does not change the fact that all those words which the Latin Church uses in the consecration of the wine are of the essence of that form. For it is one thing to say that all those words are not of the essence of the form as such, and it is another thing to say that they are not of the essence of the form that the Latin Church uses. Therefore we say that although all those words are not of the essence of the form as such, they are of the essence of the form in which they are found, such as that form which the Latin Church uses."(See Controversiae theologicae selectae pgs 213-218--Emphasis mine).

Couldn't the Church change the form? In a word, "No." As Pope St. Pius X taught, "[I]t is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever [emphasis mine] to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments (Pope St. Pius X, in the letter Ex quo, nono, Dec. 26, 1910).
To summarize:

1. The words "the mystery of Faith" may be necessary to the validity of the Mass, at least in the Latin Rite by the Will of Christ transmitted by the Apostles in Sacred Tradition
2. The words have been placed outside the Consecration Formula, leading people to believe "the mystery of Faith" refers to Christ having died, risen, and coming again on the Last Day. This is a tacit denial of the Real Presence and gives the rite a defective intention. If the rite does not intend Transubstantiation to occur, then it would be invalid.
3. The Church has "no right whatsoever" to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments, as Pope St. Pius X taught.
4. Hence, by changing the words "for all" back to "for many" in their 2011 edition of the "Novus Ordo Mass", they still did nothing towards making it valid even presupposing a valid priesthood and an efficacious "Institution Narrative"

As a logical consequence, if the Church has no right to change the substance of the sacraments, and She is Indefectible by the Will of Christ (i.e. can not give evil in official teachings and administering the sacraments), then the New "Mass" did not come from the Church! She has no authority to change, so a change means no authority was present in those who presumed to promulgate it (Paul VI) and his heretical successors who falsely claim to hold the papal throne.
 

The Beatification of Heresy Incarnate

The Vatican II sect is, literally, hell-bent on declaring "Blessed" Giovanni Montini, aka "Pope" Paul VI. It can be said it is morally certain that the papacy has been vacant since November 21, 1964 when Montini signed the first document of Vatican II entitled Lumen Gentium. Paul VI may have been pope at his election as there were enough electors from Pope Pius XII for a valid conclave. However, at some point between his election in 1963 and November 21, 1964, Montini (if not already a notorious heretic) espoused heresy as a private theologian and lost the pontificate (indeed, if he ever had it).

 Why can't he be pope (or "Blessed") if he signed Lumen Gentium? The root of Vatican II heresy is contained therein that damnable document. It declares that the "Church of Christ" subsists in the Catholic Church in its fullness, but can exist in other "churches" partially according to how many "elements of truth" they have in common with the Catholic Church. No longer is the Church of Christ identical to the Roman Catholic Church, they are distinct. In the Vatican II sect, you often hear of wanting a group (like the SSPX, or Anglicans), to be in FULL communion with the Catholic Church. This is a tacit admission that there are degrees of belonging to the True Church, and that is plain and simple heresy.

 Ecclesiology, or the study of the nature of the Church, is where the root of all the other Vatican II heresies arise. Karol Wotyla (John Paul the Great Apostate) took the ball from Montini and ran with it. Compare JP II's elaboration on Lumen Gentium and authentic Catholic Teaching:

JPII: "In these truly plenary gatherings, the ecclesial communities of different countries make real the fundamental second chapter of Lumen Gentium which treats of the numerous "spheres" of belonging to the Church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it, even on the part of those who do not yet form a part of it."(John Paul II, Discourse to the Roman Curia, June 28, 1981)

Pope Pius XII: "Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can only be one faith: and he who refuses to hear the Church must be considered, by the order of the Lord, as a heathen and a publican. And they who are divided by reasons of Faith or of government cannot live in this one Body, and in its one Divine Spirit." (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943)

 The traditional teaching from 33AD to 1958 tells us heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Mystical Body of Christ which is the One True Church of Christ and is identical to the Roman Catholic Church. Heretical and schismatic sects are not in some "sphere of belonging to the People of God"they are like heathens and publicans.

If Vatican II is right, all the pre-Vatican II teaching is false, and vice-versa. Paul VI began the demonic work of attempting to dismantle the Church, and for this Ratzinger wants to declare "Blessed" his partner in the crime of heresy. Just like JPII and John XXIII were "beatified."

Since 1570, only two popes were canonized (Pius V, Pius X) and one beatified (Innocent XI). Now every so-called pope of Vatican II must be sainted to equate their heresy with sanctity. Christ asked "When the Son of Man comes will he find any Faith on earth?" A question the Society of St Pius X should ponder before throwing their faith away to join the one-world sect initiated by Montini and perpetuated by His Wickedness, Joseph Ratzinger.

The First

There will be an upcoming documentary released later this year on the life of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The problem with not having a pope is the tendency among Traditionalists to idolize their leaders. The Archbishop was a good man, but even canonized saints had their faults. The movie, like the Archbishop's biography entitled Marcel Lefebvre (written by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais), paints a very sanitized version of the Archbishop. They also will leave out Levebvre's quotes made later in his life when he sees sedevacantism as a viable theological conclusion. One can hardly blame him for his confusion and trepidations in dealing with an unprecedented near universal apostasy in the wake of Vatican II.

 The unforgivable sin of the SSPX in extolling the virtues of their leader, is when they make it appear as if he were the original clergyman who rose up in the preservation of the One True Church of Christ. When the Vatican II sect is one day destroyed (as all false religions will be crushed eventually), the true pioneer of the Traditionalist Movement will be revealed as a Belgian born priest, Father Gommar A. DePauw. Lefebvre's biographer gives him only a brief mention in a single paragraph, and the movie will probably not mention him at all. He was a canon lawyer who was a peritus (i.e. a theological advisor) at Vatican II. He fought along side Cardinal Ottavianni against the Modernist heretics, and in 1964---yes, 1964!---founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement to stop what was happening. His number one enemy at the Council was the suit and tie wearing Fr. Joseph Ratzinger(whose name he used to always pronounce RAT-zinger). I knew Fr. DePauw personally, and he converted me to the True Faith at age 16 in 1981. I attended Mass with him until his holy passing in 2005.

 When Fr. DePauw needed a bishop to support him only ONE stood up. It was not Archbishop Levebvre. It was not Archbishop Thuc. It was not Bishop Mendez. It was not Bishop de Castro Mayer. It was Bishop Blaise Kurz, who in 1966 answered the call. Consecrated by Pope Pius XII himself at the main altar of St Peter's Basilica on October 29, 1939, Bishop Kurz was the exiled Ordinary of the Diocese of Yungchow, China. He alone stood up. Fr. De Pauw told me that the greatest thing he ever did in his life was something he never did: he never offered the so-called "Novus Ordo" invalid Vatican II bread and wine service. He only offered the True Mass his whole life. Due to the courage of DePauw and Kurz, this emboldened the others, including Lefebvre, to come out in defense of the True Faith. Father established the Ave Maria Chapel in Westbury, Long Island, New York in 1968. Prior to this, he had been offering the True Mass in a rented room of the Chrysler Building in Manhattan. Long Island has been rightfully called, "the home of Traditional Catholicism." To read more about Father De Pauw, visit the CTM website at www.latinmass-ctm.org.

 At the end of his life, it is my personal belief having known him, that he had come to the conclusion that the Chair of St. Peter was empty. He did not insert JP II's name in the Canon at least since 1999. Like every human being, he had his faults. But both DePauw and Kurz remained true to the Profession of the Catholic Faith they had sworn on the day of their ordinations, namely to keep the Faith "whole, entire and inviolate until the last breath of my life." Had those other Traditionalists that Fr. De Pauw would refer to as "Johnny-come-latelys" stood up with Bishop Kurz and himself, perhaps enough of the laity would have come out to stop the Vatican II sect from taking hold as strongly as it did. So, when the movie on Archbishop Levebvre comes out with the historical revisionism of the SSPX that the Archbishop was the first to stand strong for the True Faith, please remember with gratitude a humble Belgian priest and his German born Bishop ally, who were truly the pioneers and say a prayer for the repose of their beautiful souls.

Another of The "Fruits" of Vatican II

A Vatican II sect "priest" has found a novel way to spend his time. Having jettisoned the Rosary and Breviary (along with all other devotions), here's what one invalidly ordained "priest" spent his time doing in the rectory: (From the Illinois Times)

" The pastor of St. Aloysius church on Springfield’s north end has been granted a leave of absence after he called 911 from the rectory and told a dispatcher that he needed help getting out of handcuffs. “I’m going to need help getting out before this becomes a medical emergency,” Father Tom Donovan told a dispatcher who sounds a bit incredulous during the Nov. 28 call. “You’re stuck in a pair of handcuffs?” the dispatcher asks. “(I was) playing with them and I need help getting out,” Donovan responds. Donovan told the dispatcher that he was alone in the rectory. It’s not clear exactly how he ended up in handcuffs or why he feared a medical emergency. His voice sounds garbled or muffled on the tape, and sources say that police discovered some sort of gag on the priest when they arrived. The diocese has been tight-lipped about the matter, saying only that Bishop Thomas Paprocki granted Donovan’s request for a leave of absence at some point before Christmas. The diocese knows about the incident, given that Brad Huff, an attorney for the diocese, has been given a copy of the 911 tape by the Sangamon County Emergency Telephone System Department. Kathie Sass, spokeswoman for the Diocese of Springfield, said that the diocese also has a copy of a police report on the matter. Sass would not disclose Donovan’s whereabouts or say whether he is staying at a church-affiliated location. “I wouldn’t be able to tell you where Father Donovan is,” Sass said. “There’s a matter of privacy there.” Sass said that Donovan approached Paprocki after the incident and asked for help. “He came to the bishop before anyone was aware of the incident,” Sass said. “He came to the bishop and asked for help and was granted leave.” Paprocki reviewed the police report after speaking with Donovan, and the police account jibed with what the priest told the bishop, Sass said."

So what was "Fr" Donovan doing? I really don't want to think about it. Sadly, some can remember before Vatican II, when a priest who was into SM belonged to the 'Society of Mary." Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Will Strict Observance Mean Sedevacantism?

 Reliable sources say Bishop Richard Williamson, who was recently expelled from the Society of St. Pius X, is preparing to consecrate a new bishop. As the SSPX has moved closer to joining the One World "Frankenchurch" of Joseph Ratzinger (one sect comprising many falsehoods, as long as you recognize and submit to the heretical Vatican II teachings), some priests broke away to form The "Strict Observance Society of St. Pius X" to be "faithful to the principles of our founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre."

 The upshot is that Bishop Fellay is leading the SSPX to its death by absorption into Antipope Benedict XVI, and they must break away before it happens. Bp. Williamson, now free of constraints, is rumored to be coming to America in order to consecrate one of these priests, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, as a bishop for the new society.

A reason to rejoice? Yes and no. On the positive side, Modernist Rome will be deprived of engulfing and devouring the Lefebvre-line of bishops and destroying the Faith and apostolic succession of the society as they did in Brazil with the Society of St John Vianney back in 2002. On the downside, unless the "Strict Observance" comes to embrace sedevacantism, they will always be in danger of capitulating to the Modernist heretics in the future. Ironically, if they recognize Ratzinger as pope, both Williamson and Pfeiffer will incur laetae sententiae (i.e. Automatic) excommunication reserved to Ratzinger alone to remit since a bishop was consecrated without papal mandate. How will they justify this consecration? Another "state of necessity" like Lefebvre claimed when he consecrated Williamson and the other three in 1988?

 What constitutes "necessity"? If Ratzinger is your pope you WANT to be in communion with him. You submit to the pope, you don't negotiate. This engenders a Protestant-like mindset that you can pick what papal decrees you choose and which you won't. When Ratzinger condemns abortion or sodomite marriages you cheer, when he condemns your actions he's wrong because (pick one):

(a) There's a state of necessity to keep the Faith alive (isn't that the pope's job?)

(b) He's not in compliance with Sacred Tradition (isn't the pope the guardian of authentic Tradition?)

(c) He's saying something heretical, but he's not aware of it because of he grew up in a modern mentality (A man with two earned doctorates doesn't know that Modernism is heresy?)

(d) He didn't promulgate it correctly (those canon lawyers in the Vatican ain't what they used to be!)

(e) He's badly advised (isn't he advised by the Holy Ghost who keeps him free of error as pope?)

 It won't be long before someone figures this out---you can't recognize a true pope and then resist what you don't like. So if Montini (Paul VI), Luciani (JP I), Wotyla (JPII) and Ratzinger (B16), are all popes, someone will want to get back with him (or his apostate successor). Only if they realize that the post-Vatican II "popes" are merely heretics who lost their office can they forge on without the mental gymnastics to justify what they do. Then we can come closer to the day when an Imperfect General Council, discussed by many theologians pre-Vatican II, can come together to elect a true successor to Pope Pius XII. May Christ hasten that day.