Is Papa Parolin waiting in the wings?

[Michael Wilson]

https://akacatholic.com/is-papa-parolin-waiting-in-the-wings/

Is Papa Parolin waiting in the wings?
Louie, February 25, 2025   

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.   

[KreKre]

Whoever gets picked, absent of a miracle, he's not going to be Leo XIV or Pius XIII. Such a cardinal, if he even existed, would be feared more than the devil by the current conciliar cardinals, and he would get zero votes at the conclave. Someone like the late bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who would have made an excellent pope, but would never get there.

But whoever gets chosen, the conciliar church cannot win, and tradition will only grow. I see three realistic possibilities:

If he happens to be a neoconservative like Ratzinger who was, at least on the surface, sympathetic to tradition, that is just going to introduce more people to the traditional mass (and from there the Holy Ghost will take over, we can be calm in knowing that He will inspire true piety). Someone like Erdő might get chosen, or Ranjith, but that's not very likely. While this seems to me like the best possible outcome that is still realistic in human terms, a possible danger in this scenario is that the SSPX might be tempted to make compromises.

And if he happens to be a progressive like Bergoglio, then he will continue to scandalize people and drive them away, and at least some will find tradition (again, under the direction of the Holy Ghost). Parolin certainly fits in this category, also Zuppi and Tagle, and almost everyone else. I think this is the most likely outcome, and if happens, we can expect more persecution and temporal hardship, but also many more vocations in the tradition.

The outcome that would probably be the worst is another Wojtyla, a very charismatic and likeable "pope of the people", who is not very progressive, but rather conservative and populist, but also very modernist at the same time. Someone who will say exactly what the people want to hear, but in a way that is not too obviously flattering. He won't say things like "atheists go to heaven", but he might implicitly give hope that everyone will be saved, so just relax. He will be very hostile to tradition, calling it outdated and anti-Semitic and racist, etc... but he might want to reform the Novus Ordo to make it more "dignified" - more chants, more incense, superficial things like that. He might not say "Mohammad will lead to to heaven", he might even be anti-immigration, but he will nevertheless pray together with moslems for "world peace". He might be outspokenly pro-life, but preach forgiveness in a lighthearted way that doesn't require true repentance or any accountability, etc... If this scenario happens, we might expect the growth of tradition to slow down, but I am sure the SSPX will carry on as usual. Thankfully, I don't immediately see anyone among the current cardinals who is so charismatic. Parolin would certainly want to be just that, but I don't think he has the charisma to pull it off. He is superficially sweet, soft-spoken and meek, but doesn't seem to be very likeable. He seems like a stereotypical career politician: very ambitious, but lacking in ability. Also, he is flirting too much with China, which most catholic still correctly perceive as brutal and godless.

But I could very easily be mistaken... Maybe I've read Lord of the World recently, so I'm still under the impression...

But in any case, no outcome is possible in which the Holy Ghost could not act, so we should not fear. The worst that can happen is our cross becoming a bit heavier under more persecution, but that is only a temporal unpleasantness and an opportunity to be faithful to God.

[drummerboy]

This reflects my sentiments as well.  It seems modernism is such a pernicious disease (more like a parasite) that it must be allowed to take over the host and come to a head, to reveal itself fully, for it to be fully destroyed.  I mean this in the human sense if the Church of course, since the Church is the spotless Bride of Christ and His Mystical Body.

 As for Francis' Marian devotion, Dr. Stine did a video showing all the Marian Feasts that Francis chose to release evil documents or statements and actions.  Let's not forget his sacrilege of worshipping an idol in Her place, she who crashes the head of idols.

[Konrad von Marburg]

What I always wonder from time to time is that, if the modernists were able to infiltrate the ranks of the pre-conciliar church until they managed to get one of their own as Pope, what's stopping a trad from doing the same in reverse? Sure, it would involve a great deal of lying, but venial sin is surely a practical sacrifice to make in order to steal back the cathedra petri. Perhaps such a crypto-trad is within the sacred college as we speak.

[drummerboy]

What I always wonder from time to time is that, if the modernists were able to infiltrate the ranks of the pre-conciliar church until they managed to get one of their own as Pope, what's stopping a trad from doing the same in reverse? Sure, it would involve a great deal of lying, but venial sin is surely a practical sacrifice to make in order to steal back the cathedra petri. Perhaps such a crypto-trad is within the sacred college as we speak.

NEVER! Any sin is an immense offense against our infinite God and cannot be tolerated.  Christ made it clear in the Gospels, and through His Apostles and our Fathers in the Faith we must proclaim the truth boldly and clearly.  Christ IS the Truth; proclaiming the truth is proclaiming no less than Christ Himself.

[Konrad von Marburg]

I get that, but Christ told us to be as cunning as serpents alongside being innocent as doves. There must be room for some guile in some capacity; and none of the current trad positions really work beyond being "holding patterns". Forgive me if I spoke rashly, I am just an impatient "kung-fu" trad lol

[drummerboy]

I get that, but Christ told us to be as cunning as serpents alongside being innocent as doves. There must be room for some guile in some capacity; and none of the current trad positions really work beyond being "holding patterns". Forgive me if I spoke rashly, I am just an impatient "kung-fu" trad lol

 I believe the pattern for victory for tradition lies, as I implied above, in the manner of the Apostles, the first teachers of the Faith.  They proclaimed Christ Crucified boldly.  They may have had to do so more or less openly, depending on the situation, although this applies more to the early Christians who had to be leery of Roman persecution.  And whether or not they could preach openly, they always, without fail, lived it.  That was what Christ asked us to do in the Gospel, and still asks us to do.  I may sound overly simplistic, and maybe I am, but ultimately it is Christ Who calls souls to the Church, and Christ Who reforms the Church.  We must do our part by sanctifying the Body by sanctifying ourselves. When the time is appropriate, Christ will appoint a suitable shepherd for His Church.  His wisdom is not our own.  Look at the Apostles: Peter was the man earthly wisdom would have rejected! Fickle and indecisive, and he even openly denied our Lord, while the other Apostles merely fled for fear.  Someone like Matthew, who as a tax collector would have been savvy to the world, or even Judas, would have been appealing, or a Saul.  But Christ chose Peter to demonstrate for all time that He is the strength for the Rock of the Papacy, not human capacity.  And Peter merited this (as far as human will is able, with the help of grace) because he confessed that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God.  Not because of his capacity, but because of his faith. 

[Konrad von Marburg]

Your faith is stronger than mine for sure - and I mean that in the best way. Lord save me (and us all) from a spirit of despair and cynicism!

[drummerboy]

Your faith is stronger than mine for sure - and I mean that in the best way. Lord save me (and us all) from a spirit of despair and cynicism!

We are all sinners in need of God's mercy - we are all Peter denying our Lord!

[TradGranny]

But I could very easily be mistaken... Maybe I've read Lord of the World recently, so I'm still under the impression...

It's been a while since I read Lord of the World, but I'm interested to know what you mean.

[Bataar]

It would be interesting to see a man named Pietro be elected when according to that "prophecy" of Malachi, the next pope would be Peter the Roman.

[Antonius]

It would be interesting to see a man named Pietro be elected when according to that "prophecy" of Malachi, the next pope would be Peter the Roman.

Well spotted Bataan.

[Antonius]

It would be interesting to see a man named Pietro be elected when according to that "prophecy" of Malachi, the next pope would be Peter the Roman.

Well spotted Bataan.

Sorry, meant, Bataan. Need to wear my glasses more often.

[Antonius]

Second attempt Bataar. Got it, well done me.