To Just Me:
Thank you very much. Yes, I know the story of CArdinal Siri. Frightening, isn't it. He actually was elected Pope in October, 1958. They even had the white smoke go out. I believe he took the papal name of Gregory. But the French and German cardinals were very much against him. They knew he was orthodox and traditional.They knew he would be very anti-Soviet Union/Communism like Pius XII …More
To Just Me:
Thank you very much. Yes, I know the story of CArdinal Siri. Frightening, isn't it. He actually was elected Pope in October, 1958. They even had the white smoke go out. I believe he took the papal name of Gregory. But the French and German cardinals were very much against him. They knew he was orthodox and traditional.They knew he would be very anti-Soviet Union/Communism like Pius XII was. And they were much more of the liberal type. Something happened in the conclave that caused Siri to have second thoughts and resign the office. Some say he was threatened physically, some say that the French cardinals said they knew people who would threaten his family. So instead, the cardinals voted again, and elected Cardinal Roncalli. Cardinal Roncalli was very well know to the French and Germans. He had been Papal Nuncio in France, and was sympathetic to progressivist elements in the Church there. There is even talk that during his time in France he became a Freemason. I don't know if that is true. But he succeeded at 76 to be John XXIII. Siri I think was only 52. If he had accepted his election fully, he would have been Pope for 31 years (died, May, 1989). John XXIII was meant to be a stop-gap Pope, someone who would do nothing. I wish he had done nothing. He opened the door to tremendous evil in Vatican II (probably unwittingly, because by the time Vatican II opened in October 1962, he had been diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer the month before and would be dead in 8 months (June 1963). In came Paul VI who was made a cardinal in 1958 by John XXIII. Not many people know it, but when John XXIII announced Vatican II, Cardinal Montini(Paul VI), was originally very much against it. He knew the trouble it would cause. Rather than close it down, like he wanted to (not many people know this either.....he wanted to close Vatican II down, but could not because of the popularity of John XXIII. A quote from him shortly after his election is " I have been appointed to be like a train conductor, to guide the Church along a path I would not have chosen(the Council)." Unfortunatly, he was guided by a gang of heretic cardinals and bishops (Suenens of Belgium, Alfrink of Netherlands, Koenig of Germany, Annibale Bugnini (liturgy commitee who wrecked the Mass), and liberal theologians (Congar, DeLubac among others).
JPI (Albino Luciani) had a reputation as a very humble and simple pastor, but he was not a liberal like Paul VI. He has a false reputation as a progressive for ridiculous reasons (he smiled alot and was friendly, he originally refused the Sedia Gestatoria, he refused to be crowned, etc.). But on issues, and the liturgy, he was conservative...if not traditionalist. He did not like liturgical abuses, for one thing, or the "protestantization" of the Mass. I think that PERHAPS he might have been a good pope.
On a scale of 1-10, I give John Paul II (1978-2005) a C+. He did some good things, but it seemed all he did (or liked to do), was travel....which in the long run accomplised nothing. He delegated admin. work, and appointed scores of unfortunatly liberal, radical, and sometimes even pervert (McCArrick) cardinals and bishops. But to be fair, he also removed several radical liberal bishops too.
Benedict XVI I think was the very best of a bad Vatican II lot. He brought back much of the beauty of the papal liturgies, even wearing the papal fanon, (which in my short life of alomst 28 years had never seen) The liturgies were a vast improvement over the protestant looking Masses of Paul VI. Benedict XVI was too timid and weak to stand up to the evil St.Gallen Mafia cardinals, who were furious at his election, and did their best to ruin his reign, chief among them MArtini of Milan, and Danneels of Belgium, and Silvestrini of the Curia.
I won't go into Francis. His horrible papacy speaks for itself, and the destruction he has caused.
But somehow, I do think that we will get a Pope who is much more like Benedict XVI, than another Francis (and I don't believe that it will be any "Peter the Roman", because it would have to be a Cardinal born in Rome, and there are not any. But I've read that so many Cardinals in Rome and elsewhere are disgusted with Francis papacy (and not just the orthodox either.....many moderate/conservative think he is ruining the Church. So I think we will be in for a happy surprise.....perhaps someone well known, but who happens not even to be a cardinal, yet.