The person elected by the Conclave should take back the Tiara that Paul VI publicly laid down in 1964,
the Triregnum, with the three superimposed crowns signifying the triple power of the pontiff: Father of princes and kings, Rector of the world, Vicar of Christ on Earth. Now all the conciliar reforms came after this deposition. Now if he still has authority what value would the destructive reforms (1) have after this deposition? and if the deposition of the Tiara means that he no longer has, whether he wants it or not, papal authority the following reforms would have no value.---
Some will say that it is only a symbol, completed in the 14th century: we agree but the symbol indicates what it symbolises, so if you remove the symbol indicating that the pope is the Father of princes and kings, Rector of the world, Vicar of Christ on earth, what does it mean?
---
I asked a French acquaintance of mine, a professor of French in France, non-Catholic, agnostic; what would you say if a king lays down his crown? answer, without hesitation: that he renounces being king. And what would you say about a pope who deposes his crown? answer, without hesitation: that he renounces being pope.
It is the answer of common sense and it means that today many have lost their common sense too.
---
Yet we are faced with discouraged popes who continue to wield power without a crown and we can see the disastrous results. Do they still have papal power? It is highly doubtful.
In any case, since the Second Vatican Council is pastoral and not dogmatic with all the reforms that followed...
---
However, regardless of whether the conciliar popes have authority or not, the only infallible definition, and some modernists to the nth degree say it is not, since Pius XII's 1950 definition on the Assumption of Our Lady, is John Paul II's 1994 definition in which he says women cannot be priests, which is in accordance with tradition.
---
I am not saying that this is enough not to submit to the reforms that followed, there are other arguments, as seen in my other posts, but this one, combined with the others, is not indifferent.
---
Did God not also allow this to make us understand, even more, the unacceptability of the Second Vatican Council and the reforms that followed?
The question arises,
How can one lend submission to a king who deposes his crown?
---
It is useless to say that one lays down the crown for poverty, for humility, for ecumenical reasons or whatever; if you are king, you must wear the crown, and if you lay it down, what does it mean?
Some say that with this act he has, whether he wanted it or not, manifested that he was not pope; now I do not want to go so far as to say so much, but the question arises.
Acts have a meaning in themselves, regardless of the intention of the person doing them.
If I lay down the crown, which is the symbol of my power, I can have all the intentions I want, but I manifest the renunciation of this power; this is how some people think and you cannot blame them; I repeat, I do not feel like adhering categorically to this thesis, but the problem arises.
---
Furthermore, on 4 October 1965, he will receive the symbol of the ‘Great Jewish Priest’ of the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin): the EPHOD, THAT IS TO SAY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH CAIFA WORE AT THE MOMENT OF THE CONDEMNATION OF OUR LORD, as can be seen in the third photo.
---
Who, then, was Paul VI, pardon, Saint Paul VI, who laid down the Tiara and wore the symbol of ‘High Jewish Priest’?
---
I do not want to be a conspiracist at all costs, but to not see that there is a big problem one must be really blind.
---
Jesus Christ, who is King, indeed King of kings, Rex regum, wore the crown, of thorns, but still a crown, and he wore it to his death.
------
-----
----
Note (1)
Let us not forget that Paul VI was a modernist, and Pius X said of them in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis : ‘For the truth is not far from the truth for those who consider them (the modernists) among the enemies of the Church the most harmful. For, as we have already said, their counsels of destruction do not stir them outside the Church, but within it...’.
So: the most harmful enemies of the Church, within the Church agitating their counsels of destruction.
---
HE WHO HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD THIS HAS UNDERSTOOD NOTHING OF THE MODERNISTS’.
---
And they carry out this destruction primarily through reforms: ‘...not a few of the priestly class itself, who, pretending love for the Church, deprived of any solid foundation of philosophical and theological knowledge, all penetrated by the poisonous doctrines of the Church's enemies, without any restraint whatsoever, call themselves reformers of the Church’.
---
St. Pius X used to say in the same encyclical and, we can well see, to what level of destruction, to quote St. Pius X's words, has been reached with the reforms, especially that of the mass, carried out by them, one only has to observe the Church today to see this.
In any case, Our Lady predicted this crisis at La Salette in 1846, and also in other prophecies; she said that the Church will have a frightful crisis, it will be eclipsed, but the eclipse lasts for a time, in fact at Fatima in 1917 she said ‘...in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph’. (automatic translation from Italian)