In an article entitled 'Radically insufficient' – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church's visibility, Part I the author, S.D. Wright, adds the description: "Fr. Thomas Crean appeals to the visibility of the Church as a means of refuting those who posit an extended vacancy of the Holy See. But this treatment is radically insufficient".
Basically, Fr. Crean believes that as the visibility of the Church cannot be verified if the position of 'sede vacante' be admitted, then this is tantamount to a denial of the Church's visibility, which is perpetual, even as the 'four marks' of the Church, being essential to her visibility, are also perpetual. S.D. Wright writes:
"The Church is made distinctly visible by the "four notes" (or "marks") mentioned in the Creed - unity catholicity, apostolicity, and holiness. In fact, these notes represent four necessary properties of the Church, in so far as they are manifested externally".
Cardinal Billot adds "All theologians agree uninanimously [in the links between visibility, the four marks and the hierarchy] as in a most firm dogma".
One might ask how is it possible for the Church to maintain visibility, as per normal operation, when the situation does not permit it ? We were told beforehand that such times would come; despite that, the difficulty with visibility is viewed as a point against sedevacantism. "This cannot be; therefore that cannot be either" is not an argument against what must be considered more weighty: That it is impossible for the papacy to be given over to apostasy. The only alternative is to hold that the current Vatican hierarchy is somehow still legitimate; in such a case, defined dogma, and the Faith which they defend, are meaningless, as they hold no power to also define as heretic those who contravene them. Mr. Wright continues:
"Fr. Crean's point, however, is that the Church must remain perpetually visible as a society: a point with which I agree. However, as stated, she must remain visible, not only as a society but as the true Church, the society founded by Christ - and there is more to this than there being a man claiming to succeed to the Roman See".
Our Lord's Church cannot be a visible society without also being the true Church. There cannot be a mere representation of this society, whereupon one must look deeper to ascertain the true Church within; she is not a 'society within a society' of the same name (as though there were a false Church together with the true one in the same sphere). Rather she is the society of God within the larger dimension of the societies and nations of the world and is to be distinguished from among them.
Further along, Cardinal Manning's views are quoted in which he describes the state of the Church during the time of the tribulation as "invisible, hidden in the catacombs", etc. Mr. Wright continues:
"Neither he, nor we, wish to suggest that the Church will truly lose her visibility. The point is evidently rhetorical, but making the same point: it is possible for the Church's visibility, including in her hierarchy, to suffer a certain degree of obscurity, without being lost".
Having established the bounds of this question, we suggest two answers. The Church may be obscured, but in a way she may still be said to be visible by way of contrast with her usurper. Whether one is within the Church or without, one can perceive a clear break with Tradition after 1965; and all Catholics who see this with the eyes of faith make the true Church visible as they bear witness to this; especially if they are sedevacantist.
As early as 1966 there was already a 'Traditionalist' movement led by a few dissenters (one Fr. DePauw, notably); but it was not until 1982 that Archbishop Thuc (though not an archbishop as that title was conferred by false pope John 23) established a line of bishops conrecrated according to the true rite. That was six years before Archbishop Lefebvre did something similar in 1988. There is some debate regarding the validity of either of those lines but that is not our concern at the moment. The point is that there was no known line of sedevacantist bishops until 1982. Some argue that the Church may be said to have defected if this were true.[1] Because of this, some hold to the Cassiciacum Thesis, which posits that the offices of the Church are held materially, but not formerly; as it were acting as placeholders in the 'material' hierarchy. Others argue that the apparent pope is still true, even if he does not act as such; he may be resisted until such time as he regains his faith; a 'material' pope yet with jurisdiction, as though he were fully realized (this is a stop-gap measure which might have been possible for a time, but not at this late date). Still others hold that, as there is no way to restore the hierarchy (the true Cardinals having long since passed) the Apostolic succession has died out which means the end of time is near and thus there will thus be no restoration.
The second answer we suggest is linked to the first. The situation began with the establishment of the antipapacy; the true papacy is "taken out of the way" (2 Thess. 2:6-7 and Apoc. 12:5).[2]
The Church's formal visibility is hidden for a time corresponding to the reign of the antipopes. As this time must come to an end with the restoration of the papacy with the Church's triumph, it ought not to contradict the perpetual visibility of the Church, even as the antipopes' presence do not negate the 'perpetual successors' dogma. The time is far elongated beyond what is normally expected of an interregnum, but then, it is not actually an interregnum in the regular sense; it is an illicit usurpation and replacement. This can end in two ways: with the Second Coming following the tribulation of the coming years; or an eventual restoration of the papacy and the hierarchy, following the defeat of the antichrist, in which case the Church has maintained her perpetual succession, and is not ended after all. In this eventuality, the Second Coming is not very near just yet.
The papacy and the Church;'s visibility, then, is suspended for the duration of this tribulation; when it resumes, it will not be a new thing, but will continue as if without interruption. However, failing to come to this conclusion causes many instead to conclude that the Church is still in Rome (albeit afflicted with a 'diabolical disorientation'), because otherwise she 'lost her visibility, and this cannot be'. But both her visibility and the papacy are linked in this; if one, so the other. Otherwise a heretical papacy and a heretical Church (both a contradiction in terms), is what remains visible. But the faithful, even from the earliest centuries, were forewarned about a situation in which there is a great loss of Faith and a crisis concerning the Church; thus the need for dogmas and definitions regarding perpetual successors and visibility that, when they are obscured, it might confirm the 'signs of the times'. At least in hindsight, which is how most of the 'scattered Church' today came to see things.
However, there is still the question of 1958: As there were no sedevacantist bishops until 1982 where is the Apostolic succession ? Because of this, some argue that sedevacantism cannot be true, because the Church defected (lost the Apostolic succession); others say there is no proper jurisdiction and thus no real authority for sedevacantist bishops - including the authority to elect a pope. In short, this is the issue.
We believe the key to this lies in sede remota. It is introduced in The Siri Thesis: Sede Vacante Or ‘Sede Remota’ ? Briefly: In Apocalypse chapter 12 is described in analogous spiritual terms the progress of the dragon against the Church in the years 1958-1965. At the start, upon the election of Guiseppe Cardinal Siri, something happened in the conclave to cause him to turn aside. One Gary Guiffre[3] postulated that the enemiy's plan was to permit a true pope to be elected, then to suppress him, with the aid of a number of bad cardinals in the hierarchy, so that the man they elected next in his place may operate without the benefit of the Holy Spirit.
St. Paul says that 'he that restrains' (the coming of the lawless one) is "taken out of the way"; St. John tells of a difficult election, and then the one who was to rule was "taken up tp God, and to His throne". If Apocalypse chapter 12 does not speak of 1958-1965 then it must refer to a future event in which there was an election but the Pope was immediately assassinated; however, given the preponderance of connections described in The Faith Undermined (1958-1965) we will proceed along those lines.
As there was no papal assassination in 1958 the verse (Apoc. 12:5) has a purely spiritual meaning. But its meaning is not that 'the papacy is lost' nor that Siri (let us assume that he was indeed elected, a priori) 'fell from the papacy' when he surrendered to their demands or later appeared to cooperate with the changes introduced by the antipopes. That is not what "taken up to God, and to his throne" means. So it must mean something else; one of two things: Firstly, either the papacy was then "taken out of the way" or else that the eventual fate of the non-reigning pope was immediately given regardless of when he actually died (as is necessary from the position in the text).
It is not the removal of the papacy as per St. Paul and therefore no one was elected; the verses are clear that someone who was to rule was spiritually 'born'. We think that there was a separation; and here we are going into uncharted territory. Is it possible that the papacy was separated from the man ? We know that "what therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6) - but God Himself can do this. The question is would He ?
So there is one of two solutions: Either the truly elected pope did not reign and at the end of his life was "taken up to God, and to his throne" (as an unfulfilled papacy) or the papacy itself was separated from him, and thus taken up (also as an unfulfilled papacy). Either way something had arrived which was unfulfilled; but once existing, it cannot be annulled, or undone.
Alternatively, there is yet a third solution: The newly-elected pope himself (again, let us assume it is Siri), due to pressures within the conclave, gave up his papacy to God, asking Him to take it away from him. When he was elected, he did not expect to be used in the way Gary Guiffre described - it is a subversion of his mission. Perhaps he was inspired by the Holy Ghost to do this, which is the nature of Papal Infallibility, which leads to the fulfillment of Apoc. 12:5, even if he was unaware that he was doing so. But as pope, it is possible he can do this.
Admittedly this is deep speculation; but given the lack of an alternative it is necessary to search out the possibilities. To continue: What we have to decide is what constitutes the 'taking out of the way' of 'he that restrains': is it a suppressed papacy or is the Chair itself removed (sede remota) ? Let us try to fathom the mystery from various angles.
Absolutely speaking, the Church cannot defect, and the papacy cannot fail in its faith. Our Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt.16:18). We can only assume that this infallibility also is proof against the Masonic plan to 'use the papacy against the Church'. If the pope is prevented by the Holy Ghost from falling into heresy or apostasy, it must also mean that the papacy cannot be used to speak against itself, or at least to appear to do so (we have seen that it appeared to do so; but the point is that the papacy was not actually there, even hidden). This must include the plan of keeping the pope silent and unknown whilst simultaneously a false pope appears from the same conclave, speaking in his place. That is different from a cardinal, bishop or priest perhaps speaking wrongly for him (knowingly or not); it amounts to a separation of his voice from his office. Again, "what God hath joined together, etc".[4]
In the conclave of 1958, the plan for subversion was ripe, and a newly elected pope may be in an impossible situation, as described above. The only words we have in Sacred Scripture (and outside of the unrevealed Third Secret) which may indicate the circumstances and their consequences is in Thessalonians and Apocalypse. The only (albeit indirect) precedent for sede remota lies in the Vatican Council of 1869-70, which defined papal infallibility; that council was prorogued (suspended) for completion at a later time. This was never done, but the act of prorogation is still in force.
It could be that the papacy of Siri was also prorogued by Heaven as it could not be fulfilled, or even completed by official acceptance of and recognition by the Universal Church. We think there is a link between the two, as the usurping antipope called a new council without officially closing the old (he could not actually do this anyway), even as he himself pretended to be pope while, known to him and his associates, supplanting the true pope with the intention of suppressing his pontificate. So both the Council and Siri's papacy were 'prorogued'. Naturally this carries with it the implication that both must at some point be completed; but the point is they are not cancelled, nor did they 'pass away'. The things of Heaven do not perish as the things of this world.
In no case did Siri apostasize or otherwise 'fall from the pontificate'; so what did happen ? That is the question, and it is at this point at least partially answered.
St. Paul tells us that "he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way". Does this refer to a specific pontiff, or the papal chair (the office) itself ? It must be both, but as we have seen, not necessarily at the same time. This has the implication that they must be reunited at some point, and carried to fulfillment. However, we are going too far ahead at present; a few other things should be considered: It could not be that no pope is elected, otherwise no one was "taken out of the way"; alternatively, it could not be that a pope was elected, but then immediately lost his office before becoming public; in that case also, no one was "taken out of the way". The Holy Father was not simply assassinated and replaced for the same reason, whether it was before becoming public or possibly afterward;[5] for the former, it would be quite difficult to cover up and is ridiculous; for the latter, although Apoc. 12:5 can definitely be interpreted in that sense, it would then conflict with 2 Thess. 2:6-7.
If after this theoretical assassination there simply was, for whatever reason, no further attempt to elect a successor, this would not constitute the papacy's being 'taken out of the way'; it would simply be a interregnum, however long it may be. No, St. Paul tells us that something of greater consequence had happened, and it was that not only the person of the pope, but the papacy itself, was removed; but like the Vatican Council, it is merely prorogued and not ended. "Taken up to God and to his throne" suggests a kind of guardianship, for safekeeping; but also it was written that (the woman's) son "was to rule all nations with an iron rod". The Knox translation has it thus: "She bore a son, the son who is to herd the nations like sheep with a crook of iron, etc". This has the sense of either something which 'might have been' or something interrupted but not ended. Given that there is further reference to one who rules with an iron rod, or a 'rod of iron' in Apocalypse (2:27 and 19:15), the latter is more likely.
One precedent which has never happened is when a pope passes away during a conclave before he was announced. Did his papacy ever exist ? If he had accepted and chosen a name, it did, even if for a very short time. Apoc.12:5 establishes this; but we are still assuming, a priori, that Siri was indeed elected. But there is another factor to be considered: The dragon's 'tail' "drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth"; these were the bad cardinals as a result of infiltration or corruption and loss of faith. Was it possible for the majority of the cardinals to eventually be thus compromised ? If that were so, would it then even be possible to elect a true pope ? There was a time limit, or deadline, for these things; Our Lady of Fatima wanted the Third Secret to be revealed no later than 1960; the devil wished to prevent this, as he must have been aware of this stipulation of the Queen of Heaven; as well, according to Sr. Lucia to Fr. Fuentes in 1957, he was "in the mood for waging a decisive battle" against Her; and this must have been a part of it. But what actually happened was that, instead of the hierarchy continuing to be compromised until most of the cardinals would be ineligible to rightfully elect a pope even with the remaining good cardinals taking part, he was induced to move against the papacy before 1960 arrived; the long and the short of it is that he was prevented from corrupting enough of the cardinals in such as way as to prevent the election of a true pope through normal means; if that had happened, it would appear that the Church simply elected a heretic and an apostate as it were 'naturally' (i.e. without interference). This would mean a kind of defection. The only question to be answered in this is just how many bad cardinals would it take for this to happen. We suspect that (1) we will never know; and (2) the point is moot.
For all intents and purposes, the Church did appear to elect an unworthy candidate as pope, but because it happened in the way that it did, there are indications: The smoke signals, and Roncalli's (as John 23) refusal to reveal the Third Secret. The adversary's plan to hold the pontificate hostage while his usurper operated with impunity was also foiled, for the papacy was "taken up to God, and to his throne". If not, then technically the whole Church would have been in schism. As it was, this scheme to overcome the Church by a 'forced error' did not succeed. We think that, although the decline and replacement of the faith is no better than it otherwise might have been, the consequences of the devil's plan is certainly mitigated. How much of a difference it shall have made cannot be known; only that it must have done so. The remainder of Apoc. 12 bears this out: The woman (the Church) escaped in the end, into the world, and the devil "was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ".
To summarize: In a spiritual sense, the papacy was removed from its place as an institution, regardless of who held it last (or was then holding it), even though he did not hold it in the eyes of the Church, who was unaware of him; but he was recognized as pope in the eyes of Heaven, and of the Church Triumphant present there. Until the restoration there it will stay, or so we think, until the First Resurrection (Apoc. 20).
A certain paradox comes to mind: The very plan the devil hatched to cause the whole Church to go into schism also presented the solution, as Siri (for so we think it is he) released the Church from her obligations and gave his papacy to God, as there was nothing else he could do.[6]
[*Aug.24/26 amendment] Actually, we can be sure about the sede remota perspective simply by looking again at Apoc. 12: When the pope (the ‘man child’) was taken up to God, the Church (the woman) left the city to dwell in the dioceses (the ‘wilderness’); when the illicit missal was promulgated prior to the false council, she fled out from the dioceses and into the world at large (‘into the desert’). The thing is, she did not leave all at once, but as the antipope’s dominion progressed; first, the cardinals in Rome all knowingly recognized the false pope (as they knew someone had already been elected); then afterwards the bishops acted, albeit unknowingly, by accepting the new missal; but this slow progression shows that the Church was not all in schism at once - because as the papacy was not actually there (having been ’taken out of the way’), there was nothing to be in schism from. The best way to describe this is that, as the papacy is removed, so are the requirements as to be in union with it. In short, Apoc. 12 is almost spelling out the sede remota status of the papacy in a deliberate manner. In like manner this has implications as to the status of the Church, now hidden in the world, but not in the same way. But it almost appears as though she were taken out of the way, too.*
This has implications as to the feasibility of actually electing a new pope in the interim. It is not, so far as we know, possible so long as the situation persists, not only sede vacante but sede remota. If it were only the former, there should be no problem; but we think the papacy cannot formally be re-established so long as its usurper remains in the world - as though the one precludes the other. In fact we know this to be true by the words of St. Paul: That when he who holds the enemy in check is taken out of the way, the lawless one will be revealed, or manifest (2 Thess 2:6-7). It was not readily apparent from his words that the lawless one would actually usurp the visible position of the papacy itself (rather than being an invader from without), but his declaration that the 'man of sin' would "sitteth himself in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God" does not contradict this.
In the end, perhaps the most that can be done is declare a 'papal designate'. In Sr. Lucia's Third Secret vision released by the Vatican in 2000 (and for which we have good reason to believe is genuine - see Third Secret Martyrdom Vision And Apocalypse 14) there was a 'bishop dressed in white', of whom Sr. Lucia said "we understood that it was the Holy Father".[7]
From the Dogma Of Papal Infallibility: Chap. 2. The Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Petter among the Roman Pontiffs
(Canon 1824) ... 'Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church'. "Therefore the disposition of truth remains, and blessed Peter persevering in the accepted fortitude of the rock does not abandon the guidance of the Church which he has received". [The paragraph of this Canon is taken almost word for word from the Council of Ephesus in 431, St. Leo the Great (d. 461), St. Irenaeus in 180, and St. Ambrose (339-397).]
The truly elected pope is he who succeeds Peter; the appearance of one, but who is not, cannot truly supplant the papacy. God would not allow it; so the papacy was "taken out of the way".[8]
What could not be allowed in particular was the act of causing a complete schism of the Church by a 'technicality'; neither by Heaven nor, we think, by Siri. Therefore he did not "abandon the guidance of the Church which he has received" as he was legitimately impeded. Instead, it was progressive, according to the acts of the hierarchy: When the cardinals all co-operated with the new and illicit election[9] the Church left Rome, and into the dioceses in the 'wilderness' outside of the City (Apoc. 12:6); afterwards, the Church left the dioceses to flee 'into the desert' not at the start of the false council, but at their first collective official act of departing the Faith, when they accepted Roncalli's illicit missal promulgated in July 1962 (this is preparatory to the false council and should be included as part of it); this, together with the false council, adds up to three and a half years (Apoc. 12:14); and when the false council itself was promulgated, the woman was not caught, but became 'hidden in the world' (Apoc. 12:15. See about chapter 12 in extenso here: The Faith Undermined (1958-1965)).
In one sense, we are attempting to view the papal infallibility dogma in our context, and the Apocalypse, with a kind of 'reverse lens'; to see it from another side, as it were. This is not unlike the 'photographic negative' visage of Our Lord upon the Holy Shroud of Turin; as this discovery could not have been made before the advent of photography in relatively recent times we think it is meant to signal the 'passion of the Church' which is parallel to Our Lord's own Passion and Crucifixion. From this perspective, all these events and apparent defeats are not necessarily defeats; at least not in the conventional sense. Our Lord Himself had to 'lose' in order to obtain victory; in like manner the retreat of the Church in the years 1958-1965 serve a similar purpose. We do not understand as yet, even as Peter did not yet understand in Gethsemane when he fought the soldiers who came to arrest Jesus.
Thus it can be interpreted that the Church's retreat is not necessarily a defeat, but a victory in that the Immaculate Bride of Christ continues to remain undefiled (Apoc. 21:27); she 'escapes' into the world where a few kept the faith despite the 'second Vatican church'. In order to find her, the devil has been creating a world-wide control system. It should go without saying that he does not need to do this if the Church 'defected' (although at the same time he is attempting such corrupion of morals so as to pick souls off one by one or in groups). It seems this control system is also intended to draw the whole world into his false church of 'Babylon' (Apoc. 13:8 and 17:8) which seems to be unnecessary as most of the world has always been outside the Church - unless something else is in play which is not yet revealed. We think it is the Book of Life, which is the main purpose of Apocalypse, and is the solution to the fate of many souls caught in the middle. Its purpose is detailed in Two Times Of Apocalypse Part III: It All Comes Down To This.
*The Book of Life is prior to all the dogmas of the Faith and the Church itself, which regulates and keeps the life of the Christian in this world before Heaven, without regard to the still-sealed book of life.
As regards to the problem of jurisdiction and the ability of the sedevacantists bishops to possibly elect a successor at this point, or at least a papal designate, we think the 'Unam Sanctam' venture is the right approach. At the least there ought to be made a consensus among all the valid bishops and priests, derived from Pius XII, as to the state of the Church since 1958 - namely, that the antipapacy was established then. Without this consensus, little progress is possible.
For jurisdiction specifically, at least a partial answer is in Jurisdiction And Continuity (Titular Post) (with new additions as of August/26) but right here we will only add this point which was posted on Twitter / X on Aug. 19/26, in response to another as to whether, according to the Cassiciacum Thesis, there may be preserved the old manner of jurisdiction according to the organization of diocesian bishops prior to Vatican '2': "There is no preserving the old jurisdictional continuity. There is only the indelible mark of the bishop on those derived from Pius XII who, because of it, can take part in an election" (https://x.com/SJ_cairsahr/status/2090121640197710261).
Footnotes
1. The mark of the bishop, once conferred, is indelible; it cannot be erased. So even if a bishop followed an antipope for a time, then afterwards realized his error, his status as bishop remains unchanged; particularly if we realize that there is no higher authority to appeal to; at the time, all the remaining cardinals of Pius XII were with the false pope(s). Even Siri, although we believe he was under duress (as the lawfully elected pope in 1958) and there was nothing he could do; however, he was not the pope any longer as the papacy was mysteriously "taken up to God, and to His Throne" without him. This happened immediately or upon his death in 1989; but it is explored in The Siri Thesis: Sede Vacante Or ‘Sede Remota’ ? why this may be the case.
2. Fr. Sylvester Berry, among others, hold that Apoc. 12:5 represents the martyrdom of a new pope elected with great difficulty [The Apocalypse of Saint John, pp.121-22]. This is not necessarily the case if one links Apoc. 12:5 with Thessalonians, although Fr. Berry does precisely that: "The words of St. Paul...may be a reference to the Papacy as the obstacle to the coming of Antichrist". As there is now the benefit of hindsight we may conclude that the papacy as an institution was removed from the world (and not by assassination, as that would not suffice), to be held until a later time; this idea is developed as a state of sede remota (the chair is removed) in The Siri Thesis: Sede Vacante Or ‘Sede Remota’ ?.
3. https://www.whitesmoke1958.com/. Also on YouTube: Exposing the Overthrow of the Pope (1/4)
4. It well may be argued that there is no precedent for these interpretations. That is so; but there is also no precedent for this situation. And as the Apocalyptic text is itself quite unconventional it lends itself to such interpretations. Perhaps it was written for just such a situation as we have today.
5. Apoc. 12:5 does not necessarily denote a public assassination. Rather, it indicates one was planned if the newly elected pope should go public. In a secondary sense, it almost might have meant a spiritual assassination, except for being "taken up to God", which does not denote a spiritual death.
6. It is very likely that, even if he did this (or so we think), he could not have been sure that it was in fact done. That would require a further act of faith.
7. At this point we would ask, during the First Resurrection, who it is who comes back with the papacy (for we think it can happen only in this way). If Siri's reign is 'prorogued' it might be him; or it might be this 'bishop dressed in white'. If not prorogued, then he simply sent it to God (we say simply, as it would not require a complex formula we think; but who can know for sure ?). There will probably have to be a connection between the two. In at least one of the Catholic prophecies concerning the other 'timeline' (see Two Timelines (Part Two): Two Thousand Years Of Catholic Prophecy). The three days' darkness prophecy spoke of Sts. Peter and Paul coming to earth to designate a new pope from among the remaining cardinals without an election. It will not happen that way in our timeline, but it shows that it can be done in an extraordinary way, if necessary.
8. It was different during the Great Western Schism. All three papal claimants thought they had a legitimate claim to the papacy; their intention did not resemble that of the 1958 bad cardinals in any measure.
9. Here we think, charitably unlike others, that Siri had to go along with it for the time being; simply being killed would serve no purpose. Perhaps there was something he could have done at a more opportune time; but by the testimony of one Fr. Khoat there was nothing. Fr. Khoat also tesitified that Siri made cardinals in secret, and that they are in the world (as of 2006); but as this cannot be confirmed, we only include it for being thorough: for if this is true, it would run counter to the 'sede remota' theory; at least in appearance. We can only wait to see whether they will declare themselves at some point; the problem with this is we will have no way of knowing whether they are true. It could be that, not sure about his own status, Siri attempted this anyway; then there will be the question of where the other bishops (of Thuc and Lefebre) are in relation to them. But we will precede with 'sede remota' because of Apoc. 12:5.
No comments:
Post a Comment
--