even the natural Pride in being a Catholic

Which is not so. Now Roman Protestants are embarrassed, but most of all because they continue to sing Bringin in the Sheaves or Amazing Grace during song-periods, and sit silent while the 'EMs' throw the RP hosts all over the floor of the stage, etc. There's a lot that bothers them. You can ask them, directly, what they think of the 'new mass'. And you might be surprised at what you hear - not exactly a defense of the new Protestantism.

They perhaps confuse that cyncism with worldly cynicism, and conclude - that's just how it is. But that's not how it is in Catholicism. They just don't know. They haven't seen the reverence of Catholics at Mass, all the young families, all the large Catholic families, even for those very old who might remember how it actually used to be before the Protestants took over and invaded the sanctuary.

No pope for a hundred years or so?

Who knows? One wouldn't think it would be that long. I don't see a council in the next few years, though. But of course, I could be wrong. Some person, some group, could indeed move forward very rapidly. It would not be a trivial thing, though. A great deal of preparation would be involved.

At the very least, where would it be held? Jerusalem? NYC?

This strikes me as savoring of the kind of Apocalyptic dispensationalism that is so contrary to Catholic Tradition.

And surely contrary to all the Church fathers, Popes and Saints who spoke of their visions and considered Apocalyptic writings, correct? Again, I think you need to consider what you write. You can't say that those at the heart of The Church have century after century historically gone "contrary" or contradicted "Catholic Tradition". It makes no sense to say that.

You seemed obsessed on this point, to the extent you are now willing to ignore or rewrite the history. I would think that should be signal that one should pull back, re-assess.

And what if the sedevacantist bishops elect a pope and then the Roman claimnant becomes an orthodox Catholic?

You haven't bothered to read, then, the answer I gave you, before, on that very question.

I think that we would do so much better to accept reality

I'm not really sure you're doing that. See above, and previously.

the popes of history so shockingly did, we should find new ways of thinking of Him and the reality of His relationship to the world of men, whether historically or mystically.

For Catholics, and you need to understand this, the "relationship", the understanding, is now as it was. What Catholics confessed, "historically", is what Catholics confess, today. It's irreformable.

And it's, again I've repeatedly said now, also why Catholics don't trust each other. Because some still hold to heresies, or flirt with apostacy. They want one foot in good, one in evil, in hopes of 'reconciliation'. As I've said, I think there will have to be more of a shakeout, and bishops who can agree, minimally, that each is Catholic.

Then we'll see where that goes.

It is the chief business of the Christ to be rejected and murdered by the lawful leaders of God's True Church.

You miss the point of The Passion, and what preceded it. Those of the Temple, who violated their own rules, publicly continued to teach an orthodoxy, even if corrupted by their commentaries and such. They continued to offer the Sacrifice according to form, because form was all there was. Today, the new Temple is no longer found in 'Jerusalem', as it were. It's not in the Vatican. Those who try Our Lord in secret session are no longer His priesthood. It's an apostate, fallen Church.

That's what apostate means, in its effect, or fallen, or fallen away. It's mean it is no longer that which it was, and likely is the enemy and the opposite of what went before. Those faithful to that which it replaced would also be considered the enemy of the apostate. Those who stand with God and His Church, cannot stand with Roman Protestantism. And they certainly don't stand with us, make no mistake. While they may encourage their minions to explore Lutheranism, even to 'sharing services', or paganism or whatever else, the one thing Roman Protestant parishioners have been warned to avoid, at all costs, are Catholic parishes. It's been some years, now, since I've heard this. But I remember one of these 'president/presiders' walking back and forth on the stage, wireless mic in hand, comparing Catholics, those who then attended Latin Masses even before there was an FSSP, to nαzιs. It shocked me. That was my period of trying to 'make peace' with the 'reform'. It wasn't long afterward that peace just didn't seem to be possible. And then it hit me what they really were. Why I didn't see it from the start - I don't know. So I also don't judge von Hildebrand, nor Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Davies, Guimares, and so many others who kept trying to 'make their peace' with the new sect.

The so-called Jєωs were only a type of the REAL Christkillers

The "so-called" Jєωs were also Our Lord, Himself, and the Holy Family, the early Church, even when there was possible objection at the first council to expanding to all people, to gentiles.

Those who would kill Christ are those who preach from so many Protestant pulpits, not just Roman Protestant, and from any podium available who preach a Godless and unjust society.

Because the question always embraces another question - what is the standard? So many speak of 'justice', but by an unjust standard. Only one standard applied in Christendom. And only that standard can apply to just societies - and will again, perhaps soon. But there's all that prophecyin that you so dislike.

we could aid in the conversion of the Jєωs, who would be so touched and edified by our letting them off the Deicide hook

Gee, I think that 'apology' was already made, probably both by Wotyla and Ratzinger.

As I said, Our Lord, was Jєωιѕн. He remains so. The same for St. Joseph and Our Blessed Mother. Her parents. His parents. Their relatives who confessed God and His Church and became Saints. The early Church.

Those Jєωs who 2000 years later defend the unjustifiable actions of the leaders of the Second Temple will convert. Islam will be weakened, and many will convert. Both seem an impossibility, today.

But there's that prophecy, again.

Gibson does a prequel to PASSION and for pragmatic reasons involving a recent faux pas plays up Hebraic themes and local color in a way which would touch and soften up Jєωιѕн viewers. Mass conversions to the true Hope of Israel result.

It would be an interesting film, if James Tissot's work and that of others were a touchstone for art direction, as with Ben Hur. It would give people of sense of how the locals looked, what they did every day, what the huge Temple complex looked like, and so on - how Roman soldiers in that area really dressed, trained and were organized.

It would show that Our Lord was faithful to the Temple, and did what a Jєωιѕн man would do at ѕуηαgσgυє, but in a way with meaning, even as a boy in the Temple. And as that incident enraged some of the 'experts' there, in fact, in reality, at the time, I suspect the same reaction might be had in a mere film, 2000 years after the fact. When the 'experts' attempt to con or ensnare Our Lord with riddles or narrowly rhetorical questions, I suspect many today, who you think might change their heart, would resent Our Lord's answers.

It would be a good film. I doubt Gibson would be the one to produce it properly. Where's Franklin Schaffner when you need him? You have to remember, even by the 1950s, accuracy was being replaced in favor of the worldly, as in the remake of Ben Hur, the lepers are no longer healed by Our Lord carrying His Cross, but by a rain storm.

Anyway, why should we pray that there be another pope?

Because The Church needs a temporal head, and Catholics are leaderless. It's been a long time.

But whatever is done, will be according to the Will of God. If it is God's Will that no Pope will be elected for another quarter century, that's how it must be, etc. The Roman Catholic Church is God's Church. And we are His.