In Chapter Three of Book Four we find a wonderful conversation between God and the bride by way of question and answer. It concerns the king and his hereditary rights and those of his successors in the kingdom, and also how some territories should be reclaimed by the successors in the kingdom and some not. The subtext here is rich in interpreting exactly what happened after the death of Pope Pius XII and God's rationale for why it has continued through such an interminable interregnum for only when a rightful heir to the throne of Peter appears can the kingdom be restored. In the meantime, as God attests, 'The mighty will move from their seats and those that walk upon the earth shall be exalted.' Truly, as we have seen over the past fifty years, "people will be afflicted, discord will arise, the sons shall pass their days in sorrow, and their kingdoms will no longer be kingdoms."

"O Lord," said the bride, "do not get angry at me for asking, but I heard it read out loud that nothing should be unjustly acquired nor should anything unjustly acquired be retained. Now the present king has territory that some people say he holds by right while others deny it. And indeed it is strange that You tolerate in this man what You reproach in others."

God answered: "No people were left after the flood except for those who stayed on the ark during it. From these was born a race that went to the east, and among them some who went to Sweden. Another clan went west and from these arose the people who went to Denmark. Now those who first began to cultivate the land that was not surrounded by water did not occupy any territory belonging to the people who lived across the waters or on islands. Rather, they were each content with what they found, as is written of Lot and Abraham. Abraham said, 'If you go to the right, I will keep to the left,' as if to say 'Whatever you appropriate to yourself, this will belong to you and your heirs.' As time went on there came judges and kings who were satisfied with their boundaries and did not occupy the territory of the people who lived on islands or across the water. Rather, each remained within the boundaries and limits of their forefathers."

She answered: "What if a part of the kingdom is transferred by way of donation, should not a successor reclaim it?"

God responded: "In a certain kingdom, crown goods belonging to the king were kept in safe storage for him. The people, thinking themselves unable to survive without a king, elected one and entrusted to him the crown goods to be guarded and reconsigned to the future king. If the elected king should want to transfer or reduce a part of the crown goods, surely the future king could and should reclaim it, inasmuch as no reduction of the crown goods should take place.

"The king can neither diminish nor transfer the crown of the kingdom in his day, unless, perhaps, for some prudent reason. What do the crown goods of the kingdom denote if not his royal authority? What is the kingdom if not the people subject to him? What is the king if not mediator and savior of the kingdom and of the people? Accordingly, the savior and defender of the crown should by no means divide or reduce the crown goods to the detriment of a future king."

The bride answered: "What if the king is forced by necessity or violence to transfer a part of the crown goods?"

God said: "If two men had a quarrel, and the stronger of them would not make any concession unless a finger of the other man were cut off, to whom would the cut-off finger belong if not to him who had suffered the damage? This is also the case concerning the kingdom. If, due to necessity or captivity, a king should lose part of the kingdom, the future king can certainly reclaim it, for the king is not master of the realm but the helmsman, and necessity does not make a law."

She answered: "What if, during his lifetime, a king were to cede part of the crown goods to a lord, and, upon the king's death, that lord and his successors were to retain the concession as though they owned it, should it not be reclaimed?"

The Lord replied: "That territory should certainly return to its legitimate owner."

She in turn, followed up: "What if a part of the crown goods were mortgaged to someone for debt and then, both after his death and after he had received income from it for many years, it should come into the hands of another person with no right to the land, since it had been neither ceded nor mortgaged to him but had accrued to him by chance, and if he does not want to give it up without being paid, what should be done?"

The Lord said: "If someone held a lump of gold in his hand and said to a bystander: 'This lump is yours, if you like, for so and so many pounds,' then that many pounds should surely be given to him. If land has been lawfully acquired and is held in peaceful ownership, it should be reclaimed with prudence and brought back after calculating the damages. When a king is elected, he is lifted up on a stone seat to be seen by the people. This indicates that he has dominion and possession of the northern parts of the kingdom, and also that the southern parts belong to the kingdom both by hereditary right and by sale and purchase. The king shall accordingly safeguard the land that has been acquired in order not to lose his dominion and or suffer subjugation should he act otherwise."

Again she answered: "O Lord, do not get angry if I ask just one thing more. The present king has two sons and two kingdoms. In one of the kingdoms the king is elected by hereditary right, in the other by popular vote. Now, however, the opposite has been done, inasmuch as the younger son has received the hereditary kingdom, while the older son holds the elective kingdom."

God answered: "There were three incongruities in the electors as well as a fourth that they had in plenty: inordinate love, feigned prudence, the flattery of fools, and lack of confidence in God and in the common people.

"Hence, their election was against justice, against God, against the good of the nation and against the welfare of the people. Therefore, in order to provide for peace and for the welfare of the people, it is necessary for the older son to receive the hereditary kingdom and for the younger son to come to the elective one. Otherwise, if the earlier actions are not repealed, the kingdom will suffer loss, the people will be afflicted, discord will arise, the sons shall pass their days in sorrow, and their kingdoms will no longer be kingdoms.

"Instead it will be as is written: 'The mighty will move from their seats and those that walk upon the earth shall be exalted.'

"Hear now: I will give you the example of two kingdoms. In one there is election, in the other hereditary succession. The first kingdom, where there is election, has been ruined and afflicted, because the rightful heir was not elected. This was due to the electors as well as to the greed of the one who sought the kingdom. Now, God does not punish the son for his father's sins nor does His anger endure forever, but He works and maintains justice both on earth and in Heaven. For this reason that kingdom will not return to its previous glory and happy state until the rightful heir appears on either the father's or the mother's side."