Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: MyrnaM

roscoe,

Quote

Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.

Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes.  Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure.  Wrong!  That is not what I believe.  I am sedevacantist, remember.  

Blessings to you roscoe.  

GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe.  PURE AND SIMPLE!  

roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.

It is my understanding the  anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE  are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.  

I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.  

No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".

I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.  

Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men.  Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you?  NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.  

The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith.  Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.  

Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.  

roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again.   Haven't finished yet.

Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.

SpiritusSanctus,

So you believe that the Vicar of Christ, Head of the Catholic Church is also the head of another Church?

SpiritusS not sure if you were asking me --->

Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.

I don't believe that B16 is an anti-pope at all.   It is true when I first registered here, everyone was referring to him as one, so without really thinking about it, I went along.  However, after thinking about this I came to realize, the NO popes can't be anti-popes but just pretenders to the throne, because the NO and its new teachings are not Catholic.  

When I re-read what I wrote, the word should be usurp, not upsurp.  I am the worst with typos and spelling!  

Also Alexandria, I have noticed, with me also, I can't grasp how many traditionalist accept  their pope is pope of both truth and error. Except for that one point, we all have the same Faith, and that is what I keep telling myself.  

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: MyrnaM

roscoe,

Quote

Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.

Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes.  Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure.  Wrong!  That is not what I believe.  I am sedevacantist, remember.  

Blessings to you roscoe.  

GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe.  PURE AND SIMPLE!  

roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.

It is my understanding the  anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE  are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.  

I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.  

No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".

I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.  

Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men.  Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you?  NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.  

The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith.  Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.  

Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.  

roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again.   Haven't finished yet.

Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.

SpiritusSanctus,

So you believe that the Vicar of Christ, Head of the Catholic Church is also the head of another Church?

Sort of. I know it's a very hard thing to understand, and I myself sometimes can't explain it very easily. One might say that the only point in which the seat of Peter was empty was during the reign of Paul VI. Not to call him an anti-pope because I can't call him one without knowing for sure, but at the time it was as if Archbishop LeFebvre was running the true Church since he was keeping it alive. Paul VI certainly didn't want it to remain intact. Benedict is trying to merge these two Churches together. So Benedict seems to be going back and forth between the two Churches.

How did we ever manage here before SS arrived on the scene?

 :cool:

SS is correct: if one claims to be Pope of the RC Church he is one of 2 things-- either the Pope or an anti-pope. There is no middle ground. Myrna's idea that there is something such as ' no pope at all' could apply to everyone on Earth except for the True Pope.

The concept of 'no pope at all' is as erronious as the concept of the alleged ( non-existant) ' sede vacantism'.

Quote from: roscoe

1-- There is NO SUCH THING AS A SEDEVACANTIST

2-- I agree that the NO church is not the Roman Catholic Church but it claims to be. A man claiming to be Pope who is not is an anti-pope.

2-- It is not up to Myrna to give us her 'point of view' re: the Fr GWS popes as anti-popes. As of yet No Church Authority has been cited telling us this.

3-- It is correct that the FR GWS popes were orthodox in belief. This is why( or one reason why) they were(are) NOT ANTI-POPES.

I pretty much agree with you, although while I don't think there were any anti-popes during GWS, we can't exactly go by whether or not the Church has declared them anti-popes. The Church, as far as I know, didn't even officially claim Pope Formosus an anti-pope when really he should have been declared one.

Actually we can( most of the time) go by whether or not the Church has declared an anti-pope. Possibly I am mistaken but we are bound to recognise a formally declared anti-pope just as we are bound to recognise a formally declared saint.  

Examples of formally declared anti-popes can be found on pg 405 of Prof Chadwick's History of Popes.

" ... Pius X had to GET RID OF( Chadwick is a Prot who does not use the word anti-pope) four popes from the past-- ....Boniface 6....., Boniface 7, John 16.... and Benedict 10..."

SS is correct however that  there are a few cases where it is still debatable if a Pope is actually an anti-pope. These are almost all found in the house of Theophylact. This is because historical accounts of events are somewhat vague.  

I do not recall the circuмstances re: Formosus offhand but he may be one of those.