CathInfo.com

I would like to recommend Peter Partners book The Murdered Magicians. Although he is partial to the Templars and is I believe mistaken in his idea that the Templars supported Philip against Boniface-- it is very well acknowledged that both the arch-bishop and king of Cypress complained bitterly of the Templars and Boniface did nothing-- he is a true historian( even if partial to Voltaire and Gibbon) and gives all sides and the reader is confronted with much evidence.

 The same is true of Sister Mary Mildred's Hitory of Boniface and Philip. Even though she is partial to Boniface she gives very clearly the evidence of numerous  Deposed and Sworn witnesses as to the treachery of Boniface. Contrast this with the fact that not even one sworn witness has ever been presented against Cardinal Rampolla

It is going to far that the Popes from Benedict XV to Pius Xll
were ever anti popes, and are to ranked with the conciliar  
popes.
As for the late Cardinal Siri, he went for the modern ways.
History will never prove that he was ever first elected Pope
in 1958, and 1963.
We will get the true Third Secret of Fatima before we ever
get what really happened in the conclave of 1958 and
1963.

My understanding is that there are 3 theories as to where the Primacy of St Peter is at this time.

1-- v2 church/ sspx-- both of these acknowledge the current pope.
2-- sede( if there is such a thing)
3-- Card Siri as Gregory XVII( my belief)

I can neither see nor hear how the v2 or sspx rings true.

The only way the sede theory can be true would be that we are in the end times. The verse from the Bible says the Church will be with us until the end of time. If the until has actually arrived, then it might be possible  there is no Pope. To be sure, in my ten yrs of reading Church history( in English) I have never encountered any such thing as a sede vacantist or the term sede vacantism even one time.

The only time in 2000 yrs that I cannot find a True Pope is from the death of ST Celestine( 1294) until the election of Benedict(1303)

I understand that the Church has not formally declared Boniface VIII(8) as an anti-pope-- St Pius X has however shown the way with his actions against Boniface 6 and 7. There is one more to go-- and quite possibly a Benedict and an Urban as well.

Hi Roscoe - can you tell me what St Pius X had to do with Boniface 6 and 7?  As far as I can tell, Boniface 6 was declared an anti-Pope in 898 and Boniface 7 I can't find much info on at all really.

Interestingly the Catholic Encyclopedia lists Boniface VI in the list of popes but states that his election was declared null and void later. Whereas Boniface VII is listed as an anti-Pope in opposition to Pope Benedict VII and John XIV.

As for Boniface VIII, the only people who seemed opposed to him were the King of France who was annoyed at his bull Unam Sanctam in which he famously declared that only those who are absolutely subject to the Pope may be saved (which was virtually rescinded by Clement V when he replaced Boniface VIII).  The Catholic encyclopedia says: "With the death of his personal enemies, opposition to Boniface [VIII] diminished, and his legitimacy was no longer denied even in France"

There was a council convened that discussed the issue of Boniface but no records remain of the conclusions drawn except that a number of people spoke in his defense.  I think it extremely unlikely that he will ever be named an anti-Pope as there seems no reason for him to be so unless one believes his detractors (those he spoke out against).

As for the throne picture you keep showing - where exactly did you get that picture?  Can you give some evidence for it being the Throne used by Pope Boniface VIII?  It appears that the papal throne in use at the time is in fact this:



As you can see it is not the same one as you are showing.