Author Topic: Paul VI the only anti-pope? (Read 13245 times)

Jamie · « **on:** June 19, 2010, 04:19:19 PM »

I was just thinking about the situation in the Church and I wondered if it might be possible that Paul VI WAS an anti-Pope (I am not a sede). If he was, it invalidated VII and all of the modern errors and while the Popes who followed him could still be valid Popes (even if Paul was an anti-Pope) most of their errors would be due to a mistaken belief that he wasn't - thus feeling that they had to accept VII as valid.

Any thoughts?

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2010, 05:16:48 PM »

The only one of the 1958 cardinals that can say he was validly elected is Siri.

Jamie · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2010, 05:52:27 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

The only one of the 1958 cardinals that can say he was validly elected is Siri.

And yet he is the one who said publicly that he was not. So if he was the real pope - he was worse than the modernists for doing nothing about it.

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2010, 06:57:35 PM »

The Siri thesis is not w/o problems. It is just that v2, 'sede' and sspx versions have more problems. Could you cite the source for your above remark?

roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2010, 07:04:58 PM »

Someone was elected when the white smoke appeared. Are you prepared to say that the smoke was released by mistake? If not what do U think happened?