Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Jamie on June 19, 2010, 04:19:19 PM

Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: 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?
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 19, 2010, 05:16:48 PM
The only one of the 1958 cardinals that can say he was validly elected is Siri.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Jamie 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.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe 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?
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe 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?
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Jamie on June 19, 2010, 07:19:45 PM
Quote from: roscoe
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?


As the conclave was closed I don't know what happened.  All I know is that Siri wasn't elected.  If he was - and was therefore the valid Pope, he was a bad one who did equally nothing to help the situation when it began to collapse the Church - he even begged Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate the Bishops.

In researching for the answer to your other question (about the source of Siri himself denying it) I have discovered that I am wrong on that point and I withdraw it and apologise.  In reality, Cardinal Siri refused to speak about the conclave.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Trinity on June 19, 2010, 07:29:02 PM
Well, if the ensueing popes are valid, they are still leading everyone to heresy and hell.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 19, 2010, 08:42:23 PM
Quote from: Jamie
Quote from: roscoe
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?


As the conclave was closed I don't know what happened.  All I know is that Siri wasn't elected.  If he was - and was therefore the valid Pope, he was a bad one who did equally nothing to help the situation when it began to collapse the Church - he even begged Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate the Bishops.

In researching for the answer to your other question (about the source of Siri himself denying it) I have discovered that I am wrong on that point and I withdraw it and apologise.  In reality, Cardinal Siri refused to speak about the conclave.


So he did not deny that he was elected and he  was not partial to SSPX. Mo is that both of these points make the Siri thesis even stronger.

Of course the conclave was closed-- they all have been since 1914. Then how do you know Gregory XVII was not elected?

Question not answered-- are you prepared to say the first white smoke was an accident. ?

Let us not forget also  that Card Siri was the known favorite of Pius XII(XIII)
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on June 19, 2010, 08:49:02 PM
Pope Formosus is considered by some to have been an anti-Pope. He and Paul VI would be the only ones that would qualify. There are lots of rumors about Paul VI, and which one is true is un-certain. One rumor even states Paul VI was a freemason. Regardless of which rumor is true, I can say that Paul VI may very well have been the worst Pope we've ever had.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 19, 2010, 08:49:35 PM
It is entirely possible that Gregory XVII was not a good Pope but he isn't as bad as Leo X and Clement VII.

Mo is that Paul VI(6) is an actual anti-pope. How can Paul VI(6) and Formosus be the only anti-popes when the Church has formally declared approx 40 of them?
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: RomanCatholic1953 on June 19, 2010, 08:51:48 PM
It must be remembered that Siri signed all the docuмents
of V2,and imposed the new mass, and the reformed
sacraments in his diocese.
Where was the resistance from Siri, I have not read of
any.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on June 19, 2010, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: roscoe
It is entirely possible that Gregory XVII was not a good Pope but he isn't as bad as Leo X and Clement VII.

Mo is that Paul VI(6) is an actual anti-pope. How can Paul VI(6) and Formosus be the only anti-popes when the Church has formally declared approx 40 of them?


Name some others, I don't remember any other possible anti-Popes.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 19, 2010, 08:57:45 PM
There are approx 40 of them and they are easy to find with a search engine. I have just looked at two of them and Formosus is not to be found.

There is a book by John Wilcock-- Popes and Anti-popes.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 19, 2010, 09:03:01 PM
Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
It must be remembered that Siri signed all the docuмents
of V2,and imposed the new mass, and the reformed
sacraments in his diocese.
Where was the resistance from Siri, I have not read of
any.


I have said that the Siri thesis is not w/o probs, but just the same-- could the source of the above info be sited? Especially the allegation that he signed all of the v2 docuмents. I am aware that he did submit to the new mass at one point. Acc to TCW, he was under duress.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 19, 2010, 09:31:12 PM
Quote from: roscoe
There are approx 40 of them and they are easy to find with a search engine. I have just looked at two of them and Formosus is not to be found.

There is a book by John Wilcock-- Popes and Anti-popes.


By two of them I of course mean two sources that can be found with a search engine.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 19, 2010, 09:32:18 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: roscoe
It is entirely possible that Gregory XVII was not a good Pope but he isn't as bad as Leo X and Clement VII.

Mo is that Paul VI(6) is an actual anti-pope. How can Paul VI(6) and Formosus be the only anti-popes when the Church has formally declared approx 40 of them?


Name some others, I don't remember any other possible anti-Popes.
 Just type anti-popes into a search engine.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Raoul76 on June 19, 2010, 10:15:15 PM
Jamie said:
Quote
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.


I have had that thought, actually, and it disturbed me greatly.  

I have often wondered if we should judge the validity of the VII "papacies" on an individual basis rather than in one post-VII lump.  It's not really relevant as far as Benedict goes, because he is disqualified by cuм Ex Apostolatus, not necessarily because he accepts Vatican II.  No heretic can be validly elected Pope and he has been a heretic for about as long as he has been in the public eye.  But it could be relevant for JPII, or for Benedict's successor.

The Pope can't promote an invalid Council, that is how we know a posteriori that Paul VI is not Pope.  We also know that the Church itself cannot possibly approve of an invalid council or shove such a Council down the throat of its children.  So anyone who goes along with Vatican II, including the "Popes" that followed, are not in the real Church.  

BUT.  MAIS.  ABER.  PERO.  Is it possible to be the head of the true Church who is actually presiding over a dummy church without knowing it?  Great, Jamie -- you have led me into hatching a theory more complex than sedeprivationism!  I'll leave it up to someone else with better Latin to think of a catchy Latin name for it.

A lot of this actually depends on the aggravating figure of Pius XII.  Pius XII came up with a disciplinary law saying that the cardinals can elect a Pope even if they're all excommunicated.

Quote
“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)


So even if all the cardinals who went along with Vatican II were pertinacious heretics who had incurred automatic excommunication, they can still vote in a Pope, if this constitution of Pie Douze ( as they call him in French, it amuses me ) is valid.

Theoretically, then, the answer to my question above about whether you can have a valid Pope presiding over an invalid church thinking it's the true Church is "yes."   Or at least, he has a valid election -- unless the Siri thing is true.  The real question about the possible Siri election, you see, is not if we have a hidden Pope somewhere ( he had no way to elect successors ) but that, if there was a Siri election, that means John XXIII did not have a valid election.  But this wouldn't matter much when it comes to Paul VI, because of the law made by Pius XII above...

Am I helping to clear this up?  Didn't think so.  This is why I don't push the sede position as hard anymore.  There is definitely a massive grey area here.  I don't think ultimately that it is very consequential which side of that debate you are on, just like in the Schism.  It's better to be on the right side but those of us who are wrong, if we are wrong, have good reasons.  There are good reasons on both sides.  

I will say that I don't really understand SSPX because of their position that has "schismatic overtones," shall we say, although I know no schism is intended.  But if I decided to go to an una cuм Mass, I'd probably suck it up and go to an Indult.  I think those in SSPX frankly just don't want to be around Vatican II types and want to carve out a little fairyland for themselves with the smells and bells.  SSPX made more sense in the beginning; the excuse was to  keep the Latin Mass alive.  I'm not sure what the point of them is now.  Because there's no reason to go to SSPX if you can go to a VII Latin Mass -- unless, perhaps, you want to SEPARATE yourselves from other Catholics because they seem like lower lifeforms or have the stink of worldliness on them.  Needless to say, that isn't the greatest attitude to have.

The sedevacantist position, then, is where I am hunkered down for now.  It is also bolstered by the more overt heresies that followed the VII Council such as the Joint Declaration on Justification ( probably the most overt of all heretical VII docuмents ).  It may not be an ex cathedra dogma that encyclicals are flawless when teaching on faith and morals, but it is definitely a dogmatic fact, it is definitely part of the OUAM.  If you couldn't trust the Pope to teach correctly on the faith in his encyclicals, the Church would be a madhouse.

All sorts of other dogmatic facts are denied by saying that these are true Popes; like that the Pope can promote harmful liturgy ( I'm not talking about the Novus Ordo, I'm talking about the Anaphora of Addai and Mari ) or that dubious saints can be canonized.  Of course the latter asks us to form a judgment on someone's soul that we can't form...

I could go on with this all day; I hope you enjoyed the peek into my tormented mind.  Ultimately, to arrive back at where I started, the scales for me are tipped towards sedevacantism by cuм Ex Apostolatus.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 19, 2010, 11:35:17 PM
The PiusXII(XIII) proclamation re: excommunicated cardinals is-- like the Infallibility of 1870-- a repition of prev policy. I have run into that b4 in von Pastor. I think it was during a study of Cardinal Noallis(sp?)

Of course Gregory XVII had 'no way to elect sucessors" because he was not alive during the following conclave. I think it is a given that during a 30 yr papacy he would have had ample opportunity to have appointed a curia.

My understanding is that Card Siri was elected again in 1963 so it would matter re: Pius VI(6)
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 20, 2010, 12:07:51 AM
Agobard has PM'd me re: Medicis-- thank U.  Pius IV was a cousin. The Medici-- like most noble families had numerous branches;  I do not think Pius IV to be a bad Pope.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 20, 2010, 12:39:45 AM
Pius IV can be better compared to an Urban VIII who leaned left until push came to shove. Let's not forget that Paul IV did go to far in some ways-- the treatments of Pole and Morone in particular. And then there is the Carafa -- who were prob worse than the Borgia.

The resason Pius X imposed the secrecy sanctions beg w/ 1914 is that there were no longer any European rulers who were Catholics-- excepting Franz Joseph who was Catholic in name only.

After that monarchs alleged 'veto' of the Popes good friend Cardinal Rampolla-- in spite of the illegality of the said 'veto' and considering that the Pope was a 'prisoner' who had been robbed of his Papal States, it is from that point on, no one elses business.

Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 20, 2010, 02:20:23 PM
The freemason Franz-Joseph also fails to lift a finger to help the Pope retrieve his stolen Papal States.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Alexandria on June 21, 2010, 11:47:46 AM
Raoul said:

"I will say that I don't really understand SSPX because of their position that has "schismatic overtones," shall we say, although I know no schism is intended.  But if I decided to go to an una cuм Mass, I'd probably suck it up and go to an Indult.  I think those in SSPX frankly just don't want to be around Vatican II types and want to carve out a little fairyland for themselves with the smells and bells.  SSPX made more sense in the beginning; the excuse was to  keep the Latin Mass alive.  I'm not sure what the point of them is now.  Because there's no reason to go to SSPX if you can go to a VII Latin Mass -- unless, perhaps, you want to SEPARATE yourselves from other Catholics because they seem like lower lifeforms or have the stink of worldliness on them.  Needless to say, that isn't the greatest attitude to have."


I have thought the exact same thing for quite some time now.  The SSPX really has no reason to be "outside the Church."  There is no difference between them and the FSSP any longer.  Both the same.  Except the people that attend the FSSP are a bit more down to earth.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Caminus on June 21, 2010, 11:56:09 AM
Is there credible evidence that Paul VI was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Alexandria on June 21, 2010, 11:59:54 AM
Quote from: Caminus
Is there credible evidence that Paul VI was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?


According to Randy Engel there is.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Caminus on June 21, 2010, 12:01:38 PM
Where might I take a look at this evidence?
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Alexandria on June 21, 2010, 12:18:32 PM
Don't you have a copy of The Rite of Sodomy?

Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on June 21, 2010, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Caminus
Is there credible evidence that Paul VI was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?


Yet another one of the many rumors surrounding Paul VI, this being a less-common one for the most part. I believe there is POSSIBLE evidence. "The Rite of Sodomy" is one option. You could also look it up on the internet.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Caminus on June 21, 2010, 01:28:10 PM
Quote from: Alexandria
Don't you have a copy of The Rite of Sodomy?



Negative
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Belloc on June 21, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: Jamie
Quote from: roscoe
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?


As the conclave was closed I don't know what happened.  All I know is that Siri wasn't elected.  If he was - and was therefore the valid Pope, he was a bad one who did equally nothing to help the situation when it began to collapse the Church - he even begged Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate the Bishops.

In researching for the answer to your other question (about the source of Siri himself denying it) I have discovered that I am wrong on that point and I withdraw it and apologise.  In reality, Cardinal Siri refused to speak about the conclave.


Jamie, ask him why there are conflicting reports of white smoke and how that has happended in the past and since Siri/1958
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Belloc on June 21, 2010, 01:40:15 PM
Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
It must be remembered that Siri signed all the docuмents
of V2,and imposed the new mass, and the reformed
sacraments in his diocese.
Where was the resistance from Siri, I have not read of
any.


exactly!!!!

If elected, he willinglystep down rather then face his fate...if not, then he was not elected.
also, he is somehow kept silent all those yrs, to onlytell his stroy to some remote Phillipino priest-no one in all these yrs has said or thought anything?????


ABL, Ottiviani, Baci,not one said anything....
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Belloc on June 21, 2010, 01:46:07 PM
Quote from: Alexandria
Raoul said:

"I will say that I don't really understand SSPX because of their position that has "schismatic overtones," shall we say, although I know no schism is intended.  But if I decided to go to an una cuм Mass, I'd probably suck it up and go to an Indult.  I think those in SSPX frankly just don't want to be around Vatican II types and want to carve out a little fairyland for themselves with the smells and bells.  SSPX made more sense in the beginning; the excuse was to  keep the Latin Mass alive.  I'm not sure what the point of them is now.  Because there's no reason to go to SSPX if you can go to a VII Latin Mass -- unless, perhaps, you want to SEPARATE yourselves from other Catholics because they seem like lower lifeforms or have the stink of worldliness on them.  Needless to say, that isn't the greatest attitude to have."


I have thought the exact same thing for quite some time now.  The SSPX really has no reason to be "outside the Church."  There is no difference between them and the FSSP any longer.  Both the same.  Except the people that attend the FSSP are a bit more down to earth.


The FSSP have to affirm the validity of V2 and are not allowed to criticize it, nor ever question the post V2 Popes,etc..the SSPX does not accept V2, nor have they spared criticism when appropriate...actually, some differences ater all and likely more......down to earth? how so?
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Belloc on June 21, 2010, 01:47:06 PM
Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: Caminus
Is there credible evidence that Paul VI was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?


According to Randy Engel there is.


hse is normally good, but not always spot on.....the question is-did P6 practice his sodomy? if so, when did it stop, if ever?

this is of course assuming for the moment he was actually a homo
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Belloc on June 21, 2010, 01:48:03 PM
Quote from: Alexandria
Don't you have a copy of The Rite of Sodomy?



why, should he or is it assumed everyone has a copy?
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Alexandria on June 21, 2010, 01:51:56 PM
Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Alexandria
Don't you have a copy of The Rite of Sodomy?



why, should he or is it assumed everyone has a copy?


There you go.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Belloc on June 21, 2010, 01:54:55 PM
Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Alexandria
Don't you have a copy of The Rite of Sodomy?



why, should he or is it assumed everyone has a copy?


There you go.


go where? was just asking if everyone here had a copy, if it was a well read and owned book here.Do you have a copy? do you feel the hypothesis is correct in the book?

what are your feelings?

and sorry, still struggling with that urge, having trouble staying in the Sunshine and Gumdrops state......am trying though!
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Alexandria on June 21, 2010, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Alexandria
Don't you have a copy of The Rite of Sodomy?



why, should he or is it assumed everyone has a copy?


There you go.


go where? was just asking if everyone here had a copy, if it was a well read and owned book here.Do you have a copy? do you feel the hypothesis is correct in the book?

what are your feelings?

and sorry, still struggling with that urge, having trouble staying in the Sunshine and Gumdrops state......am trying though!


Yes, I do own a copy.  And have read it several times.  I have also spoken to her at length.  She would know the consequences of putting something that was only hearsay or had little evidence to back it up in a book for anyone to read.

I wish his moral life was all we had to worry about with him.  It's of no consequence compared to the devastation he helped unleash on the Church and, despite all his hand-wringing and "woe is me" statements, did nothing to stop.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Belloc on June 21, 2010, 02:09:02 PM
weak administrator and vacilator..
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 21, 2010, 02:34:15 PM
Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Jamie
Quote from: roscoe
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?


As the conclave was closed I don't know what happened.  All I know is that Siri wasn't elected.  If he was - and was therefore the valid Pope, he was a bad one who did equally nothing to help the situation when it began to collapse the Church - he even begged Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate the Bishops.

In researching for the answer to your other question (about the source of Siri himself denying it) I have discovered that I am wrong on that point and I withdraw it and apologise.  In reality, Cardinal Siri refused to speak about the conclave.


Jamie, ask him why there are conflicting reports of white smoke and how that has happended in the past and since Siri/1958


My understanding is that there is no question of the white smoke. Some however will debate what it means.

Pls be specific as to when this has happened in the past or since 1958.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 22, 2010, 03:28:55 PM
The Forum is still waiting for a response to the above.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on June 22, 2010, 04:56:56 PM
Quote from: roscoe
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: roscoe
It is entirely possible that Gregory XVII was not a good Pope but he isn't as bad as Leo X and Clement VII.

Mo is that Paul VI(6) is an actual anti-pope. How can Paul VI(6) and Formosus be the only anti-popes when the Church has formally declared approx 40 of them?


Name some others, I don't remember any other possible anti-Popes.
 Just type anti-popes into a search engine.


I did that yesterday, I see what you mean. However, some of the "anti-Popes" listed I wouldn't really consider anti-popes.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 22, 2010, 05:50:19 PM
It certainly is true that the status of some popes[Boniface,
Benedict XV(15) and 1 or 2 more]is disputed even to this day. The Church has however made a formal declaration in about 40 cases of anti-popes and this is not up to us to dispute. It is also of course true that the v2 anti-popes have not been formally declared as such so far.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Jamie on June 22, 2010, 06:36:28 PM
Quote from: roscoe
It certainly is true that the status of some popes[Boniface,
Benedict XV(15) and 1 or 2 more]is disputed even to this day. The Church has however made a formal declaration in about 40 cases of anti-popes and this is not up to us to dispute. It is also of course true that the v2 anti-popes have not been formally declared as such so far.


Roscoe - may I ask who you think the last legitimate Pope was - or who the legitimate Pope is at present (if such a one exists)?
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: RomanCatholic1953 on June 22, 2010, 07:15:47 PM
Look under Pope Paul VI search in Tradition in Action.
Lot of questions answered, or at lease debated.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 22, 2010, 07:57:58 PM
Mo is that Gregory XVII was True Pope until he died in 1989. What has happened after that is not clear to me. I do however believe that there is a Pope somewhere.

To those who cannot conceive of the above scenario-- it has happened At Least a few times b4 that people have not known who the Pope is for whatever length of time.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: Jamie on June 22, 2010, 10:48:02 PM
Quote from: roscoe
Mo is that Gregory XVII was True Pope until he died in 1989. What has happened after that is not clear to me. I do however believe that there is a Pope somewhere.

To those who cannot conceive of the above scenario-- it has happened At Least a few times b4 that people have not known who the Pope is for whatever length of time.


Thanks for replying roscoe - I appreciate it.  Do you attend an independent chapel?  In fact, I guess what I am asking is, are there any independent chapels that considered Cardinal Siri to be the Pope?  I have never met someone who believed that before so I am curious.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 22, 2010, 11:26:56 PM
I do not attend or no where there is an independent chapel that believes Gregory XVII was True Pope although I would be willing to wager that this does exist in at least a few places.
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: RomanCatholic1953 on June 22, 2010, 11:53:09 PM
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGdCl.kyFMd10A4vNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbjRvMjgwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0Y2NjZfMTEx/SIG=11q4v37v4/EXP=1277355262/**http%3a//www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm
Title: Paul VI the only anti-pope?
Post by: roscoe on June 23, 2010, 02:45:55 AM
Malfunction II