Author Topic: Paul VI the only anti-pope?  (Read 3709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline roscoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7262
  • Reputation: +489/-260
  • Gender: Male
Paul VI the only anti-pope?
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2010, 09:32:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #16 on: June 19, 2010, 10:15:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 Cum 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 cum 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 documents ).  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 Cum Ex Apostolatus.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7262
    • Reputation: +489/-260
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #17 on: June 19, 2010, 11:35:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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)
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7262
    • Reputation: +489/-260
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #18 on: June 20, 2010, 12:07:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7262
    • Reputation: +489/-260
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #19 on: June 20, 2010, 12:39:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7262
    • Reputation: +489/-260
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #20 on: June 20, 2010, 02:20:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The freemason Franz-Joseph also fails to lift a finger to help the Pope retrieve his stolen Papal States.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2674
    • Reputation: +481/-116
    • Gender: Female
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #21 on: June 21, 2010, 11:47:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 cum 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.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #22 on: June 21, 2010, 11:56:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is there credible evidence that Paul VI was a homosexual?


    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2674
    • Reputation: +481/-116
    • Gender: Female
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #23 on: June 21, 2010, 11:59:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    Is there credible evidence that Paul VI was a homosexual?


    According to Randy Engel there is.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #24 on: June 21, 2010, 12:01:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Where might I take a look at this evidence?

    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2674
    • Reputation: +481/-116
    • Gender: Female
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #25 on: June 21, 2010, 12:18:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Don't you have a copy of The Rite of Sodomy?



    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #26 on: June 21, 2010, 01:26:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    Is there credible evidence that Paul VI was a homosexual?


    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.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #27 on: June 21, 2010, 01:28:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Alexandria
    Don't you have a copy of The Rite of Sodomy?



    Negative

    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #28 on: June 21, 2010, 01:38:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic

    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Paul VI the only anti-pope?
    « Reply #29 on: June 21, 2010, 01:40:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
    It must be remembered that Siri signed all the documents
    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....
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16