Author Topic: Paul VI the only anti-pope? (Read 4391 times)

Belloc · « **Reply #30 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?

Belloc · « **Reply #31 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

Belloc · « **Reply #32 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?

Alexandria · « **Reply #33 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.

Belloc · « **Reply #34 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!

Alexandria · « **Reply #35 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.

Belloc · « **Reply #36 on:** June 21, 2010, 02:09:02 PM »

weak administrator and vacilator..

roscoe · « **Reply #37 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.

roscoe · « **Reply #38 on:** June 22, 2010, 03:28:55 PM »

The Forum is still waiting for a response to the above.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #39 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.

roscoe · « **Reply #40 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.

Jamie · « **Reply #41 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)?

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #42 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.

roscoe · « **Reply #43 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.

Jamie · « **Reply #44 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.