Alternatives to "Pope Francis" other than "Benedict XVI" (quora)

Q

Is there 3 popes in Catholic church at present?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-3-popes-in-Catholic-church-at-present/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Updated Nov 30

More. Or less, depending on where you consider limits of the Catholic Church to be.

• What Trads often refer to as “Vatican II Sect” has a Pope Emeritus and a Pope, namely Benedict XVI and Francis.
• Vatican in Exile has a Pope, Michael.
• Iglesia Católica Rimanente has a Pope, Alexander IX.
• Palmarian Church presumably has a Pope, while a splinter group of it has not, Joseph Odermatt, known by his religious name as Eliseo María and by his papal name as Peter III, is the current Palmarian Catholic Church pope.[2][a] Odermatt succeeded Ginés Jesús Hernández (Pope Gregory XVIII) after Hernández fell in love, lost his faith, resigned, and left the church.
• Joseph Odermatt - Wikipedia
• I don’t know if there is still the splinter group, or if it occurred precisely under Peter III, it would be considering one of these Popes, having changed the Bible, as an Antipope, and therefore do not recognise him.
• Apostles of Infinite Love had John Gregory XVII up to 2011 (he took over the Papal claim with violent means in 1968, and so I am not sure if his Apostles of Infinite Love is really that of the first one, who rejected Pius XII and died in 1974). I don’t know if John Gregory has any successor.

And obviously, the Trads not into Vatican in Exile etc are divided on whether :

• Popes of the Vatican II sect are true popes up to and including “Francis” and should be obeyed when one is certain they mean business, but ignored when one hopes they are babbling
• or should be ignored when one considers them as victims of Modernism and Vatican II but obeyed when they seem to agree with Catholicism, as traditionally understood (like Benedict XVI promoting Trads in 2007)
• or Benedict XVI is still true Pope, if his resignation was not valid
• or there is currently no Pope at all.

Now, the thing is, what I would myself consider as Vatican II sect has not generally proclaimed that the other groups as outlined are all non-Catholic Christians or near-Christians or even ex-Christians, like Orthodox, or Protestants or Mormons or JW, they have generally considered this as “an internal disciplinary problem” (and therefore in no case an Ecumenic one).

So, on this view there are presumably at least 5 Popes (one real, one emeritus-real, three fake) within the Church.

The other groups would generally exclude Vatican II sect, at least major accomplices to modernism, and each other from being considered as “in the Church” so on this view, fewer.

Update: I have now heard of yet another claim:

Shawn Weiler's answer to Is Francis an anti-pope?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Francis-an-anti-pope/answer/Shawn-Weiler

[posted the update also under each comment in answer by others, on Nov 30]

Brian Bergström

Nov 21

Thank you for answering, I had no idea there were all of these alternate “popes.” I myself am in he 5d category, I do not believe there is any valid pope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nov 22

I have been there too.

Would you like checking out Pope Michael a bit? I sometimes have misgivings.

Linda Cook

Nov 22

Wow! I knew there was controversy, but had no idea there was that much of it, or that many claims on the Chair of Peter!

Ileana O'Brien

Nov 21

I’m fairly sure the only people who consider “pope” Michael to be a pope are his family. I’m also fairly sure that he was ‘ordained’ in a non-catholic Church, possibly episcopalian? I don’t think he counts, somehow.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nov 21

• No. I have heard the stats of 30 and he is holding a seminary.
• No, again, his ordination is first of all not relevant to his election and its validity, and it was not from someone as obviously invalid as an Anglican or Lutheran or Methodist “bishop” - the episcopal line seems to be to Duarte Costa, a bishop who broke with Pius XII in 1950 (same year as Clement XV did that, btw).
• Well, if his baptism and first communion count, it counts whether he is validly claiming papacy or if he is in mortal sin, and same for those adhering to him.

Q

Why was Lucian Pulvermacher elected Pope Pius XIII in Montana in October 1998?
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Lucian-Pulvermacher-elected-Pope-Pius-XIII-in-Montana-in-October-1998/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Converted to Roman Catholic Church, Novus Ordo version, then to Trad.

Answered just now

Two reasons why the e-conclave was held:

• a) he considered the papal line of “John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II” (not yet any “BXVI” or “F” in sight) as invalid, due to heresy;
• b) he considered rival and earlier claims to get a real Catholic Pope as invalid in form, taking from David Bawden / Theresa Benns “Will the Catholic Church Survive the XXth Century” the reasons for rejecting the Siri claim, the Colinist claim, the Palmarian claim, and adding a reason of his own to reject the claim of David Bawden to have been elected in 1990 - Pope Michael, whom I accept - and to reject the claim of Victor von Prentz - “Linus II” who was rude to me over not accepting him.

One reason why he who organised this conclave got elected himself, same as with Pope Michael and Victor von Prentz before him: too few came for there to be any rival claimant to papacy present.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Lucian Pulvermacher - RIP!

(He died in 2009)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I just saw that the word “conclavist” is misused to cover any papal election except on the modernist line.

Manuel Corral - Wikipedia :

Manuel Alonso Corral (1934 – 15 July 2011), known by his supporters as Pope Peter II, was the leader of the Palmarian Catholic Church, a conclavist group not recognised by the Catholic Church, from 2005 to 2011.

The precise reason why Pope Michael and Lucian Pulvermacher rejected Palmarianism, as already said, is that the papal claim in its origin was not conclavist, but “mysticalist” = depending on a revelation God had elected so and so to Pope from heaven. While Corral / “Pedro dos” was indeed elected in a semblance of conclave, his predecessor Clemente Domínguez y Gómez / “Gregorio diecisiete” (whom I accepted at the time of hearing of Pulvermacher and Pope Michael) accepted as divinely revealed to him that a few hours after “Saint Paul VI, prisoner in the Vatican and Martyr” (as he thereon canonised him) had died, Peter and Paul had made a conclave in heaven to elect him as the one true and dutiful faithful who had truly obeyed Paul VI while he was Pope.

Calling Palmarianism a species of “conclavism” is missing on how conclavism and mysticalism differ on how a true papacy was restored after a hijacked one had been put in place in the geographic site of the historic Vatican.

[I have now corrected the word "conclavist" to "mysticalist", providing same link : mysticalists are listed and named separately under article on conclavism.]

[Other side note : I had left Palmar after 14 months, before Corral took over. Not a general dissatisfaction with mysticalism as such, but a conviction "Gregory XVII" (of Palmar, not Siri, not Colinist usurper) based himself on an untrue private revelation. Antichrist seeing the world from the 4th dimension and the Blessed Virgin from the 8th sounds as if whatever revealed himself or "herself" to Clemente Gominguez y Gomez wanted him to believe there are more than 3 dimensions ...]