The Pope in Red?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheFollower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheFollower

Guest
Hi Everyone,

According to a Protestant friend of mine said this:

“John XXIII through Benedict XVI are anti-popes. Because the white smoke shown then all of sudden. black smoke was shown.”

His claim here is that there is a “pope in exile” who would be the “real Pope”.

How do I disprove this. I cannot seem to find sufficient evidence to convince him.

God bless,
 
Well, you could harass your friend Bob by claiming he’s an anti-Bob. Tell him you found out that really his name isn’t Bob, because the computer at the hospital made a mistake on his birth certificate at first, and really his name is Vob. And you know this from a really really reliable source that you can’t divulge.

But yeah, that would be wrong. Funny, but wrong. 🙂

If your friend were really interested in papal history, he’d be reading real history books. Your friend is either a conspiracy nut, or he’s anti-Catholic. If you think he’s just been badly taught, buy him a papal history book. If not, I suspect you’ll start hearing about UFOs and lizard-men next.
 
Mintaka said:
Well, you could harass your friend Bob by claiming he’s an anti-Bob. Tell him you found out that really his name isn’t Bob, because the computer at the hospital made a mistake on his birth certificate at first, and really his name is Vob. And you know this from a really really reliable source that you can’t divulge.

But yeah, that would be wrong. Funny, but wrong. 🙂

If your friend were really interested in papal history, he’d be reading real history books. Your friend is either a conspiracy nut, or he’s anti-Catholic. If you think he’s just been badly taught, buy him a papal history book. If not, I suspect you’ll start hearing about UFOs and lizard-men next.
Click to expand...
I had a crack at this but you got a valid point 😃
 
He is referring to the claim that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope, and that John XXIII replaced him at the conclave through corruption
 
TheFollower said:
Hi Everyone,

According to a Protestant friend of mine said this:

“John XXIII through Benedict XVI are anti-popes. Because the white smoke shown then all of sudden. black smoke was shown.”

His claim here is that there is a “pope in exile” who would be the “real Pope”.

How do I disprove this. I cannot seem to find sufficient evidence to convince him.

God bless,
Click to expand...
I would ask your friend to show you the proof of his claim. Since he is making the claim he bears the burden of proof. So until you see proof from a reputable source don’t believe his claims just because he says it.
 
If Siri was elected, it would seem that at least one Cardinal at the Conclave would set the record straight. None have, so there is no reason to believe it.
 
themonk86 said:
I would ask your friend to show you the proof of his claim. Since he is making the claim he bears the burden of proof. So until you see proof from a reputable source don’t believe his claims just because he says it.
Click to expand...
This is true.👍
 
Mintaka said:
Well, you could harass your friend Bob by claiming he’s an anti-Bob. Tell him you found out that really his name isn’t Bob, because the computer at the hospital made a mistake on his birth certificate at first, and really his name is Vob. And you know this from a really really reliable source that you can’t divulge.

But yeah, that would be wrong. Funny, but wrong. 🙂

If your friend were really interested in papal history, he’d be reading real history books. Your friend is either a conspiracy nut, or he’s anti-Catholic. If you think he’s just been badly taught, buy him a papal history book. If not, I suspect you’ll start hearing about UFOs and lizard-men next.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
I remember reading an article by some sedevacantist priest who finally was able to meet “Pope” Siri and asked him about the cover-up, to which Cardinal Siri seemed just confused about what he was talking about, and past the poor priest by…
 
Just give him a roll of foil to make hats for when the visitors come, and move on.
 
I really hate this whole conspiracy about that.

Tell him it’s not true, and ask why’s he reading things like that.
 
I’m kinda interested in this one topic too, I’m talking to a traditionalist gentleman who made the same claim, although I don’t see why the protestant would care whether Benedict XVI is pope or there’s an antipope, its really insignificant to a protestants theology isn’t it?
 
does anybody know of any research or stories from former sedevacantists? It always helps to get a look at it from someone who was in said group
 
TheFollower said:
Hi Everyone,

According to a Protestant friend of mine said this:

“John XXIII through Benedict XVI are anti-popes. Because the white smoke shown then all of sudden. black smoke was shown.”

His claim here is that there is a “pope in exile” who would be the “real Pope”.

How do I disprove this. I cannot seem to find sufficient evidence to convince him.

God bless,
Click to expand...
He’s Protestant, why would you want to? There are a gabillion sedevacantist sites feeding his misconception, you can’t fight that.

I’d have trouble keeping a straight face, myself, but try and change his mind? Waste o’ time.
 
TheFollower said:
Hi Everyone,

According to a Protestant friend of mine said this:

“John XXIII through Benedict XVI are anti-popes. Because the white smoke shown then all of sudden. black smoke was shown.”

His claim here is that there is a “pope in exile” who would be the “real Pope”.

How do I disprove this. I cannot seem to find sufficient evidence to convince him.

God bless,
Click to expand...
Umm… there’s nothing to disprove. that idea is simply a joke.
 
I’ve debated lots of sedevacantists and their claims can’t be strictly proved, but they do weaken the Catholic argument that everything’s clear once you leave Protestantism for the RCC
 
superamazingman said:
Umm… there’s nothing to disprove. that idea is simply a joke.
Click to expand...
Well, John XXIII did have Masonic connections, but there is not enough evidence to anything conclusive. I remember reading of a Pope in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia who’s election was supported by heretics because they thought he would espouse their cause as Pope, but he failed to do so, Pope though he became.

There is some picture of John XXIII unusually kneeling before and receiving his episcopal hat from a non-Catholic socialist. Weird. Maybe they were just fooling around. John XXIII was a character, but you simply can’t prove he was a heretic
 
TheFollower said:
Hi Everyone,

According to a Protestant friend of mine said this:

“John XXIII through Benedict XVI are anti-popes. Because the white smoke shown then all of sudden. black smoke was shown.”

His claim here is that there is a “pope in exile” who would be the “real Pope”.

How do I disprove this. I cannot seem to find sufficient evidence to convince him.

God bless,
Click to expand...
Crackpot theory; disregard. He’s looking for attention - don’t reward his efforts.
 
This is so silly. There isn’t anything to “disprove” because nothing has been proven. Let’s imagine this conversation:

“The sky is purple.”

“No, it’s blue.”

“Oh yeah? Disprove that it’s purple!”

:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top