Not really. A group of friends and family held a conclave in Kansas and elected a pope: pope Michael. He still reigns and runs a "Vatican in exile" website. He claims to be the true pope.

There's a small faction within Catholicism that rejects the legitimacy of John XXIII and, therefore, anything that happened thereafter. They're often called sedevacantists, the term sede vacante referring in Canon Law to a vacant see. The argument is complex, but it can be summarized by something many Catholics learn: anything goes in an emergency. So, since Jesus said he'd be always there, and he needs the pope as his vicar, if we're pope-less and there's no clear way to get one, it must mean a conclave in a shed is legal, valid and binding on the Universal Church. Here's a very well produced documentary by students from Notre Dame on this ecclesiastical curiosity. Enjoy!

http://youtu.be/b96WxyxPfOY

Not hard to see why this exciting news has left so many speechless. Gosh, PasadenaCA, are you okay?

The lack of comment doesn't necessarily mean lack of interest. It was fascinating; I for one just couldn't think of anything to add.

My shortcoming; not that of your post.

Not hard to see why this exciting news has left so many speechless. Gosh, PasadenaCA, are you okay?

The entire thing is quite fascinating. It's a very well produced documentary. The supporting characters: the mother and his two seminarians, are more textured and interesting than most reality TV characters. He needs to speak more Latin if he wants to be a serious subject of ridicule.

I thought it was the Antipope John XXIII, whose deposition by the Council of Constance in 1415 they objected to, not the sweet old man we all knew as John XXIII, but it is the latter whom they considered the real Antipope!

I thought it was the Antipope John XXIII, whose deposition by the Council of Constance in 1415 they objected to, not the sweet old man we all knew as John XXIII, but it is the latter whom they considered the real Antipope!

Nope, it's the real John XXIII. The sedevacantists claim he was a member of the Freemasons; he was, therefore, latae sententiae, excommunicated and ineligible to be elected pope. So, the Council he called was invalid and those who participated were also excommunicated (the domino effect kicks in), so they couldn't elect a pope in a subsequent conclave. And badda-bing-badda-boom, the Holy Spirit descends on Kansas and habaemus papam novam. He wrote a book on the topic, but I culled the details from his website. He was in a bit of a pissing match with Pope Pius XIII in the state of Washington--I think each excommunicated the other--but Pius XIII died a few years ago, so that ended that. I did a search a few years ago and found at least six or seven other people claiming to be the real pope, but I lot track of them. This Bowden guy is the most interesting.

I used to have so much trouble getting reservations at good restaurants in NYC that I thought about changing my middle name to Cardinal, so I could call and say, "Hello, this is Charlie Cardinal PS; I'd like to reserve a table for two for myself and my 'nephew' on Saturday evening." But maybe I should have tried to change my name to "Pope, Charlie."

I'm amazed it's based in freemasonry BS and not the mysterious death of a liberal pope, John Paul I, and his replacement with an opposite, arch-conservative status-quo pope...

I'm amazed it's based in freemasonry BS and not the mysterious death of a liberal pope, John Paul I, and his replacement with an opposite, arch-conservative status-quo pope...

The challenge is that the death of Pope John Paul I occurred after the major events of the Second Vatican Council. This Council is the issue that seems to unite the sedevacantists. Of course there are others, such as the followers of the let Archbishop Lefebvre that just oppose the Council

I was aware of freemasons but never had a strong understanding of what/who they are so hearing that being one led to automatic excommunication was quite interesting. The rather weak and unsubstantiated claim that Pope John XXIII was one comes off, to me at least, as just a pretext for an ultraconservative group to justify their actions. Nevertheless, I did find the documentary quite well done and fascinating to watch. As PasadenaCA indicated, they are much more interesting than most (all?) other reality shows. Thanks for posting and sorry for the delay in responding but I had to find a block of time to watch it uninterrupted.

I was aware of freemasons but never had a strong understanding of what/who they are so hearing that being one led to automatic excommunication was quite interesting. The rather weak and unsubstantiated claim that Pope John XXIII was one comes off, to me at least, as just a pretext for an ultraconservative group to justify their actions. Nevertheless, I did find the documentary quite well done and fascinating to watch. As PasadenaCA indicated, they are much more interesting than most (all?) other reality shows. Thanks for posting and sorry for the delay in responding but I had to find a block of time to watch it uninterrupted.

I have really no idea what, if any, connection he had with the organization. I haven't looked into it. I agree that it was a pretext for action. If they applied the same specious reasoning, they actually have a much stronger and better documented case against the apostle Peter.

Ah, but the start and heart of the whole problem was really of course Paul.

I checked into Pope John XXIII and the allegations, apparently when was in Turkey. There's no evidence--nothing documented--to support the claim. The issue is the Second Vatican Council and the changes it introduced.