Talk:Lucian Pulvermacher

Untitled

What does OFM Cap mean? -- Zoe

It simply indicates his religious order. Different orders use different initials after their name. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:53 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

OFM Cap means he belongs to the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, which is a community of catholic men following the Franciscan tradition.--Kjrjr (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The "After leaving Australia" paragraph falls into incoherence and/or hard-to-decipher insider references about halfway through. Could someone who knows the facts edit it to give a clear, streamlined summary of what groups Pulvermacher was involved with after SSPX? -- JMO

Earl Pulvermacher

shouldn't this article be called Earl Pulvermacher? According to his website, that is his name. [1] Kingturtle 08:25, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's the name he was born with, not the name he's using now. Daniel Quinlan 08:57, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

"Lucian" means "light", and not "Light the Way," as claimed in the article. I've therefore deleted the bogus meaning. WilliamBarrett 11:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Death of brother - I updated this yesterday after reading of his brother's death at http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm . Someone felt the need to remove this. Why?

Style and Title

Two questions: First off, should this title have the His Holiness title, in accord with other living popes (both the Catholic and the Coptic popes do). Secondly, shouldn't this page be Pope Pius XIII, rather than Luvican Pulvermacher? All the other papal pages are listed under their papal name (Benedict XVI for instance, or John Paul II). Just because most people do not see him as pope does not mean he has not assumed the title and style for his group. I personally would like to NOT include the style, and instead simply remove styles from all other articles with them, because it is more neutral (and more encylopedic). However, my points stands regarding whether this page should be renamed and Lucian Pulvermacher should be a redirect to Pius XIII and the article should be moved there. Titanium Dragon 01:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With respect, it sounds as though you're discussing this to make a point. The reason Benedict XVI is styled his holiness is because it's an *official* title, courtesy of his being the *official* pope. I can call myself Pope Hilarius II if I want, but I don't get an automatic entitlement to an official style. That's the nature of styles such as this: not an actual indication of majesty, or holiness, or serenity, or whatever, but a marker of official position. Slac speak up! 01:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What makes his position "official"? If a religious group (such as the true Catholic Church) declares him to be THEIR leader (as they have) and THEIR pope, then he IS their pope, officially. They are a breakoff group of the Catholic Church. He has several hundred people (at least) supporting him in this, so it is "official" as far as it goes. Just because you disagree with them does not make it any less valid. I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I'm doing it because it IS the NPOV thing to do. We at Wikipedia are to take a neutral point of view; currently it is biased. Do the vast majority of Catholics support him as pope? Of course not! But they don't support the Coptic Pope either, and he's called "His Holiness" too. Titanium Dragon 21:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is already trod ground, but with all due respect you're missing the point: Pulvermacher is a pretender to the Papal see, not a legitimate Pope. The article should remain linked to his legal name, and the style should be omitted. The Coptic Pope is legitimately the head of the Coptic Church, also, so his position is in no way comparable to Pulvermacher's. Iceberg3k 04:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. Lucian does not claim to be the head of the true Catholic Church. He claims to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church, being its pope. Clearly he isn't, as less than 0.00000001% of Catholics accept his claim. The 'true Catholic Church' is just his personal organisation promoting his claim to be Roman Catholic pope. If he claimed simply to be head of his own organisation, then one could justify calling him His Holiness Pope Pius XIII. But he claims to be something he patiently obviously isn't, head of the Roman Catholic Church. He has no right to have his claim acknowledged by the style and title of a Roman Catholic pope any more than I if declared I was the real King of Sweden I would have a right to have an article on me referring to me as His Majesty the King of Sweden. FearÉIREANN 21:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, assuming he has only 1000 followers that'd be about .000001%; he'd have to have 10 followers to have less than 0.00000001%. In any event, I'm fairly certain that most people would say he is in fact a breakoff of the Catholic Church. After all, we recognize the Coptic Pope as "His holiness", and I'm fairly certain most Catholics don't think of him as Pope either. A number of groups claim that they are the "true form" of Christianity; because Catholics are the most numerous, does that make all the other Christians not really Christians?

If you could find yourself 1000 people who refer to you as "His majesty the King of Sweden" and you were important enough to mention, we might have to mention your style (and mention how you are not, in fact, generally regarded as the actual King of Sweeden in the article).

If Joshua A. Norton was still alive, would you give him his style? Titanium Dragon 22:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually read anything about the tCC or Pulvermacher? If you did you would know that he does not see himself as pope of another Catholic Church but the Roman Catholic Church. That is why he insists that he is the 261st pope, the successor of Pius XII, not the first ever pope of an new church. His support his so minuscule his installation was attended by 28 people. Benedict XVI's installation was attended by 300,000. So by no wild stretch of the imagination is he really the pope. And as he isn't the pope of the Roman Catholic Church, which he claimed, he obviously can't be called pope. It is that simple. Your argument here as elsewhere is patiently absurd. FearÉIREANN 22:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you wouldn't give Emperor Norton his honorific? Thousands of people used his style, and the police of San Francisco supposedly saluted him. Despite the fact that it is absurd to claim that he was the true Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, the fact of the matter is that many people honored him (or perhaps humored him) as such. As I pointed out, there have been many people who claim to be "true Christians" or "the heir of Saint Peter", and it would not be proper for us to deny someone their style as such as long as a reasonable number of people recognize him as such. I would estimate a thousand or so people see Lucian as Pope; if he was more irrelevant than that I wouldn't see us writing an article about him. Titanium Dragon 23:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's frankly mind-boggling that the inheritor of a millenia-old tradition and **acknowledged** leader of millions upon millions of people could be associated with a tinpot historical curiosity. The whole point of the style, I reitirate, is his official status. Norton was *never* officially Emperor of America; he was never accredited officially as such. Cf. Benedict XVI accredited as legitimate by nary every government on the planet; a global celebrity with acknowledged authority over the lives of countless numbers of people. As soon as Lucian Pulvermacher reaches a level of authority that's comparable to Benedict XVI, then it would make sense (and be NPOV) to mention that he's a potential legitimate pope. As it is, Pulvermacher is just as much as a crackpot as Norton and it stretches credulity just as much that to claim that San Fransisco policemen giving salutes to a madman could be cited as actual deference to authority over an entire continent. Slac speak up! 00:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Coptic Pope does not have one billion followers, but he is "His Holiness". As is the Dalai Lama. The Prince of Monaco even has a style, despite the fact that he runs a country of 5000 people. Should he be denied his style due to his tiny country? Heck, the Pope rules a country of -100- people. There are many ways of arguing it. What about Kim Jong-il? Tons of people hate him, but he's got a massive cult of personality in North Korea. What about people who claim to be the messiah, and have large cults of personality? Most people in the world do NOT accord them that style, but some people DO. It isn't NPOV to really deny them that.

You are overreacting and not seeing your own bias. There are tons of antipopes right now (well, something like 3), some more popular than Pulvermacher. It is hard to claim to be NPOV when according a style. Consider that many Americans believe that the Pope is the Antichrist or a minion of Satan. Calling Benedict XVI "his holiness" is blasphemy to them. Titanium Dragon 10:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I come off as blunt, but I believe you're still missing Jtdirl's point above. The actual authority that Pulvermacher claims is not over a bunch of crackpots in Montana, but over the entire edifice of the Catholic church, authority that, on quite objective and reasonable construals, he does not possess. To state it as being otherwise would be a mischaracterisation of the status quo. In general, broad, mainstream opinion, Kim Jong-Il is in fact the ruler of North Korea, Tenzin Gyatso is in fact the Dalai Lama, and Lucian Pulvermacher is in fact not leader of the Catholic Church.

As for whether any particular individual should receive a style (of "messiah" or whatever), if it is a matter of general custom and current practice that a person be styled a particular way, and if that custom and practice is accepted and followed by external authorities (for example, a number of different national governments, world authorities, or independent media outlets), then, yes, they should receive that style. Slac speak up! 12:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, if Pulvermacher changed his mind and admitted that he was the leader of a bunch of crackpots in Montana (which he perhaps does, although he thinks those crackpots are the entire edifice of the Catholic Church), then he would become His Holiness the Pope? - Nat Krause 13:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. He would have whatever style his ragbag of nutters would decide was appropriate to his office. If they decided the style of His Holiness was appropriate to the pope of the true Catholic Church, then he would have it. But there is as much chance of that happening as I becoming the next Ms World, marrying George Bush and adopting Brittany Spears as a son. His dilusion is that he is the pope, and he is no more the pope than I am Muhammad Ali. FearÉIREANN 05:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I am a Catholic um... the ones who follow Benedict XVI not this guy, but I have no problem with the title "Holiness" if that is what his followers call him. A previous poster pointed out that the Coptic Pope uses the title, which is very true. He doesn't claim to be the valid Bishop of Rome it should be pointed out however, the faithful of the Coptic Church have always refered to the Patriarch of Alexandria as "Pope". Also note that other non-christian religious leaders use the title "His Holiness". The most prevelent one that comes to mind is the Dali Lama. Therefore if the title acurately describes how his people refer to him, let it stand.--Kjrjr (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Illicit = displeasing

According to the theology of the Catholic Church, an act which is illicit is an act which is performed with incorrect intentions (such as the intention of glorifying the man performing the act, rather than glorifying God). These acts, by Catholic theology, are displeasing to God, regardless of whether they bring about the desired end. -- Iceberg3k 17:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Related to Illicit is also illegal. There is a catch phrase in Canon Law: Valid and licet, the Holy Spirit is Happy. Illicit, the Holy Spirit is there, but pissed about it. Invalid, no one came to the party. Illicit only means not in accord with the legal norm, but does nto necessarily made a judgement about the validity of the act. Dave Dec 8, 2005.

Benedict XVI. is not a claimant to the Papal See

I removed the following part of the See also section: ...the claimants to the Papal See generally held to be valid by the world during Lucian Pulvermacher's "reign".' I am happy to restore this part in case Elizabeth II. is referred to as claimant to the British crown (as some Jacobites may think) gugganij 19:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

OFM CAP

These are the religous community initials that he used to belong to. OFM is Order of Friars Minor and CAP is Capuchians. It is one of the family of Fransican priests.

Dave

Evidence

It has not been possible to find independent sources confirming Pulvermacher's death. The edits may be correct, or they may be fiction. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not noteworthy material

I had an election last night. I was elected pope by three handicapped children, a pair of hookers, and a stray cat. Given that I have been properly elected by my cardinals, I demand that I be referred to as Pope Jackassius I. I also demand a place on Wikipedia as a noteworthy antipope. Or, we could agree that anyone not head of the Vatican doesn't count as Pope, and delete this crap. Jboyler 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL. post it, I look forward to reading it Your Holiness.--Kjrjr (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is.

Anti-popes are a fascinating topic to many people, who nevertheless disclaim the validity of Lucian Pulvermacher's claim to the See of Peter, and the claims of a dozen or more people world-wide who live in what many believe to be a "make believe world" inside their heads, in which they are popes, elected by a group of laity, and who in some manner, consecrate themselves as Catholic Priests and Bishops without valid means of doing so. Wpostma 17:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)wpostma

Lucian was validly ordained way back when, but he obviously has gone astray.

John Paul Parks (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)John Paul ParksJohn Paul Parks (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ironic quote marks

I don't follow this guy but the W'pedia article on the church of England doesn't put all that non-church's claims in ironic inverted commas.

Coat of Arms

File:Piusxiii1.jpg

This image was uploaded in 2003 with a claim to be Pope Pius XIII's coat of arms. ~ BigrTex 00:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Text additions

I added texts and quotations, to make this article more complete. A short summary of his theology (encyclicals, messages, speeches from his home page) would be nice.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So it turns out that almost all of the links from his home page are dead, which kind of makes that difficult. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion

Given that Pulvermacher's website is no longer active, any verification of the so-called "facts" in this article is virtually impossible. It now falls entirely in the class of rumor and innuendo. This is not the type of article that belongs in Wikipedia.

Further, the photos in this article were all taken from his website; thus, they're all copyrighted. So I'm removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.154.43 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be deleted or else significantly reworked. Lucian Pulvermacher is nothing but a delusional nut case who dresses up in fancy clothes and pretends that he is pope. His obvious mental illness should not be glorified in this manner.

John Paul Parks (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article still up and not deleted? 50.107.148.21 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Prior Website

There is a prior website which is truecatholic.us. The website is working as of today. Therefore, Pius XIII is still in the realm of verified third party material and should not be deleted.

Jhesscpa (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Info on Pulvermacher is verifiable, not verified.

Broken Link to Website

Since the link to truecatholic.org no loger works, I replaced with link to the Wayback Machine, where a lot of the website is preserved. I think it's important to preserve this page about Pulvermarcher in the Wikipedia.

UtahSurfer (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I've requested semiprotection, since this page has been vandalized numerous times the past few days. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

COLBERT NATION~! AndarielHalo (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

External links chaos

A letter from "Pope Pius XIII" is still alive, the rest seems to point either to irrelevantia or to dead sites. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems Pulvermacher is deceased acc2 this site (poss speculation), and that his successor is pope Michael. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Deceased?

Is there something more official confirming Pulvermacher's death than the two blogs cited? I think it especially strange that the official site of his "True Catholic Church" doesn't mention it yet. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, after reading the post by Br. Vito Martinez OFMCap wholly, I now think that this one and the other blog by a Franciscan are probably good enough for the time being; everything seems to indicate that the news is genuine. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I located an in memoriam site- Earl Pulvermacher was buried on December 7, 2009 in Washington State-I am a little surprise that the various Catholic news services did not pick up in this-any way I added the citation to the article itself-Thanks-RFD (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By the Numbers

I checked out Pius XIII's web site during its availability a few years ago. It was rather amusing to read between the lines. You wouldn't find any provable violations of Commandment Number VIII (that's IX to you Protestants), just some angels-merely-treading.

There were numerous things that could not be revealed for reasons of security, we were told, such as exactly where he resided while waiting to be enthroned in Rome. It was only vaguely placed as somewhere in the American northwest.

We were also told that he had been elected by an electorate of traditionalist Catholics who had been recruited and certified for this purpose, and that many nations and five continents (or maybe six) were represented. (I suppose that this establishes the minimum number of electors at five or six, if you want to be really cynical.) They voted via telephone or e-mail, by the way. However exalted the task, they couldn't be required to show up in one place. Not surprisingly, the number of electors could not be revealed at the web site, presumably due to the security concerns. He did, however, receive the required two-thirds plus one number of votes required for election, they say.

Obviously, they did not want to talk about the number of electors, as too small a figure would reflect badly upon their claim for acceptance. Now, "two thirds plus one" could mean five votes from seven voters as easily as it could mean 6,666,668 out of ten million. Without being cynical in the least, I'd have to guess that the truth is far closer to the former number than to the latter.

One more piece of information would help. Oh yes, there was one boast that, without getting into actual numbers (their words were something close to that), he had received more votes than did Pius XII did at that man's election.

Now, since the popes who followed Pius XII are regarded by this faction as being illegitimate pretenders, I should think that they'd let us know had their man bested the vote totals of these interloping bounders. However, they do not make any such claim. We must assume that they couldn't make that claim.

Let's look at the likely vote totals in the Papal Conclaves. I'll use the number of electors as given in the various Wikipedia articles. The winner's vote total is not known officially, but only through hearsay. However, it must be two-thirds-plus-one (compute 2/3, round up, add one) at minimum, and unanimous-less-one (they won't vote for themselves) at maximum.

Conclave	Elected	Cardinal Electors	(2/3) + 1 figure (minimum)	"Unanimous" figure (maximum)
1939	Pius XII	62	43	61
1958	John XXIII	51	35	50
1963	Paul VI	80	55	79
1978(1)	John Paul I	111	75	110
1978(2)	John Paul II	111	75	110

I'm quite sure that if Pulvermacher had received 111 votes, they'd tell us that he had definitely received more support from his electorate that either of the John Pauls had garnered from their covey of Cardinals. They might have made such a boast even with 76 votes in pocket. But they didn't.

"More votes than Pius XII" could be as few as 44 or as many as 62. But had they 80 votes on record, then surely they'd have added that their man outpolled, after a fashion, John XXIII and Paul VI as well.

So, I'm guessing that Pulvermacher had the support of between 44 and 79 voters. Applying the two-thirds-plus-one formula backwards with a little algebra, we'd thus be able to place his electorate at between 64 and 117 people. With at least one from Europe, one from Asia, one from South America and so on, remember. (I can't recall if they claimed six continents or just five.) I won't suggest that it involved 59 to 112 Americans plus those others.

But I wouldn't rule that out, not exactly.

I'm just having fun with the numbers. I don't propose to question the man's theology. Maybe he didn't exactly set the world on fire, but he may have sincerely tried to make his part of it a better place. We should ask no more of him. WHPratt (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucian Pulvermacher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.truecatholic.us/pope/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lucian Pulvermacher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040406.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.truecatholic.us/pope/biography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927105506/http://www.truecatholic.us/ to http://www.truecarpentry.org/tccwww/cathwww/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Elected "Pope" in 1994 or 1998?

Some sources say one and some say the other. Which is right? SJK (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• His movement used the 1998 date on its website, so that is probably trustworthy data. I'm revising the article accordingly. --Bistropha (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It may have taken four years to count the votes. Last time I checked, his followers were still trying to get it together to elect a successor. WHPratt (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"antipope"

the linked Wikipedia article on 'antipope' says he makes a significant effort to occupy the see of Rome and is supported by important sectors. Pius XIII was not significant and was not supported by anyone except a few friends. He was not an antipope. --142.163.195.253 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lucian Pulvermacher (Pius XIII).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)