Talk:Lucian Pulvermacher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

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)

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

Contents 1 Earl Pulvermacher 2 Style and Title 3 Illicit = displeasing 4 Benedict XVI. is not a claimant to the Papal See 5 OFM CAP 6 Evidence 7 "Sedevacantism"

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Sedevacantism"

I removed any statement or caption referring to Pulvermacher as a "sedevacantist", because such a term would be technically incorrect in this case. Sedevacantists claim (rightly, if I may add) that the See of St. Peter is vacant. Pulvermacher and his followers are not sedevacantists as they believe he is the occupant of the See of St. Peter, and should therefore be referred to as "conclavists."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.220.246.20 (talk • contribs).

Wrong. In this context it refers to fringe groups who claim that the See of Peter is vacant (ludicrously, in the view of most people on the planet) and therefore that they can elect their own. Conclavists refer to those trying to arrange a "conclave" of sedevacantists to "elect" an agreed "pope". I have reverted the changes. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While I still disagree, I won't revert your changes. Sedevacantism comes from "sede" and "vacant", meaning the "chair is empty" (as you know). Antipope Pulvermacher could not be considered a sedevacantist because right now he believes the See of St. Peter is occupied. "Ludicrously, in the view of most people on the planet"? Since when has popular vote ever determinted the truth of an idea?

Please sign your posts, as it makes a conversation easier. Do you have a reference or two that Pulvermacher and his followers do not consider themselves sedevacantists? If so, that should be presented in the article. Jonathunder 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on sedevacantism says in its opening: "Sedevacantist should be applied only to those who believe that there is at present no reigning pope, but it is frequently used to include groups, known as conclavists, who have attempted to elect popes (or antipopes) of their own. By definition, sedevacantists oppose conclavism." Perhaps someone should look into correcting the contradiction that exists between the article on Pulvermacher and the one on sedevacantism. "Cardinal" Gordon Bateman said this in reference to apostolicity on Pulvermacher's website (May 1999): "This does not apply to those who are not Catholic as with clerics of Vatican II, nor do they apply to those other Traditional or sedevacantist sects that propagate the false theories of the acephalous heresy or that the church does NOT need a pope as does Briton’s Library. - "Cardinal" Bateman

- Adam

I wonder does Mrs Bateman agree? lol But then there isn't a Mrs Bateman anymore. She divorced him when he "came out" as a "cardinal". Small wonder!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, these people are quite funny. Well this quote, taken from Pulvermacher's website, just shows that "Pius XIII" doesn't consider himself a sedevacantist. I think that my original modifications to the article should be permanent. Unless someone objects, I will do that soon. - Adam