Talk:Lucian Pulvermacher

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Benedict XVI. is not a claimant to the Papal See

message: 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)
thread_title: Evidence

message: 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)
thread_title: This is not noteworthy material

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yes it is. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Text additions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nominate for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Broken Link to Website

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links chaos 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deceased? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  By the Numbers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some sources say one and some say the other. Which is right? SJK (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Elected "Pope" in 1994 or 1998? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "antipope" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion