Wow! The nut has his own website, so it must be true! Right, Vlad?
If the nut is "Pope" Peter III, who was "Pope" Peter II?
Where's that "apostolic succession" that other antipopes have claimed to have had?
“Wow! The nut has his own website, so it must be true! Right, Vlad?”
Apparently you think you’re mocking me. You’re only embarrassing yourself. Remember, since it’s his website, I am right. He only needs to claim to be pope to be an anti-pope since he isn’t the actual pope. He does claim it, therefore I am right. This is called logic. That’s a logical argument. You know, the thing you can’t make or do.
“If the nut is “Pope” Peter III, who was “Pope” Peter II?”
Are you serious? He was the previous anti-pope (Manuel Alonso Corral). See how simple that is?
“Where’s that “apostolic succession” that other antipopes have claimed to have had?”
They are Thuc line bishops. Let me guess you’re completely ignorant of what that means too, right? Here, let me teach you again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng%C3%B4_%C4%90%C3%ACnh_Th%E1%BB%A5c#Consecrations_of_bishops_and_declaration_of_sedevacantism
In other words, although the Catholic Church rightfully believes the Palmarians to be schismatic and heretical, she does not deny that their episcopal orders are valid. Why? Because they came from a validly consecrated Catholic bishop.