ANTIPAPA. — He is one who, having been elevated to the Papacy in a non-canonical manner, claims for himself its dignity and authority. He is therefore a usurper (at times in good faith) who, arrogating to himself a power he does not possess and being deprived of a legitimate mission for the governance of the Church, creates within it not only an electoral division but, in the event of obstinacy, a true schism among the faithful.
The word a. entered common usage in the last centuries of the Middle Ages (cf. G. Villani, Nuova Cronica, IV, 18, 21, 26; X, 73, in Rerum Ital. Scriptores, XIII, 1728, cols. 112, 118, 121, 645; Lettera dei Fiorentini, 22 May 1328: « ipse Bavarus cum ydolo suo [Niccolò V], quod antipapam nominat », in E. Baluze, Vitae Paparum Avenionemium, ed. G. Mollat, II, Paris 1928, p. 201; s. Caterina da Siena, Lett. 310, 317, 322, ed. L. Ferretti, IV, Siena 1927, pp. 376, 437; V, there 1930, p. 15; s. Vincenzo Ferrer, De moderno ecclesiae schismate tractatus, ed. A. Sorbelli, in Atti., R. Dep., di Romagna, Bologna 1905, p. 345; s. Antonino, Chronicorum, part III, tit. xxii, chap. I, ed. Lyon 1486, fol. 390, etc. It is also found in some manuscripts of the Chronicum of Prospero d'Aquitania, but these are marginal annotations in fifteenth-century manuscripts: cf. ed. Th. Mommsen, in MGH, Chronica minora, I, 1892, pages 458, 469). Baluze uses the expression Pseudoantipapa for Niccolò V (cf. ed. cit., I, 1916, p. 143).
The classical word in antiquity and the early Middle Ages for a. and, in general, for an intruder was: Invasor; Invasor Sedis Apostolicae is used by the Liber Pontificalis (cf. ed. Duchesne, I, pp. 465, 471, 472, 475; II, 143, 290; Card. Deusdedit, Contra invasores et symonius et reliquos scismaticus, ed. Sackur, in MGH, Libelli de lite, II, 1892, pp. 300–365). In the Collectio Avellana (ed. O. Günther, in CSEL 35, 1, pp. 59, 80) it is stated that Bonifacio I and Eulalio « episcopatum romanae Urbis contentionis ambitu pervaserunt » and reference is made to the « Eulali usurpatione ». The deacon Giovanni (early sixth century) uses for Lorenzo the expression: Romanae ecclesiae pervasor et schismaticus (cf. A. Thiel, Epistolae Rom. Pont., I, Braunaberg 1868, p. 697). Schismaticus is very frequent, as are Apostaticus and Antichristus (cf. Niccolò II, in Hefele-Leclercq, IV, 2, 1911, p. 1146; s. Bernardo, Lett. 124, 126, 127, I, ed. Venice 1726, pp. 129, 133, 138; Libelli de lite, passim, where the expressions antiabbatess and antiepiscopi are found [I, p. 357], but not a.; s. Caterina, Lett. 306, 310, 312, ed. cit., IV, pp. 348, 373, 374; s. Vinc. Ferrer, ed. cit., pp. 345–88, instruction for confessors, p. 432); Intrusus (cf. Martino de Alpartil, Chronica acitatorum temporibus Domini Benedicti XIII, ed. F. Ehrle, Paderborn 1906, passim, who frequently uses the word anticardinales, but not a.; s. Vinc. Ferrer, ed. cit., pp. 340, 388); Contendentes (cf. Acts of the Council of Pisa 1409: Mansi, XXVI, passim); Competitor, Pseudo Papa, Adulterina Papa (cf. Platina, passim, who likewise uses the word anticardinales, but not a.; cf. critical ed., p. 312). From the various authors cited and from many others besides, one could compile a long catalogue of polemical epithets concerning a., but that would be out of place here.
The history of the a. — which is at the same time the very sad history of lay domination over the Church and of the servility or ambition of certain members of the clergy — begins at the start of the third century with s. Ippolito and ends in the middle of the fifteenth century with Felice V.
Today it is very difficult to determine the number of a.; authors in fact give figures ranging from 25 to 40. This is due to the various criteria followed in determining the concept of a. (for example, Protestant historians attach importance to the deposition of a legitimate pope for political reasons, which Catholics reject) and to the paucity, and often also the partiality, of the documents. On the other hand, some elections were so involved and turbulently factional that even contemporaries were not always able to establish the legitimacy of the true Pontiff in relation to his competitor, as occurred, for example, on the occasion of the great Western Schism, with the two obediences—the Avignonese and the Pisan—in opposition to the Roman one, represented by Urbano VI and his successors.
To avoid misunderstandings, in distinguishing between a pope and an a. it is necessary to bear in mind:
1) whether the Apostolic See became vacant through the death or the free resignation of the Pontiff, the only legitimate causes of vacancy;
2) whether the legitimate electors were able freely to discharge their mandate; or whether they themselves subsequently remedied, by a public act, the defects of an election that was non-canonical or at least doubtful, as happened, for example, in the case of Vigilio.
3) whether the canonical norms in force for individual elections were observed. It is in fact well known that the election of the Pontiffs (v. PAPA) passed through successive phases: in antiquity, the rules then current for the election of bishops were followed; the Roman Councils of 498 and 499, under Simmaco (Hefele-Leclercq, II, 2, pp. 947–949, 1349–66; cf. also the Roman Council of 465, ibid., pp. 903–904); of 769, under Stefano III (ibid., III, 2, 1910, pp. 734–35; cf. Constitutio romano of 824: MGH, Capitularia, I, p. 323); of 1059, under Niccolò II (canons 1 and 2: Mansi, XIX, 897; ibid., IV, 2, 1911, pp. 1139–67); of 1179, under Alessandro III (canon 1: ibid., V, 2, 1913, pp. 1087–88); and that of Lyon in 1274, under Gregorio X (canon 2: ibid., VI, 1, 1914, pp. 183–86), introduced clarifications or important modifications.
The same Councils imposed extremely severe penalties upon a. and their supporters (cf., for example, the sanctions of the Roman Synod of 769: Lib. Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, I, p. 476, and the anathemas of 1059, canon 1: « non papa, sed satanas, non apostolicus sed apostaticus ab omnibus habeatur et teneatur »: Mansi, XIX, 897), penalties that in the present CIC are provided for in canon 2314 and in chapter 6 of Pius XII’s Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of 8 December 1945 (AAS, 38 [1946], pp. 94–96).
The first imperial intervention in favor of an a. was that of Costanzo on behalf of Felice II. Such interventions then multiplied under the Teutonic emperors, from Ottone I to Federico Barbarossa. From the a. Costantino (767–68) to the a. Anacleto II (1130–38), the appointment of a. was often due to factions headed by noble Roman families, eager to control the destinies and resources of the temporal dominion, then in the process of formation and consolidation: the nobility (exercitus romanus), the ecclesiastical patrimonial bureaucracy with its agricultural militia (familia s. Petri), and the clergy (venerabilis clerus headed by the proceres Ecclesiae) often found themselves in conflict for this reason.
Bearing in mind the terms of our definition and the principles enumerated, we have attempted to compile a new list of a., divided into three sections: 1) authentic a.; 2) doubtful a.; 3) those improperly called a. The a. are doubtful when there is difficulty in establishing the legitimacy of their election. Those improperly called a. are persons who lack the characteristics listed above and did not cause a true schism; for the most part, they are mere competitors who were overcome or who voluntarily submitted after the election.
Each individual a. will have a separate entry for biographical information. We indicate only the elements that characterize their pseudo-pontificate.
1. — Authentic Antipopes.
1. — S. IPPOLITO, Roman priest, 217–35. — Leader of the party opposed to Callistus on doctrinal grounds; he was reconciled with Ponzianus and died a martyr with him.
2. — NOVATIAN, Roman priest, 251–61.258. — Elected by the followers of Novatus, against Cornelius, initially for personal reasons and later for doctrinal ones.
3. — FELIX II, Roman archdeacon, 355–22 Nov. 365. — Imposed by the emperor Constantius at the time of the exile of Pope Liberius. Confused with the Roman martyr of the same name from the cemetery on the Via Portuensis, commemorated in the Martyr. Hieronymianum on 29 July.
4. — URSINUS, Roman deacon, 366–67 (expelled). — Elected by the supporters of the preceding a. against Damasus; he died after 381.
5. — EULALIUS, Roman archdeacon, 27, consecrated 29 Dec. 418–29 March 419. — Elected by the deacons, while the priests and part of the people were electing Boniface I. He was expelled by force; subsequently, all trace of him was lost.
6. — LAURENCE, Roman archpriest, 498, again 501–507. — Elected by the faction of the patrician Festus against Symmachus.
7. — VIGILIUS, Roman deacon, 29 March–11 Nov. 537, d. 7 June 555. — Had himself elected by Belisarius after the violent deposition of Silverius; he was recognized as the legitimate Pope upon Silverius’s death (11 Nov. 537).
8. — PASCHASIUS, Roman archdeacon, late 687. — Elected, like Theodore, by one of two parties; he refused to resign when Sergius was newly elected (15 Dec. 687) by the majority. Confined in a monastery, he died in obstinacy in 692.
9. — CONSTANTINE, layman, of Nepi, 28 June, consecrated 5 July 767–1 Aug. 768. — Elected by Duke Totone of Nepi and his supporters upon the death of Paul I (28 June). The defect lay in the election and in the candidate’s lay status.
10. — CHRISTOPHER, Roman priest, Oct. 903–Jan. 904. — He imprisoned Leo V and took his place.
11. — LEO VIII, lay protoscriniarius, 4, consecrated 6 Dec. 963–1 March 965. — Elected, although a layman, at the Roman Synod of 4 Dec. 963, after the deposition of John XII, desired by Otto I more for political reasons than out of concern for good morals. John XII died on 14 May 964 and was succeeded by Benedict V (22 May), who was deposed a month later (23 June) by Otto and Leo, who died at Hamburg on 4 July 965 or 966.
12. — BONIFACE VII, Francone, Roman deacon, June–July 974, again Aug. 984–July 985. — With the support of Crescenzius, he first suppressed Benedict VI (June 974), then, after being driven out by the imperial missus Sicco and returning from Constantinople, John XIV (20 Aug. 984).
13. — JOHN XVI, Philagathus, bishop of Piacenza, Apr. 997–Feb. 998. — Raised to the throne by Crescenzius, son of the preceding, against Gregory V; he was subsequently driven out by Otto II. He probably died at Fulda in 1013.
14. — GREGORY, 1012. — Elected by the faction of Crescenzius against Benedict VIII; subsequently, all trace of him was lost.
15. — SILVESTER III, Giovanni, bishop of Sabina, 20 Jan.–10 March 1045. — Elected tumultuously by the Romans, who were in revolt against Benedict IX, who reappeared in Rome the following Apr.
16. — BENEDICT X, Giovanni, bishop of Velletri, 5 Apr. 1058–24 Jan. 1059. — Elected by the Roman nobility, while the clergy responsible for the election, headed by s. Pier Damiani and Hildebrand, elected Nicholas II, enthroned in S. Peter’s on 24 Jan. 1059. Benedict X was deposed at the Synod of Sutri (Jan. 1059).
17. — HONORIUS II, Cadalus, bishop of Parma, 28 Oct. 1061–1072. — Elected at Basel with the support of the regent empress Agnes, against Alexander II. He persisted in the schism until his death (1072).
18. — CLEMENT III, Guibert, archbishop of Ravenna, 25 June 1080, consecrated 24 March 1084–8 Sept. 1100. — Elected at the pseudo-synod of Brixen (25 June 1080) at the behest of Henry IV against Gregory VII.
19. — THEODERIC, bishop of S. Rufina, Sept.–Dec. 1100. — Elected by the supporters of the preceding. In 1101 Paschal II confined him to the abbey of Cava, where he died in 1102.
20. — ALBERT, bishop of Sabina, Feb.–March 1102. — Elected by the supporters of Guibert. Paschal II confined him to the monastery of S. Andrea of Aversa.
21. — SILVESTER IV, Maginulf, archpriest of S. Angelo, 18 Nov. 1105–12 Apr. 1111. — Elected by the imperial party against Paschal II, to whom, after being abandoned by Henry IV, he submitted obedience in 1111.
22. — GREGORY VIII, Maurice Burdin, archbishop of Braga, 8 March 1118–Apr. 1121. — Imposed by Henry V against Gelasius II. Captured at Sutri in 1121, he died in confinement around 1136.
23. — ANACLETUS II, Pietro Pierleoni, cardinal priest of S. Maria in Trastevere, 14, consecrated 23 Feb. 1130–25 Jan. 1138. — Elected and supported by the faction of the Pierleoni against Innocent II.
24. — VICTOR IV, Gregory, cardinal priest of SS. Apostoli, 15 March–29 May 1138. — Elected by the faction of the Pierleoni; but he submitted obedience to Innocent II in the following May.
25. — VICTOR IV (V), Ottaviano da Montecelio (Tivoli), cardinal priest of S. Cecilia, 7 Sept., consecrated 4 Oct. 1159–20 Apr. 1164. — He proclaimed himself elected and was supported by the party of the emperor Frederick Barbarossa against Alexander III.
26. — PASCHAL III, card. Guido da Crema, 22, consecrated 26 Apr. 1164–20 Sept. 1168. — Elected by the imperial party upon the death of Victor IV.
27. — CALLISTUS III, Giovanni, abbot of Strumi, Sept. 1168–29 Aug. 1178. — Elected by the imperial party upon the death of Paschal III, he submitted to Alexander III on 29 Aug. 1178.
28. — INNOCENT III, Lando da Sezze, 29 Sept. 1179–Jan. 1180. — Elected by the imperial party; captured and confined in the monastery of Cava.
29. — NICHOLAS V, Pietro Rainallucci da Corvaro (Rieti), 12, consecrated 22 May 1328–25 Aug. 1330. — Had himself elected by Louis the Bavarian against John XXII, to whom he subsequently submitted on 25 Aug. 1330.
30. — CLEMENT VII, card. Roberto dei conti di Ginevra, 20 Sept., consecrated 31 Oct. 1378–16 Sept. 1394. — Elected at Fondi by the French cardinals, with the tacit approval of three Italian cardinals, against Urban VI, whose election they challenged as illegitimate. Today it is difficult to doubt its legitimacy if one wishes to take impartial account of all the documentation for and against it, and in particular of the testimonies of s. Caterina da Siena
(especially Lett. 310, 312, 313, 317, ed. cit., vol. IV), of card. Roberto himself and of all the cardinals (letters to the emperor Charles IV, 14 Apr. and 8 May 1378), and of the Avignon cardinals (letter to Urban VI, received in Rome on 24 June 1378: cf. N. Valois, La France et le Grand Schisme d'Occident, I, Paris 1896, pp. 64–65: Pastor, I, pp. 118–58, documents, pp. 799–807). With this election began the most grievous disputes of the Great Western Schism, and the so-called Avignon obedience had its beginning.
31. - BENEDETTO XIII, Cardinal Pietro di Luna, 28 Sept., consecrated 11 Oct. 1394–23 May 1423. - Successor of the preceding one: deposed by the Council of Pisa on 5 June 1409 and by the Council of Constance on 26 July 1417. He continued his resistance by withdrawing to the castle of Peñicola, supported by Alfonso V of Aragon.
32. - ALESSANDRO V, Cardinal Pietro Filargo, 26 June, consecrated 7 July 1409–3 May 1410. - Elected by the Council of Pisa. With him the Pisan obedience began.
33. - GIOVANNI XXIII, Cardinal Baldassarre Cossa, 17, consecrated 25 May 1410–29 May 1415. - Successor of Alessandro V, deposed by the Council of Constance on 29 May 1415.
34. - CLEMENTE VIII, canon prelate of Valencia, Egidio Sanchez Muñoz, 10 June 1423–26 July 1429. - Elected by the cardinals of Benedetto XIII. He submitted to Martino V.
35. - BENEDETTO XIV, a certain Bernardo Garnier of Rodez, apparently, 12 Nov. 1425–1430. - Secretly elected by Cardinal Giovanni Carrier, a follower of Benedetto XIII, in protest against the election of Clemente VIII. This comic election (antipope of the a.) ought not even to be taken into account, except that it represented the final stubborn resistance of the great schism. In the territory of the Count of Armagnac, a supporter of this last a., some fanatics were still awaiting, in the year 1467, the revenge of Benedetto XIV (cf. Pastor, I, p. 253).
36. - FELICE V, Amedeo VIII of Savoy, 5 Nov. 1439, consecrated 24 July 1440–7 Apr. 1449. - Elected by the Council of Basel against Eugenio IV, and deposed by the aforesaid Council. He submitted to Niccolò V, who created him Cardinal Bishop of Sabina; he died on 7 Jan. 1451.
2. - Doubtful antipopes.
1. - ERACLIO, 309 or 310. - This personage, not more precisely identified, is said to have caused a schism in the Roman community, as is shown by the Damasian poem in honor of Pope Eusebio (cf. ed. A. Ferrua, Epigrammata Damasiana, Città del Vaticano 1942, no. 18, p. 131; cf. also the poem in honor of Pope Marcello, no. 40, p. 181).
It is unclear whether his faction elected him in opposition to Pope Eusebio, or whether he remained merely the leader of a party; it is certain, however, that both were sent into exile.
2. - BONIFACIO II, Roman archdeacon, 22 Sept.–14 Oct. 530, died on 17 Oct. 532. - Designated, contrary to the prevailing canonical norms, by Felice IV (III) as his successor and accepted by a minority, while the deacon Alessandrino Dioscoro (22 Sept.–14 Oct. 530) was elected by the majority of the clergy, consisting of 60 priests, the senate, and the people. There are good reasons for upholding the legitimacy of Dioscoro, removed from the scene by death 22 days after the election. Bonifacio was then recognized by everyone as the true pope. Doubts remain concerning the legitimacy of the appointment made by Felice IV, when one considers that Bonifacio himself, after having elected the deacon Vigilio as his successor, felt obliged, in response to the clergy’s objections that this was «contra canones», to rescind his act, publicly burning the document of appointment before the confession of S. Pietro (cf. Lib. Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, I, p. 281).
3. - S. EUGENIO, of the Roman clergy, 10 Aug. 654–16 Sept. 655. - Elected while Martino I was a prisoner in Constantinople. Martino apparently did not protest. He was certainly the legitimate pope upon the death of his predecessor (16 Sept. 655).
4. - SERGIO III, Bishop of Cère (Cerveteri), first months of 904. - Elected in 898 simultaneously with Giovanni IX, who had himself consecrated immediately, thanks to the favor of the Emperor Lamberto, Sergio reappeared at the beginning of Jan. 904 to overthrow the a. Cristoforo; he had himself consecrated on the 29th of the same month, but probably Leone V, imprisoned by Cristoforo, was still alive. In that case, the beginnings of his pontificate would be illegitimate. It should be noted that Sergio regarded his successful competitor Giovanni IX and his successors as a.
5. - GREGORIO VI, Giovanni Graziano, archpriest of S. Giovanni ante Portam Latinam, 5 May 1045–20 Dec. 1046. - Vedi notizia seguente. There are good grounds for considering him the true Pope.
6. - CLEMENTE II, Suitgero of the lords of Morsleben and Hornburg, Bishop of Bamberg, 24, consecrated 25 Dec. 1045–9 Oct. 1047. - Benedetto IX had resigned, apparently freely, in Jan. 1045, securing an annuity for himself (others say that he sold his office) in favor of his godfather, the pious priest Giovanni Graziano, Gregorio VI, who was hailed by S. Pier Damiani himself as the true pope. Enrico III had him deposed (or did he resign? the matter is unclear) at the Council of Sutri (Dec. 1046) and imposed Suitgero, whose legitimate election may be doubted if that of Gregorio VI, certainly not very clear, is admitted.
7. - BENEDETTO IX, Teofilatto of the counts of Tusculum, formerly the true pope but one who had renounced the office, 8 Nov. 1047–17 July 1048. - If the spontaneity of his resignation in favor of Gregorio VI is admitted, his reappearance, on the dates indicated, on the See of Peter must be regarded as illegitimate. Yet throughout this entire sad affair of Benedetto IX, we grope in the darkness.
3. - Improperly so-called antipopes.
1. - DIOSCORO, Alexandrian deacon, 22 Sept.–14 Oct. 530. - There are no grounds for regarding him as an a.; his memory, anathematized by his competitor Bonifacio, was rehabilitated shortly afterward by Agapito I.
2. - PIETRO and TEODORO, Roman archpriest and priest, 2 Aug.–21 Oct. 686. - Competitors in the election following the death of Giovanni V (2 Aug.); the former was elected by the clergy, the latter by the senate, nobility, and army. To put an end to all dispute, the clergy proceeded to an election accepted by everyone, that of Conone (21 Oct.).
3. - TEODORO, again, 21 Sept.–15 Dec. 687. - At the death of Conone (21 Sept. 687), Teodoro, having become archpriest, was again elected together with the archdeacon Pasquale. A new election was held, resulting in the person of Sergio I (15 Dec.). Teodoro did not insist, whereas Pasquale rebelled.
4. - TEOFILATTO, Roman archdeacon, late Apr.–May 757. - The pro-Byzantine party attempted to elect him upon the death of Stefano III (II); but the majority proclaimed Paolo I. The faction was dispersed by force.
5. - FILIPPO, priest of the monastery of S. Vito, 31 July 768. - Elected, during the vacancy of the See, by the priest Valdiparto, envoy of King Desiderio, by the Lombard army, and by some Romans, following the capture of the a. Costantino. That same evening, however, he was honorably escorted back to his monastery and was never mentioned again. Filippo does not possess the characteristics of a true a.
6. - [ZINZINO], Roman priest, Feb. 824. - At the death of Pasquale I (11 Feb. 824), there were two contenders: Zinzino, as Panvinio calls him (cf. Chronicon eccl., p. 72), while the sources remain silent about his name, and Eugenio II; both were elected. After the intervention of the monk Wala, however, Eugenio was recognized by all as pope, and Zinzino was never mentioned again.
7. - GIOVANNI, Roman archdeacon, Jan. 844. - At the death of Gregorio IV (25 Jan. 844), there were again two contenders: Giovanni and Sergio, both elected, but the latter was immediately consecrated. The other was no longer considered.
8. - ANASTASIO, the Librarian, Roman priest deposed in 853, Aug.–Sept. 855. - Since Ludovico II had not recognized the election of Benedetto III, his envoys attempted to impose Anastasio’s renewed candidacy upon the clergy; the clergy did not yield, and Benedetto’s election was reconfirmed. We are therefore faced with an unsuccessful attempt.
9. - CELESTINO II, Tebaldo Buccapecus, 15–16 Dec. 1124. - Regularly elected by the cardinals, while the Frangipani supported Cardinal Lamberto of Fagniano, Bishop of Ostia, and the Pierleoni supported Cardinal Saxo. Tebaldo abdicated, and Cardinal Lamberto, Onorio II, was then elected.
BIBLI: Among the ancient authors we mention only: B. Platina, De vitis Pontificum Romanorum, edition prepared by O. Panvinio, with the addition of a Pontificum Romanorum Chronicon, Louvain 1572 (or the critical edition prepared by G. Gaida, in Rerum Ital. Scriptorum, III, 1, Città di Castello 1913–32); O. Panvinio, Chronicon ecclesiasticum, Louvain 1573; L. A. Anastasio, Istoria degli Antipapi, 2 vols., Naples 1754; G. Moroni, Dis. di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica, V. ANTIPAPA, II, Venice 1840, pp. 181–215. — Our list was compiled from the well-known works of Duchesne, Hergenröther-Kirsch, Hefelle-Lecleren, Caspar, Seppelt, Bertolini, and Brezzi; from the Storia della Chiesa, directed by A. Fliche and V. Martin; and from that formerly directed by Mons. J. P. Kirsch, which deal with the period relevant to the history of the a. We also used: Jaffé-Wattenbach; J. Creusen and F. van Eyen, Tabulae Fontium Traditionis christianae ad an. 1926, 2nd ed., Louvain 1926 (chronology of the pontiffs); H. Grotefend, Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, 6th ed., Hanover 1928, pp. 117–22 (chronology of the pontiffs); A. Amanicu, s. V. ANTIPAPA, in DDC, I, cols. 598–622; the critical chronotaxis of the Holy Pontiffs placed at the beginning of the Annuario Pontificio from 1947, compiled by Mons. A. Mercati.