ANTIPOPE. – He is one who, elevated to the papacy in a non-canonical manner, arrogates to himself the dignity and authority of the office. He is thus an usurper (sometimes in good faith) who, claiming a power he does not possess—being devoid of legitimate mission for the governance of the Church—creates not only an electoral schism within the Church but, if he persists, a true schism among the faithful.
The term *antipapa* entered common usage in the later 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; Letter of the Florentines, 22 May 1328: *«ipse Bavarus cum yodo suo [Niccolò V], quod antipapam nominat»*, in E. Baluze, *Vitae Paparum Aequensium*, ed. G. Mollat, II, Paris 1928, p. 201; St. Catherine of Siena, *Epist.* 310, 317, 322, ed. L. Ferretti, IV, Siena 1927, pp. 376, 437; V, 111, 1930, p. 15; St. Vincent Ferrer, *De moderno ecclesiae schismate tractatus*, ed. A. Sorbelli, in *Atti... R. Dep... di Romagna*, Bologna 1905, p. 345; St. Antoninus, *Chroniorum*, pars IIIa, tit. XXII, cap. I, ed. Lyon 1486, c. 390, etc.). It is also found in some manuscripts of the *Chronicon* of Prosper of Aquitaine, though these are marginal annotations in 15th-century manuscripts: ed. Th. Mommsen, in *MGH, Chronica minora*, I, 1892, pp. 458, 469). Baluze uses the expression *Pseudonatipapa* for Nicholas V (cf. ed. cit., I, 1916, p. 143).
The classical term in antiquity and the early Middle Ages for an antipope—and in general for an intruder—was *Invasor*; the *Liber Pontificalis* speaks of *Invasor Sedis Apostolicae* (cf. ed. Duchesne, I, pp. 465, 471, 472, 475; II, 143, 290; Card. Deudedit, *Contra invasores et symoniacos et religiosos scismaticos*, 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 Boniface I and Eulalius *«episcopatum romanae Urbis contentionis ambitu pervaserunt»* and reference is made to *«Eulali usurpatione»*. The deacon John (early 6th century) applies to Lawrence the expression *«Romanae ecclesiae pervasor et schismaticus»* (cf. A. Thiel, *Epistolae Rom. Pont.*, I, Braunsberg 1868, p. 697). *Schismaticus* is very frequent, as are *Apostaticus* and *Antichristus* (cf. Nicholas II, in Hefele-Leclercq, IV, 2, 1911, p. 1146; St. Bernard, *Epist.* 124, 126, 127, I, ed. V. Nezia 1726, pp. 129, 133, 138; *Libelli de lite*, passim, where the expression *«antiabbates et antiepiscopi»* [I, p. 357] appears, but not *antipapa*; St. Catherine, *Epist.* 306, 310, 312, ed. cit., IV, pp. 348, 373, 374; St. Vincent Ferrer, ed. cit., pp. 345–88, instruction to confessors, p. 432); *Intrusus* (cf. Martino de Alpartil, *Chronica aetatium temporibus Domini Benedicti XIII*, ed. F. Ehrle, Paderborn 1906, passim, frequently uses the word *anticardinales*, not *antipapa*; St. Vincent Ferrer, ed. cit., pp. 340, 388); *Contendentes* (cf. Acts of the Council of Pisa 1409; Mansi, XXVI, passim); *Competitor*, *Pseudo Papa*, *Adulterinus Papa* (cf. Platina, passim; he too uses *anticardinales*, not *antipapa*; cf. critical ed., p. 312). From the various authors cited and from many others, an extensive list of polemical epithets applied to antipopes could be compiled, but this would be out of place here.
The history of antipopes—which is at the same time a most sorrowful history of lay encroachment upon the Church and of the servility or ambition of certain members of the clergy—begins in the early 3rd century with St. Hippolytus and ends in the mid-15th century with Felix V.
To attempt to determine the exact number of antipopes is today a very difficult task; indeed, authors vary between 25 and 40. This is due to the differing criteria used to define the concept of an antipope (for example, Protestant historians attach importance to the deposition of a legitimate pope for political reasons, a view rejected by Catholics) and to the scarcity and often partial nature of the sources. Moreover, some elections were so convoluted and factional, even tumultuous, that contemporaries themselves were sometimes unable to clarify the legitimacy of the true pope in relation to his rival, as occurred, for instance, during the Great Western Schism with its three obediences: Avignon, Pisa, and Rome, represented by Urban VI and his successors.
To avoid misunderstandings, in distinguishing between a true pope and an antipope, the following must be kept in mind:
1) whether the Apostolic See became vacant through the death or free resignation of the pope, the only legitimate causes of vacancy;
2) whether the legitimate electors were able to exercise their mandate freely; or whether they subsequently rectified, by public act, the canonical defects of an election or at least one that was doubtful, as happened, for example, in the case of Vigilius;
3) whether the canonical norms then in force for each election were observed. It is well known that the election of popes (v. POPE) passed through successive phases: in antiquity, the norms governing the election of bishops were followed, which the Roman Councils of 498 and 499 under Symmachus clarified (Hefele-Leclercq, II, 2, pp. 947–949, 1349–66; cf. also the Roman Council of 465, ibid., pp. 903–904); of 769 under Stephen III (ibid., III, 2, 1910, pp. 734–35; cf. *Constitutio romana* of 1824; *MGH, Capitularia*, I, p. 323); of 1059 under Nicholas II (canons 1 and 2; Mansi, XIX, 897; ibid., IV, 2, 1911, pp. 1139–67); of 1179 under Alexander III (canon 1: ibid., V, 2, 1913, pp. 1087–88); and that of Lyon in 1274 under Gregory X (canon 2: ibid., VI, 1, 1914, pp. 183–86), which introduced clarifications or important modifications.
The same Councils imposed the severest penalties on antipopes and their supporters (cf., for example, the sanctions of the Roman Synod of 769: *Liber 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). These penalties are now contained in canon 2314 of the current *Codex Iuris Canonici* and in chapter 6 of the Constitution *Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis* of Pius XII of 8 December 1945 (*AAS*, 38 [1946], pp. 94–96).
The first imperial intervention in favor of an antipope was that of Constantius on behalf of Felix II. Such interventions then multiplied under the German emperors from Otto I to Frederick Barbarossa. From the antipope Constantine (767–68) to the antipope Anacletus II (1130–38), the appointment of antipopes was often due to factions led by Roman noble families eager to control the fortunes and resources of the temporal power, then in the process of formation and consolidation: the nobility (*exercitus romanus*), the patrimonial bureaucracy of the Church with its agricultural militia (*familia s. Petri*), and the clergy (*venerabilis clerus*, headed by the *proceres Ecclesiae*) were often in conflict for this reason.
Bearing in mind the terms of our definition and the principles enumerated above, we have attempted to compile a new list of antipopes, divided into three sections: 1) authentic antipopes; 2) doubtful antipopes; 3) improperly so-called antipopes. Antipopes are considered doubtful when there is difficulty in ascertaining the legitimacy of their election. Those improperly so-called lack the characteristics we have outlined and did not cause a true schism; more often than not, they were mere rivals who were either suppressed or voluntarily submitted after their election.
Each individual antipope will have a separate entry with biographical data. Here we indicate only the elements that characterize their pseudo-pontificate.
1. — Authentic antipopes.
1. — St. Hippolytus, Roman priest, 217–35. – Leader of a party against Callistus on doctrinal grounds; reconciled with Pontian and died a martyr with him.
2. — Novatian, Roman priest, 251–53, 258. – Elected by the followers of Novatus against Cornelius on personal and then doctrinal grounds.
3. — Felix II, Roman archdeacon, 355–22 November 365. – Imposed by the emperor Constantius at the time of the exile of Pope Liberius. Confused with the Roman martyr of the same name in the cemetery of Via Portuense, commemorated in the *Martyrologium Hieronymianum* on 29 July.
4. — Ursicinus, Roman deacon, 366–67 (expelled). – Elected by the supporters of the previous antipope against Damasus. d. after 381.
5. — EULALIUS, Roman archdeacon, 27 Dec. 418–29 Mar. 419. — Elected by the deacons while the priests and part of the people elected BONIFACE I. He was driven out by force; his traces are subsequently lost.
6. — LAURENCE, Roman archpriest, 498; again 501–507. — Elected by the faction of the patrician FESTUS against SYMMACHUS.
7. — VIGILIUS, Roman deacon, 29 Mar.–11 Nov. 537; d. 7 June 555. — Installed by BELISARIUS after the violent deposition of SILVERIUS; recognized as legitimate pope upon Silverius’ death (11 Nov. 537).
8. — PASCHAL, Roman archdeacon, late 687. — Elected, like THEODORE, by two factions; he refused to resign when SERGIUS was elected by the majority (15 Dec. 687). Confined to a monastery, he died obstinate in 692.
9. — CONSTANTINE, layman of Nepi, 28 June; consecrated 5 July 767–1 Aug. 768. — Elected by Duke TOTO of Nepi and his partisans at the death of PAUL I (28 June). Flaws in the election and in the candidate’s lay status.
10. — CHRISTOPHER, Roman priest, Oct. 903–Jan. 904. — Imprisoned LEO V and took his place.
11. — LEO VIII, lay protoscrinarius, 4 Dec. 963; consecrated 6 Dec. 963–1 Mar. 965. — Elected, though a layman, at the Roman synod of 4 Dec. 963, after the deposition of JOHN XII, engineered by OTTO I more for political than moral motives. John XII died 14 May 964 and was succeeded by BENEDICT V (22 May), deposed a month later (23 June) by Otto and Leo; Leo died at Hamburg on 4 July 965 or 966.
12. — BONIFACE VII, Frankish, Roman deacon, June–July 974; again Aug. 984–July 985. — With the favor of CRESCENTIUS 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 CRESCENTIUS the Younger against GREGORY V, later driven out by OTTO II. He probably died at Fulda in 1013.
14. — GREGORY, 1012. — Elected by the faction of CRESCENTIUS against BENEDICT VIII; his traces are subsequently lost.
15. — SYLVESTER III, John, bishop of Sabina, 20 Jan.–10 Mar. 1045. — Tumultuously elected by the Romans in agitation against BENEDICT IX, who reappeared in Rome the following April.
16. — BENEDICT X, John, bishop of Velletri, 5 Apr. 1058–24 Jan. 1059. — Elected by the Roman nobility while the responsible clergy, led by ST PIER DAMIANI and Hildebrand, elected NICHOLAS II, enthroned in St 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 favor of Empress AGNES, regent, against ALEXANDER II. He persisted in the schism until his death (1072).
18. — CLEMENT III, Guibert, archbishop of Ravenna, 25 June 1080; consecrated 24 Mar. 1084–8 Sept. 1100. — Elected at the pseudo-synod of Brixen (25 June 1080) at the behest of HENRY IV against GREGORY VII.
19. — THEODORIC, bishop of S. Rufina, Sept.–Dec. 1100. — Elected by the partisans of the preceding pope. PASCHAL II relegated him to the abbey of Cava in 1101, where he died in 1102.
20. — ALBERT, bishop of Sabina, Feb.–Mar. 1102. — Elected by the partisans of Guibert. Paschal II relegated him to the monastery of S. Andrew in Aversa.
21. — SYLVESTER IV, Maginulf, archpriest of S. Angelo, 18 Nov. 1103–12 Apr. 1111. — Elected by the imperial party against PASCHAL II, to whom, abandoned by HENRY IV, he rendered obedience in 1111.
22. — GREGORY VIII, Mauritius Burdin, archbishop of Braga, 8 Mar. 1118–Apr. 1121. — Imposed by HENRY V against GELASIUS II. Captured at Sutri in 1121, he died in exile about 1136.
23. — ANACLETUS II, Peter Pierleoni, cardinal priest of S. Maria in Trastevere, 14 Feb. 1130; 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 the SS. Apostoli, 15 Mar.–29 May 1138. — Elected by the faction of the Pierleoni; but he rendered obedience to Innocent II the following May.
25. — VICTOR IV (V), Octavian of Monticelli (Tivoli), cardinal priest of S. Cecilia, 7 Sept.; consecrated 4 Oct. 1159–20 Apr. 1164. — Proclaimed himself elected and was supported by the party of Emperor FREDERICK Barbarossa against ALEXANDER III.
26. — PASCHAL III, Cardinal Guido da Crema, 22 Apr.; consecrated 26 Apr. 1164–20 Sept. 1168. — Elected by the imperial party after the death of Victor IV.
27. — CALIXTUS III, John, abbot of Strumi, Sept. 1168–29 Aug. 1178. — Elected by the imperial party after the death of Paschal III; he submitted to Alexander III on 29 Aug. 1178.
28. — INNOCENT III, Lando of Sezze, 29 Sept. 1179–Jan. 1180. — Elected by the imperial party; captured and relegated to the abbey of Cava.
29. — NICHOLAS V, Peter Rainalducci of Corvaro (Rieti), 12 May 1328; consecrated 22 May 1328–25 Aug. 1330. — Installed by LOUIS the Bavarian against JOHN XXII, to whom he later rendered obedience on 25 Aug. 1330.
30. — CLEMENT VII, Cardinal Robert of Geneva, 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’s legitimacy they impugned—though today, if one considers dispassionately all the documentation for and against, and especially the testimony of ST CATHERINE OF SIENA, it is difficult to doubt II.
31. — BENEDICT XIII, Cardinal Peter de Luna, 28 Sept. 1394; consecrated 11 Nov. 1394–23 May 1423. — Successor of the preceding; deposed by the Council of Pisa on 5 June 1409 and by the Council of Constance on 26 July 1417. He continued his resistance, delaying in the castle of Peñíscola, supported by ALFONSO V of Aragon.
32. — ALEXANDER V, Cardinal Peter Philargos, 26 June; consecrated 7 July 1409–3 May 1410. — Elected by the Council of Pisa. With him the Pisan obedience begins.
33. — JOHN XXIII, Cardinal Baldassare Cossa, 17 May; consecrated 25 May 1410–29 May 1415. — Successor of Alexander V; deposed by the Council of Constance on 29 May 1415.
34. — CLEMENT VIII, Canon Prebendary of Valencia, Giles Sanchez Muñoz, 10 June 1423–26 July 1429. — Elected by the cardinals of Benedict XIII. He submitted to MARTIN V.
35. — BENEDICT XIV, a certain Bernard Garnier of Rodez, it seems, 12 Nov. 1425–1430. — Secretly elected by Cardinal John Carrier, a follower of Benedict XIII, in protest against the election of Clement VIII. This ridiculous election (an “antipope of a”) should not even be reckoned, were it not the last stubborn resistance of the Great Schism. In the territory of the Count of Armagnac, a partisan of this latter “antipope,” some fanatics were still awaiting the revenge of Benedict XIV in the year 1467 (cf. Pastor, I, p. 253).
36. — FELIX V, Amadeus VIII of Savoy, 5 Nov. 1439; consecrated 24 July 1440–7 Apr. 1449. — Elected by the Council of Basel against EUGENE IV; deposed by the same council. He submitted to NICHOLAS V, who created him cardinal bishop of Sabina; he died on 7 Jan. 1451.
2. — Doubtful antipopes.
1. — HERACLIUS, 309 or 310. — This unidentified figure is said to have caused a schism in the Roman community, as is evident from the Damasian poem in honor of Pope EUSEBIUS (cf. ed. A. Ferrua, Epigrammata Damasiana, Vatican City 1942, no. 18, p. 131; cf. also the poem in honor of Pope MARCELLUS, no. 40, p. 181).
It is not clear whether his faction elected him in opposition to Pope Eusebius, or whether he remained merely a faction leader; it is certain, however, that both were sent into exile.
2. — BONIFACE II, Roman archdeacon, 22 Sept.–14 Oct. 530, d. 17 Oct. 532. — Despite the existing canonical norms, he was designated by Felix IV (III) as his successor and accepted by a minority, while the deacon Dioscorus Alexander (22 Sept.–14 Oct. 530) was elected by the majority of the clergy, including 60 priests, the senate and the people. Good grounds militate in favour of the legitimacy of Dioscorus, who was removed by death twenty-two days after his election. Boniface was then recognised by all as the true pope. Doubts remain about the legitimacy of the nomination made by Felix IV, especially when one recalls that Boniface himself, after having designated the deacon Vigilius as his successor, in the face of protests from the clergy that this was “contra canones,” felt bound to rescind his act by publicly burning the nomination chirograph before the confession of St Peter (cf. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, I, p. 281).
3. — ST EUGENE, of the Roman clergy, 10 Aug. 654–16 Sept. 655. — Elected during the lifetime of Martin I, who was imprisoned in Constantinople. It seems that Martin did not protest. He was certainly the legitimate pope at the death of his predecessor (16 Sept. 655).
4. — SERGIUS III, bishop of Cere (Cerveteri), early months of 904. — Elected in 897 simultaneously with John IX, who was immediately consecrated with the favour of the emperor Lambert. Sergius reappears at the beginning of January 904 to depose Christopher; he was consecrated on the 29th of the same month, but Leo V, imprisoned by Christopher, was probably still alive. In which case the beginning of his pontificate would be illegitimate. It is noteworthy that Sergius regarded his successful rival John IX and his successors as “antipopes.”
5. — GREGORY VI, John Gratian, archpriest of St John ante Portam Latinam, 5 May 1045–20 Dec. 1046. — See the following entry. There are good grounds for believing him to have been the true pope.
6. — CLEMENT II, Suitger, lord of Morsleben and Hornburg, bishop of Bamberg, consecrated 23 Dec. 1046, d. 9 Oct. 1047. — Benedict IX had resigned, apparently freely, in January 1045, securing a life annuity (others say he sold his office) in favour of his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, Gregory VI, who was hailed by St Peter Damian himself as the true pope. Henry III had him deposed (or he resigned—the matter is unclear) at the Synod of Sutri (Dec. 1046) and imposed Suitger, whose legitimate election may be doubted, even granting the legitimacy, which is certainly not very clear, of Gregory VI.
7. — BENEDICT IX, Theophylact, count of Tusculum, already a true pope but having resigned, 8 Nov. 1047–17 July 1048. — Granting the spontaneity of his resignation in favour of Gregory VI, his reoccupation of the see of Peter on the dates indicated must be considered illegitimate. Yet in this whole sorry affair of Benedict IX we grope in darkness.
3. — Antipopes improperly so called.
1. — DIOSCORUS, Alexandrian deacon, 22 Sept.–14 Oct. 530. — There are no grounds for regarding him as an antipope; his memory, anathematised by his rival Boniface, was soon rehabilitated by Agatho I.
2. — PETER and THEODORE, Roman archpriest and priest, 2 Aug.–21 Oct. 686. — Competitors in the election on the death of John V (2 Aug.); the first was elected by the clergy, the second by the senate, nobility and army. To remove all dispute the clergy proceeded to an election that was welcomed by all, that of Conon (21 Oct.).
3. — THEODORE, again 21 Sept.–15 Dec. 687. — On the death of Conon (21 Sept. 687), Theodore, having become archpriest, was again elected together with the archdeacon Paschal. A new election was then held in the person of Sergius I (15 Dec.). Theodore did not persist, whereas Paschal rebelled.
4. — THEOPHYLACT, Roman archdeacon, late April–May 757. — The pro-Byzantine faction attempted to elect him on the death of Stephen III (II); but the majority proclaimed Paul I. The faction was dispersed by force.
5. — PHILIP, priest of the monastery of St Vitus, 31 July 768. — Elected, the see being vacant, by the priest Waldiperto, envoy of King Desiderius, by the Lombard army and by some Romans, following the capture of the antipope Constantine. In the evening of the same day, however, he was honourably returned to his monastery and thereafter no more was heard of him. Philip does not possess the characteristics of a true antipope.
6. — [ZINZINUS], Roman priest, Feb. 824. — On the death of Paschal I (11 Feb. 824) there were two candidates: Zinzinus, so named by Panvinio (cf. Chronicon etc., p. 72), while the sources are silent as to his name, and Eugenius II, both elected; but after the intervention of the monk Wala, Eugenius was recognised by all as pope, and of Zinzinus no more was heard.
7. — JOHN, Roman archdeacon, Jan. 844. — On the death of Gregory IV (25 Jan. 844) there were again two candidates: John and Sergius, both elected, but the latter was immediately consecrated. Of the other there is no further question.
8. — ANASTASIUS, the Librarian, Roman priest, deposed in 853, Aug.–Sept. 855. — Louis II, having refused to recognise the election of Benedict III, his envoys attempted to impose on the clergy the new candidacy of Anastasius; the clergy did not yield and the election of Benedict was confirmed. We are therefore faced with a failed attempt.
9. — CELESTINE II, Tebald Buccapeccus, 15–16 Dec. 1124. — Regularly elected by the cardinals, while the Frangipani supported Cardinal Lamberto of Fagnano, bishop of Ostia, and the Pierleoni supported Cardinal Saxo. Tebald abdicated, and then Cardinal Lamberto was elected as Honorius II.