Are you sure that Roman Catholics could always determine which Pope was real, and which was an antipope? You can see a long series of medallions which depict all the popes throughout history in the Papal Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls. You can take a virtual tour on the Vatican site. If you press "VIRTUAL TOUR" (at the bottom of that page), then — "2. Central Nave", and then turn to the left, — you will see two rows of the medallions of the popes.

If you zoom to the row which is farther from us, then you will see between Gregory XII and Martin V two Popes which are now considered as antipopes — Alexander V and John XXIII.

So what?

Are you sure the moon isn't made of green cheese?

The fact is either the Russians (and Romans btw) are right and the Greek much necessarily commit sacrilege with extreme unction, or the Greeks are and the Russians (and we Latins) guilty of withholding sacraments unnecessarily.

Or, are the Greeks right and the Estonians an autonomous Church, or is everyone else right and they aren't? And if Constantinople, that see which was never founded by an apostle and only came patriarchal status because of temporal power residing there, is deferred to in all things, then every other Church is wrong, including especially the Russian Orthodox, in recognizing the OCA.

Tell me, when you have Churches in communion with some Churches and not others, yet these other Churches claim communion with each other, what does that mean?

Tell me too, if historical blunders are the measure, how many souls are in hell because of the heresy once held in the East that all celibates (regardless of Orders) and only celibates could hear confession and grant absolution? If you want an historical pissing contest, the Bulgarians, the Armenians, the Old Believers...there is a lot to make a mess with on the Orthodox side.

But that is irrelevant to the jab I made. You guys differ essentially in some doctrine and practice, and even as regard to whom you recognizeas in the Church. Hardly Catholic. Yes the Great Western Schism was a schism and was shameful. But no one claims that it was anything but a Schism.

And this is proof that the Catholic Church doesn't really consider them antipopes? Seriously?

Antipope Alexander V reigned in years 1409-1410, but the real Pope Alexander V reigned from 1492-1503.

Antipope John XXIII reigned in years 1410-1415, and the real Pope John XXIII reigned from 1958-1963. The latter pope started the Second Vatican Council.

We don't count antipopes.

But earlier they were considered as real Popes. Because now Pope Gregory XII is considered to reign in years 1406-1415, but earlier he was considered to reign in years 1406-1409, until Alexander V was elected in 1409, then — John XXIII in 1410.

You can see this from subscriptions below each portrait in that virtual tour, which denote the total time of their reigning. The subscription below the portrait of Gregory XII is:

SED A II M VI D IV

i. e. he reigned during 2 years, 6 months and 4 days, until the next Pope, Alexander V, was elected (who reigned, as subscription says, 10 months and 8 days), and then John XXIII, whose portrait is behind the column.

This is proof that earlier they were considered as real Popes.

I ask again, so what? Obviously, in order to be an anti-Pope you must have at one point had at least some in the Church who thought you were the legitimate Pope. Do you have an actual point, because it does not appear that you do. You have done nothing but define the meaning of the word 'anti-Pope'. Basically, all you are saying is 'the concept of an anti-Pope exists'....yes it does....so what?

Bringing the other thread over here:

There has been nothing shown to demonstrate that the prevailing view on what Cyprian said is wrong.

Cardinal Hergenrother's work simply shows that one can believe in papal claims regardless of the answer

The Great Western schism had true popes and antipopes. But it was easy to telll, the true pope was at Rome while antipopes were away from Rome. Thus, we had the following true popes at Rome:

Urban VI (1378-1389)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-1406)
Gregory XII (1406-1415)

and the following were antipopes at Avignon:

Clement VII (1378-1394)
Benedict XIII (1394-1417)

Thus, we had 30 years of two men claiming to be popes. Several cardinals tried to end the confusion by invoking a council at Pisa. It was actually not legal by Church law. They deposed both pope at Rome and antipope at Avignon and elected a new pope named Alexander V. This was actually getting worse: three men claiming to be popes at the same time! But the true pope was Gregory XII. Another man was later elected as John XXIII to replace antipope Alexander V.

Finally, another council was convened at Constance, Germany. Antipope John XXIII abdicated, and true pope Gregory XII freely resigned but still remained as a bishop. Another man, Martin V, was elected as true pope.

Thus ends the Western schism.

But I'm not sure how reliable is that tour since I am not an expert in church history.

Спасибо.

Most of antipopes were soon recognized as antipopes by their contemporaries. But in case of Alexander V, it is still not clear whether he was a true Pope:

Catholic Encyclopedia, Alexander V

Whether or not Alexander was a true pope is a question which canonists and historians of the Schism still discuss. The Church has not pronounced a definite opinion nor is it at all likely that she will. The Roman "Gerarchia Cattolica", not an authoritative work, which prior to 1906 contained a chronological list of the popes, designated Alexander V as the 211th pope, succeeding Gregory XII, resigned.

Let's look at the names of the Popes and antipopes of the time of Western Schism in Annuario pontificio (Rome, 1869). If I understood correctly Italian title, they correspond to the series of portraits of the Popes in Papal Basilica in Rome St. Paul Outside-The-Walls.

Indeed, we can see that later there were Popes with the same names as antipopes at Avignon:

Clement VII (1378-1394) had the same name as Pope Clement VII (1523-1534);
Benedict XIII (1394-1417) — as Pope Benedict XIII (1724-1730).

But the Pope who reigned in 1492-1503 is under the name Alexander VI, not Alexander V. Doesn't this mean that Alexander VI (1492-1503) considered Alexander V (1409-1410) as real Pope?

Vadim,

I'd like to return to Doom's question of, "So what?"

Please let us know what point you are making. What does the existence of "anti popes" within the history of Catholicism mean to you?

Thank you.

Vadim -- Basically, the Patriarchate of Constantinople up until the fall of Constantinople is one big honkin' glaring portrait of caeseropapismpatriarchism. It really is indefensible, and the only way you can defend it is to come to us and attempt to paint the Bishopric of Rome with the same brush. But it just does not wash.

Doesn't the history of Western Schism resemble the history of East–West Schism? If Alexander V is a true Pope, then Gregory XII and Benedict XIII were deposed legitimately on the Council of Pisa. They were deposed because of their refusal to arrive at Council of Pisa and thus heal the Western Schism. But during East-West Schism Popes also refused to arrive at any Council and thus heal the East-West Schism.

Which councils and who ordered the councils?

So what?

The definition of an 'anti-Pope' is 'someone who was not actually Pope even though some people thought he was'.....so I don't really so the point in your continually pointing out that some people thought that various anti-Popes were actually Popes...if they had never been counted (by some people) as a legitimate Pope they could not possibly be branded an anti-Pope.

Do you think that people were running around calling themselves anti-Popes?

What do you think the difference is between anti-Popes and the other however many million people running around in Christendom? The difference is that, unlike everyone else on the planet, anti-Popes had people who believed they were actually Pope.


You see, I can't be considered an anti-Pope because nobody thinks I am the Pope........but if I had millions of people who thought I was Pope, I would be an anti-Pope because I'm not actually Pope....

Are you trying to prove that Popes are not omniscient? Such a proof it not really necessary.

If you have a point.....please make it....

As it is, your point is about as 'profound' as pointing out than bananas are yellow.

Sometimes they are green


or all brown and spotty, very nasty.

Seeing as how the Great Western Schism ended at the Council of Constance, no. Perhaps if Constantinople had not been conquered and the Patriarchate given to the anti-Roman party by the Turks.