MAY 2005 (part 2 of 2)

Q. - With the election of Benedict XVI, we've been hearing about anti-popes. What are (were) the anti-popes?

A. - An anti-pope is a man who uncanonically (unlawfully) claims to be or to exercise the office of pope. The Church has had a number of them over her two millennia of existence.

Historically, the election of the successor of St. Peter has not always been easily defined and has changed over the years. Because of the sometimes lack of a clear electoral code there was occasionally confusion as to what the requirements were for a valid choice of Pontiff. Anti-popes have arisen from that unclarity. They’ve also emerged, however, from violent usurpation (Constantine II in 767 AD); by election following a prior selection of a pope which was falsely judged to be invalid (Clement VII in 1378 AD); from accession to the office of Peter after an unwarranted deposition or deportation of the still validly reigning Pope (Felix II in 355 AD); or even by double election (Anacletus II and Innocent II in 1130).

Honestly, it is impossible to figure out in certain cases whether some of the claimants were pope or anti-pope because of the deficiencies and even bias in the historical sources. That is why the actual number of them is still hotly debated. Bauner counts 33 with 3 others being bracketed with legitimate popes; Amanieu names 34; Fruatz calculates 36 plus 7 doubtful and 9 improperly designated; and Moroni counts 39. However, due to better and more accurate historical research in modern times, the Church has, since 1947, tended to agree with Mercati’s list of valid popes, which includes 37 anti-popes in the text. Any list is subject to reservations, though, and even Mercati’s catalogue of popes has drawn dissent from certain quarters.

Anti-popes are a complicated anomaly in the Church, which, while problematic and even harmful to some extent, did not always occur because of bad faith or evil intentions. While the definition of anti-pope seems straightforward, its application is not because guidelines as to what exactly constitutes an invalid claim have fluctuated over time.

For example:
Correct election is not a clear indicator of it because Innocent II (mentioned above earlier) was elected by a minority of cardinals in a secret meeting but he, and not Anacletus, is considered pope. Nor is personal sanctity a definitive factor. Hippolytus (217-235 AD) is both Saint and martyr, yet still is readily acknowledged as the first “anti-pope”. While a legitimate pope, John XII (955-64 AD) was actually excommunicated and deposed by a Roman synod for his gross immorality. So holiness doesn’t play into it either.

With the current codified rules of election (as well as the speed of mass communication theses days) the likelihood of an anti-pope has dropped down to a negligible percentage (although the possibility always exists).

It is nothing to be troubled over because Christ promised Peter (and us) that the Church would be preserved by the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 16: 18-19) There will always be, eventually, a valid pontiff and in those periods of interregnum (or even confusion and anti-popes) the Church is still protected by Christ Himself and will go on as always till He returns.

Recommended reading:

Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac 2003 (“antipope” – has the currently used list of 37 anti-popes)

The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (John Kelly or J.N.D. Kelly)

Popes Throughout the Ages (Joseph Brusher, S.J.)

New Catholic Encyclopedia (the Catholic University of
America Press – “anti-pope” )

Q.- Why does the pope take a new name once he becomes pope?

A. - Popes change their names upon election to the papacy based on a very old custom. Nowhere in canon law is it required, but every pope for the last 1,000 years has done so (with the exception of Adrian VI and Marcellus II). Before that time, some did and some didn’t. Those who did occasionally took one no other pope had used (an “original” name change) while others honored predecessors by taking their name for themselves (and became so-and-so the II, III, IV, and so on). The last “original “ name change was Lando in 913 AD. The 146 or so popes since then have used (and reused) only 32 names.

The history of it is this:
In 533 AD Mercurius was elected Pope. It was such an obviously pagan name that it didn’t seem right to have a Pope with the same name as the Roman god Mercury (the god of commerce, trade and profit), so he changed it to John II.

Octavianus, in 955 AD felt it better to change his name for similar reasons. “Octavianus” was the original name of Augustus Caesar, the first Roman Emperor (and, incidentally, the same one who ordered the census which caused Mary and Joseph to have to travel to Bethlehem). Even while alive he was worshipped as a god and as the son of a god, but upon his death he entered the Imperial Cult to which all good citizens had to offer sacrifice. This sacrifice to the deified Caesar became a litmus test to find out who was a Christian (by their refusal) so as to persecute them. Justifiably, the Pope thought it would be in poor taste to keep his birthname, so he changed it to John XII.

Later, in 983 AD, there came a man with the sainted name of Peter.But out of reverence for the first pope, he exchanged his baptismal name for John XIV.

After this there came popes from the other side of the alpine mountains whose names of Bruno (996 AD) and Gerbert (999) sounded too “barbarous” to the Roman population. In the past Italy had been invaded and even ruled over by Barbarians, Goths and Vandals ( yes - real groups of not-so-nice people, which is why those terms mean what they do today) and it left the Romans with a distaste for names that sounded like theirs. So they changed their names to Gregory V and Sylvester II, respectively.

By and by, another Peter popped up 1009 AD and he took the name Sergius IV. It is from his pontificate that the changing of one’s name has persisted consistently.

While it first started because names were of pagan origin or “barbarous” sounding (or even out of reverence for St. Peter), people soon enough came to interpret a change of name as a sign of placing oneself completely in the service of the new office. People had changed their names upon entering religious orders for a long time and by the 500’s it was simply custom to do so. So the idea wasn’t a strange notion to the faithful. When one left their old life for a new religious one they took a new name. Even today, we are baptized with at least one “Christian “ name.

But even more than that, throughout Scripture God has changed the names of people when He has a new mission for them. Abram became “Abraham” (Genesis 17:5) and his wife Sarai became “Sarah” (Gen 17:15). Jacob wrestled with an angel who afterwards told him his name would be “Israel” (Gen 32:28) and later God appeared and said so Himself (Gen 35:10). Simon confessed that he knew who Jesus truly was and Christ established him as the Rock on which He would build His Church and so renamed him ”Peter” (Matthew 16:15-19).

Popes now take names to honor their predecessors and to reflect the style and direction their pontificate will take. Our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI took his to honor both Benedict XV (a peacemaker) and St. Benedict for whom he has a special devotion both spiritually and due to their similar geographical background.

Recommended reading:

New Catholic Encyclopedia (The Catholic University of America Press
“popes, names of “)

Encyclopedia Britannica (Mercurius, Octavianus, Augustus Caesar, Goths, Vandals, and Barbarians)

The Holy Bible (Passages as marked above in text)