Talk:Antipope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Questions: Is the title of antipope a derogatory title? Did any one pope call himself "antipope" or is the prefix anti- added in retrospect to uphold the illusion of an unbroken papal succession? FredrikM 12:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't like the implication you're making here--F.O.E. 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know the answer to this question: do antipopes have to be people irregularly elected by otherwise legitimate electors? Because if so that would explain why there hasn't been one since the 15th century (the Cardinals are behaving more regularly) and why there were so many early on (the whole clergy of the city of Rome had some say in the matter, if not exactly a vote, and could mobilize mobs). It would also expalin why sedevacantist groups don't have antipopes - none of them has ever gotten a cardinal in the first place, so they have to just proclaim themselves pope. I dunno. This sounds reasonable, but I can't find anything in print or online to support it, and I'm too lazy to make a special trip to the library over it. --MichaelTinkler

I would think at the very least an antipope needs wide acceptance -- I think some of the medieveal antipopes had large political support -- and I think in some cases competiting temporal powers would each support different claimants to be Pope, as in the great schism (the one where there were three popes, not the one that split east and west). The 'popes' of modern sedevacantists, by comparison, have no large scale following, political or religious. Their following and influence is absolutely miniscule in comparison to the that of the official Pope, unlike medieveal antipopes whose following often could at least begin to rival the official ones. -- Simon J Kissane

While your speculations about some of the medieval Antipopes is correct, the idea that wide acceptance is required isn't very useful. Some of the early 'Antipopes' had little or no influence, in fact some of them have only been 'discovered' in relatively modern times through scholarship (e.g. Felix II). That is to say, that some of them were so insignificant that their titles and names have been confused with others. Surely, the Roman Catholic Church is the only arbiter of who is and who is not a 'Pope' and thusly, who is an 'Antipope'. Some of the modern sedevacantist 'Popes' would have a larger following numerically than did Antipopes from the early or high middle ages. Further, I don't think a separate entry is justified for the modern sedevacantists, and therefore this article is the most reasonable place to have them listed for readers who are seeking information about them. --Nicodemus75 18:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to order in some way this page, eg section for each schism and subsection for each branch of the schism. --Ann O'nyme 01:34, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I hereby declaire myself pope. Everyone kiss my ring.


I would argue ANYONE who claims to be pope, but wasn't elected validly is an antipope, since it only means someone who claims to be pope but isn't. As wo whether or not someone should be listed, that is a different question. Davescj 16:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the listing of who are considered 'Antipopes' by the sedevacantists themselves. While on the surface this may seem like a good addition to the article, it is impossible to know which sedevacantists acknowledge which popes without considerable more research into each of these obscure sects. Further, the detailed aspects of such sects properly belong in their own articles. Even though I am a main contributor to this article, I am beginning to feel as though the discussion of obscure antipopes is beginning to overtake the scope of the article as a whole, and too much discussion of them on the main page must be curtailed. --Nicodemus75 02:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Self claimed antipopes

I think they should all be removed, otherwise we'll end up listing all the mythomaniacs in the world.

[edit] First Sentence

I really don't like the first sentence. I'm going to try to split it if I do it incorrectly, correct it but try to keep it split up. It's needlessly complicated as is.

69.242.10.19 21:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] First Sentence

I really don't like the first sentence. I'm going to try to split it if I do it incorrectly, correct it but try to keep it split up. It's needlessly complicated as is.

Superm401 21:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the Sedevacantist numbering. We have two Antipope Gregory XVIIs, then jump to Antipope Gregory XIX. It would seem that the second XVII should be XVIII, except that the article on Antipope Gregory XVII matches with that person's name. Can anyone fix things? LizardWizard 02:47, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

There are two modern antipopes who have styled themselves "Gregory XVII" - they are from two separate groups which have broken with Rome. It is unclear who Reinaldus Michael Benjamins would consider to be popes Gregory XVII and Gregory XVIII, but he does not recognize either of the groups in Quebec or Spain. --Nicodemus75 08:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory VI

A recent editor (Henry Williams) fixed the link to Gregory VI, revealing that Gregory, classified as an antipope in the "Antipope" article, is listed as a pope in his own article.

Is it standard for antipopes to be called popes in their main Wikipedia entries? If not, this is a discrepancy that should be fixed.

Lawrence King 09:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Locking this Article?

It might be a good idea to lock this article until the papal conclave has elected a new pope. Way too much vandalism since JP2's passing. raekwon 01:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antipope opposing a sede vacante?

The article contained the following sentence:

Sedevacantist antipopes frequently refer to the conventional successors of Pope Pius XII as a series of antipapacies, though never in the Church's history has an Antipope opposed a sede vacante.

I deleted the part after the comma. Here are my reasons.

1. If this is supposed to mean that there has never been a time that an antipope has coexisted with an empty seat, that's totally false. For example, in the great schism, every time the Roman pope died there was an empty seat until the next Roman pope was elected; during this time there was an antipope in Avignon. Similarly, if you accept that JP2 was a valid pope, then today there are half a dozen antipopes opposing a vacant seat.

2. If this merely means that there has never been an extended period where the Roman seat was vacant, then that's begging the question: sedevacantism is, by definition, the claim that we are in exactly such an extended period. (As an orthodox Catholic myself I recognize JP2 as the valid pope, and I think Wikipedia articles in general should treat him as the pope, but in articles about sedevacantism it would violate NPOV to treat JP2's pope status as simple fact.)

Lawrence King 06:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about the nature of the modern use of on the one hand Sedevacantism, and the status of the Holy See formally being in a Sede Vacante state. Sedevacantism is NOT, as you put it, that we are in an extended period by definition. Rather, it is the claim that the Holy See is vacant because of the invalidity of John XXIII, Paul VI and/or their successors, NOT because the Sedevacantists reject the election of these Popes (although there may now be claims to retroactively reject their elections), but rather because these Popes are 'heretics' in the opinion of the Sedevacantists due to innovation and support of Vatican II reforms. In other words, the Holy See being in a canonical state of Sede Vacante has little, if anything, to do with Sedevacantism as a movement.

With respect to whether or not JPII was the Pope - he is. This is NOT a NPOV issue, because the Roman Catholic Church is a definable thing from an objective standpoint. The Sedevacanists are simply do NOT constitute the Roman Catholic Church in secular law or any other except in some cases, perhaps, their own documents - but even these are required for legal purposes to bear other names ie. "The True Catholic Church", et al. Unlike the medieval and renaissance AntiPopes, there is no question that for any legal purposes, whether that be Church or Secular law, the Sedevacantist bodies do not constitute the Roman Catholic Church.

--Nicodemus75 09:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Clarifications" by 82.72.19.4

I have reverted these clarifications because they are just plum incorrect. An antipope is not one who necessarily disputes the results of a papal election. It is clearly stated in the article that it was many times impossible to determine at the time whether or not an historical antipope would later be disavowed by the church or not. The old wording was much clearer in terms of an appropriate definition of an antipope.

--Nicodemus75 00:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dimech

THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED OWING TO DATA PROTECTION AND MISUSE ACT. KINDLY DO NOT TAMPER ANYMORE WITH THIS PARTICULAR SECTION. WIKIPEDIA WAS INFORMED EARLIER THIS WEEK. 17 MARCH 2006 15.30

Could someone check this article Dimech and see if pass the antipope test, or if it is a not notable vanity page (in this case please put it in vdf page). I know very little about this argoment, but it seem to me a hoax. -- Cate 10:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • The page returned for the third time so really need a clarification. Cate 12:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am currently researching this obscure Antipope - the article likely has as much merit as the other modern antipopes listed. --Nicodemus75 18:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • VFD result on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dimech was to delete. Done. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The VFD result clearly applies to the article on Dimech, (which makes perfect sense), his entry here in a list of contemporary antipopes is suitable. I have reverted the deletion from this list. He is recently declared (therefore little information is available) and I am continuing my research into the "Schismatic Catholic Church" which appears to be registered in Malta.--Nicodemus75 01:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This antipope is listed in a number of places on the web by various sites which watch for antipopes. I can provide a list of them if necessary. It must be recognized that almost every contemporary "antipope" could be qualified for deletion or changed to notable vanities, even those that have been covered by the press such as Micheal Bawden or Manuel Alonso Corral. By their VERY NATURE, modern antipopes are obscure, self-promoting and of interest only as novelties and to obscurantist historians and cult-watchers. While a quick VFD for a page on Dimech makes perfect sense, the listing of any of these antipopes on a page about anitpopes is most suitable, as it well may be one of the few collections of such names that have *any* reference checking done whatsoever. If Mr. Dimech from Malta is to be removed from the listings here, then most, if not all of the listings here should be removed as well. Some latitude needs to be granted for research into recently declared antipopes such as this one. Further, I cannot currently confirm that this Dimech is the same mentioned in the VFD as a ****** ****** in Malta. --Nicodemus75 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

He is returned. Now with an other completly different bio (and with some other ridiculous facts). -- Cate 09:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have since confirmed that this antipope and his church do not exist.--Nicodemus75 09:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sedevacantist antipope article redirected

Anonymous user 220.239.120.28 created a seperate article by cut/pasting the Sedevacantist section from the article and then imposing a variety of links in this article and others to it. There is no need for a distinct article on the subject, I have restored this article and redirected the Sedevacantist Antipopes article to here. I was originally going to VfD the other page, but realized a redirect is faster. --Nicodemus75 01:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sedevacantist antipopes equal to antipopes of the past

Just an inquiry, would you consider a sedevacantist antipope of equal status to an antipope in middle ages who have a large following and has the pretension to be the real pope of the Catholic Church? If so listing the sedevacantist along with the real antipopes of the past does indicate that they have equal authority or support as much as the real pope (like Benedict XVI). I think someone should seperate this article into a new page as it giving a false impression -especially to those who know Catholicism and its leaders! -Ed

Some of this issue was discussed above, but it apparently requires some revisiting. First of all, the statement "listing the sedevacantist along with the real antipopes of the past does indicate that they have equal authority or support as much as the real pope" is a patently nonsensical argument. By virtue of being an "antipope" one inherently does NOT have 'equal authority or support' as the real Pope. As I pointed out in an earlier discussion above on this very issue, some of the early 'Antipopes' had little or no influence, in fact some of them have only been 'discovered' in relatively modern times through scholarship (e.g. Felix II). There are some Modern 'Antipopes' whose influence is considerably greater than some of the classically numbered antipopes, most notably those antipopes of the Palmarian Catholic Church and the Reformed Church of Christ/Apostles of Infinite Love. What is more, modern antipopes, whether labelled such officially, semi-officially or by default by the Church are not usually called "Sedevacantist Antipopes" by the Church, or in the press, but are typically styled simply as "antipope". It is confusing and misleading to have a separate article that somehow divides historical antipopes (who may or may not have had a wide political influence or following) from modern antipopes (who may or may not have a wide influence or following). The obvious function of this article is to do exactly what it does at present: provide a short description of what exactly an 'antipope' is, as well as a listing of antipopes for further research/reading. If your argument that this article should be reserved for 'influential' antipopes only, I would argue that a number of historical antipopes have little or no influence or following whatsoever (notably Felix II and Phillip) and if the standard of inclusion in an article on "Antipopes" is what you are suggesting, then these should be excluded. Obviously this is a page about "Antipopes", not "Historical Antipopes" or "Inflential Antipopes" or "Antipopes who have 'equal authority or support as the real popes'" or "Antipopes who are known to those who think they 'know Catholicism and its leaders'". An antipope is an antipope is an antipope, irrespective of how much support or publicity he has or has had in the past. Sedevacantism (and thusly it's antipopes) as a reaction to Vatican II and other Pauline reforms is far more significant in the history of Catholicism than Felix II (who didn't even "exist" until recently) or Phillip (who reigned for an entire day) or Dioscorus (who managed a stunningly influential and "authoritative" 22 day reign) - even in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church (witnessed by pastoral letters and excommunications against Sedevacantists and their leaders). --Nicodemus75 20:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions by Mikkalai

Firstly, previous discussion in various VfD/AfD was to include less notable antipopes in list format under this article rather than in their own article. Second, the repetition of Manuel Corral in your novel idea of having a section for Antipopes named Peter II is unnecessary. The antipopes listed here are not a series of asylum inmates, but (largely, anyway) verifiable conclavist claimants to the Papacy. I have devoted a fair amount of time to at least establishing that these individuals exist and you are simply deleting for some unknown, unexplained reason (possibly because you "know azylums [sic] full of apopes" - whatever that means). A heading for popes named Peter II is an absurd heading, these popes belong with other conclavists who are claimants to the Holy See. It is obviously less useful to group them by name, as we do not do this with any other Antipopes. Please stop instantly reverting my contributions without providing some other explanation.--Nicodemus75 17:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Less notable" is a weasel word for "nonnotable". Either notable for wikipedia or not. The problem is verifiability. You cannot just list names. I have no reasons to believe you. mikka (t) 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Fine, they are notable. The term "weasel word" carries severe conotations of dishonesty, please re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The great majority of these antipopes are verifiable and I can provide the necessary verifiability. Your claims that antipopes (for instance) require their own articles in order to be listed here is your own opinion. There is no concensus on such a claim.--Nicodemus75 17:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Please provide the necessary verifiability. Otherwise the names will be deleted. mikka (t) 17:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
To begin with please see the following pages online: [1], [2], [3]. These sites include information and biographical information on a variety of the anitpopes listed in the article. These pages are, frankly, not difficult to find by using a Google search. The onus is not somehow "on me" to prove notability just because you question it. If you are going to delete obviously notable and interesting items from the article, you should at least invest a little bit of effort into determining if these antipopes actually exist.--Nicodemus75 17:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I can use google. But since you are defending them, please do the article a favor and provide reliable in your opinion (here your POV is OK) references, so that I (and other editors) would not waste time. I provided you with the reference to the policy in this respect, don't I? mikka (t) 23:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You should have spent a few minutes on Google in the first place since you came along and started deleting content. It is nonsense that because an editor is too lazy to perform any verification on article content that suddenly removing it as "unverifiable" or "non-notable" is appropriate.--Nicodemus75 23:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Also see here [4], here [5], here [6], here [7] and here [8]. You have to realize that while unquestionable notable, antipopes are nonetheless obscure, to a certain extent. Many are shameless self-promoters, and it is easy to dismiss the whole lot of them as a bunch of quacks - but the fact is that combined these sedevancatists now have literally tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of follows (I haven't yet included a section for Pope Ahitler in Kenya who has a peculiarly large movement) and their activities are obviously shady. Nonetheless, for the vast majority of these antipopes, there is plenty of external evidence. I do have one reference on Raymond Dimech and the so-called "Schimastic Catholic Church" but it is not on the web. I am curently looking further into these claims. Frankly, all of the other anitpopes listed are well documented through a little bit of Google-searching (although admittedly, one has to be able to read and/or translate Italian, Spanish or Portuguese for many of the articles - obviouslt many of these antipopes are from Italy, Spain, etc. so much of the primary source information will not be in English). I should also mention there are a number of verifiable antipopes who are not listed here because they are so obscure that their real names are not even public.--Nicodemus75 22:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
All this does not chahge the fact that some author of wikipedia article must take the burden of verifying each and every of them. Please notice that if a guy from a modern larger country is obscure, then he is nonnotable by definition. We are not talking Middle Ages or Kayman Islands here. mikka (t) 23:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted popes

If a person is notable and verifiable, write an article, then add it here. This is a traditional criterion for all lists of things that may have controversy about notability, starting from List of webcomics. Azylums full of "popes". mikka (t) 17:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC) See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Dimech. You will not pump various names here without reasonable justification. mikka (t) 17:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

See my comments above. There is no such criterion or concensus that an item must have an article to be listed in an article of a topical nature. Also, not (yet) having a specific article about a particular antipope does not mean they should be deleted from the list of antipopes. Most of the antipopes listed here are verifiable. Google is not the arbitor of verifiability. You will not delete good faith contributions without reasonable justification.--Nicodemus75 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)--Nicodemus75 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, the burden of proof is on the contributor. I will not clean them up for another week, giving you a chance to prove the notablility. mikka (t) 18:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Please show concensus or policy on your unilateral claim that "the burden of proof is on the contributor". Further, I am not the "contributor" in many of these case, I happen to be an editor to this article, and I have already done research to satsify myself of the existence of most of these claimants. I suggest you do the same. I have already provided independant verifiability for most of the names on the list, above.--Nicodemus75 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
This is simply ridiculous. This is a common sense: it is next to impossible to prove that something "does not exist". See e.g., Wikipedia:Verifiability. And again, I have no reason to believe you more than any other editor. mikka (t) 18:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, Nicodemus, I disagree that "Peter II" shouldn't have a separate heading. He even has a separate article. And I even know why there are so many of them. Do you? mikka (t) 17:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It is for a variety of reasons including the prophecies of St. Malachy listing a future pope "Peter the Roman" as the final Pope at the time of the apocalypse. Antipopes should not be listed by name in this way, there are a variety of Antipopes that have the same appellation and I do not see you grouping them in this way. Further, it is redundant, repetitous, and misleading to repeat antipopes in the listing as Manuel Corral under your novel idea will appear twice. Readers interested in antipopes of that appellation will consult the relevant article. Also please do not take such a condescending tone, please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, implying that you know better than I do.--Nicodemus75 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Precisely because of the "variety of reasons" this name is notable enough to warrant a separate section. mikka (t) 17:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
There are a "variety of reasons" for each appellation of various antipopes. The reasons for each anitpope to select an apellation do not warrrant a separate section (neither does the mere existence of another article), even when multiple antipopes have chosen the same style.--Nicodemus75 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The way you have changed the link to Antipope Peter II makes the most sense, I believe. If you think about the difficulties inherent with maintaining an accurate list of Antipapal claimant, I simply think it is far more reasonable to group the claimants by their affiliation, rather than by their nomenclature (irrespective of the special status and motivations that may exist for some of these claimants to choose the name "Peter II".)--Nicodemus75 18:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You have now completed your third reversion of this page within the 24hour limit stipulated in WP:3RR. In accordance with WP policy, please cease your reversions of this page of my good faith contributions. As you may be aware following a review of WP:3RR, those editors who violate the 3RR policy may be subjected to a 24-hour block.--Nicodemus75 17:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In order for somebody to be mentioned, it is essential their existence be verifiable. For some reason there are no citations in this article. I think the removal of many modern-day "antipopes" is easily called for. It's the editor who adds the entry, or wishes it to remain, who has that obligation to do the research in such a case. Also, even when somebody is proven to exist, and have made the claim to be a pope, that by itself, doesn't prove any signficance. They must have some following, or have had some impact on somebody, before they're worth mentioning. An article discussing the disputed 2000 election in the US, would mention Gore's initial claim to have won, but it wouldn't discuss some unknown guy's claim that he was the real president of the US. This article needs some citing or some trimming. --rob 02:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split

This article is just silly. I'd suggest splitting off the Sedevacantist antipopes. It's another concect and another level of notability. --Pjacobi 17:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no particular reason to split a short article. Level of notability is irrelevant. All of them are antipopes by definition. mikka (t) 18:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Most people who are interested in this topic will not look for "Sedevacantist Antipopes", because that is not the popular nomenclature for them in the Church, in the press or anywhere else except as an academic distinction in places such as encyclopedias. Also see my comments above Talk:Antipope#Sedevacantist antipopes equal to antipopes of the past.--Nicodemus75 18:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Most people lookung up Antipopes expect to find the historical antipopes here. The populare nomenclature for sedevacantist antipopes is "cult leader" or the like. We don't use it either. The sedevacantist antipope article will be linked from here in the usual style:
This article is about historical antipopes of the Roman Catholic Church, for the recent phenomenon of sedevacantist antipopes see there
Pjacobi 08:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
"Most people lookung up Antipopes expect to find the historical antipopes here." - This is just your own speculation. How on earth can you possibly determine what "most people" are expecting to find in this article? Your statement about "cult leader" is just plain wrong. Please show any reference in the press where a sedevacantist pope is called a "cult leader". I have never encountered a reference like this (with the exception of perhaps Ahitler's group in Kenya or The Apostles of Infinite Love), and I have researched and written published articles about various Sedevacantist and other Traditional Catholic groups for years. The Church does not refer to these individual as "cult leaders", but rather as "antipopes". Every mention I have ever seen of the sedevacantists in either print media or in rare occasions they receive television news coverage have referred to them as "antipope" or politely steered clear and just called them "pope" (in quotations). As I have stated above, the sedevacantists are every bit as much Antipopes as are the historical antipopes, both canonically speaking, and in fact. Some of the modern antipopes are far more significant in their "reigns" than many of the historical antipopes - to seperate them to a different article makes no sense whatsoever, in my opinion.--Nicodemus75 15:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not speculation. People reading about serious history don't want to read about some modern crackpot of no signficance. --rob 16:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It absolutely is speculation. Sedevacantism is part of a large, international Traditionalist Catholic movement (or movements) with hundreds of thousands of adherents and sympathizers - both within and outside of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not a sedevacantist, but they view themselves as a legitimate expression of Catholicism and simply dismissing them as "crackpots of no significance" demonstrates a clear ignorance of the scale and scope of traditionalist Catholic movements and the impact they have had (and continue) to have on the Church (not to mention being extremely perjorative). I am sure that to many Catholics (and others), Jehovah's Witnesses are just as much "crackpots" as the Palmarians. To suggest that the Palmar de Troya movement, and other movements growing from dissatsifaction with the changes of Vatican II are of "no significance" and conversely claiming that almost completely non-notable historical personages such as Antipope Felix II or Antipope Phillip are "serious history" fails to recognize even the most basic relative importance of modern antipopes. Further, and most significantly (as I have already tried to point out) the sedevacantists are "Antipopes" and the Church canonically recognizes them as such. They aren't "cult leaders" or "crackpots" - they are "Antipopes" and any of them (except the completely non-notable) are of interest to people who may be reading or researching the subject of antipopes. The obvious function of this article is to do exactly what it does at present: provide a short description of what exactly an 'antipope' is, as well as a listing of antipopes for further research/reading. Given that these modern antipopes have received a modicum of interest from both the print media and the television media (including interviews with "Pope" Michael of Kansas, and several books having been written which include research into the Palmarian Catholic Church), I would suggest that for many people their first exposure to the very idea of "antipopes" will be through the media reports of this nature. To assume that wikipedia readers are coming to this article for "serious history" only is elitist, and presumptive. The issue is whether the article should be split or not - I see absolutely no need to split off an already small article in order to relegate it somewhere the information that at least some readers will be looking for when they search for antipopes using the encyclopedia.--Nicodemus75 17:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, before deciding what should be split, what's needed is sources to verify each and every modern anti-pope exists, and has at least some followers/beleivers, to be considered notable. Those citations must be put in the article itself (not just argued here). Those that can't be verified, can then be deleted. After the cleanup, it will be possible to revisit the issue of whether the article should be split or not. --rob 17:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Almost all of the Antipopes now listed are verified, either in their own articles or elsewhere, although some of the claimants using the appellation "Peter II" are certainly less documented (one of them I haven't even heard of). Adding the citations to the article is a housekeeping measure that has little to do with the issue of the merits of splitting the article.--Nicodemus75 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The very definition of Antipope is: An antipope is one whose claim to being Pope is the result of a disputed or contested election. . Also note: It would not necessarily have been evident, during periods when two (or three) rival claimants existed, which was the antipope, and which was the pope, and the clear-cut distinctions made between them in retrospect can give a false sense that certainty existed among their contemporaries.. So, traditionally and as correctly defined in our very article, antipopes are the result of factional struggles in the Roman Catholic Church and usually had significant support, hold control of at least some of the organisation and its resources. Quite contrary to people having a vision of Virgin Mary or people who never publicly made this claim. --Pjacobi 23:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The elections of Pope Michael, Manuel Corral, Lucien Pulvermacher are elections which are "disputed" by mainstream Catholics and the Church itself, I am quite sure. I am not sure where you get the idea that Schuckardt never publically made the claim to be Pope, he did so just prior to his expulsion from the CMRI. Further, using the definition in a hard and fast way is nonsensical, particuarly if the idea is to exclusivize this article to the historical antipopes. Not all of the 42 historical antipopes meet all or indeed in some cases ANY of the criteria you have listed. Some were never elected, quite a number did not have "significant support", held little, if any control over organization and resources. Frankly, some of the historical antipopes are not even results of factional struggles. The very existence of these sedevacantist antipopes is in fact a factional struggle which has emerged since Vatican II. Traditionalist Catholics and their sympathizers number in the hundreds of thousands if not millions, both within and outside the Church. Sedevacantism and the anitpopes created, represent a noteworthy episode in the history of Antipopes. Further, the appearance of these characters in the mainstream television and print media as "antipopes" more than justifies their inclusion in this article.--Nicodemus75 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
You totally misunderstood the disputed election term here. --Pjacobi 16:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, instead of making unverified generalized claims of support for modern antipopes in the talk page, please put, facts, specific numbers for specific people/organizations, and verifiable independent sources in the article itself (note: I'm not saying all stuff should be in this article, but while it is, it must be backed up) --rob 15:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence given, that the "modern" Antipopes fit the traditional definition of Antipope, which is also the definition of our article. Also note, that the Sedevacantist group which are larger, more respected, and -loosely speaking- less weird, are true Sedevacantists: They don't have their own (Anti-))pope. The Palmarians are suspected to have less than 2000 adherents and the True Catholics have no verifiable adherents at all.
Summing up, IMHO the only remaining issue to decide is the name of the splitoff article.
To get more input, I'll put this article on RfC.
Pjacobi 16:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If no one volunteers a better name, I'll split and put the modern antipopes at sedevacantist antipope. --Pjacobi 13:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I 'voluteer' a better name: "Antipope". "Sedevacantist Antipope" already redirects to this article (as it should). Your RfC failed to garner any comment whatsoever. You have failed to respond to the specific points I have made, simply ignoring them. These individuals are "antipopes" defined as such in Canon Law, and referred to as such in televsion and print media. Your unilateral "decision" that you will split the article is unsupported at RfC and has been objected to by at least three other editors on this talk page (myself, rob and mikka) for a variety of reasons that you simply don't agree with. At the very least, in the small discussion that has taken place about splitting this article, your view is the minority view. The Sedevacantist and Conclavist Antipopes should remain in this article where they belong, with Sedevacantist Antipope redirecting to this article. Anyone searching for these modern antipopes who does not have an in-depth knowledge of post-Vatican II schisms will search for them as "antipopes" since that is their proper appellation both in Canon Law and in all references in the media (where they are referenced in such a prejorative manner).--Nicodemus75 17:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The current article structure is:
  • Definition 1
    • List 1
  • Definition 2
    • List 2
And not by accident. Therefore the split is eminent.
Your argument before deciding what should be split, what's needed is sources to verify each and every modern anti-pope exists is a Non sequitur.
Your argument about searching I have answered already: There will be a disambig at the top.
Pjacobi 17:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The split is certainly not eminent. Your continual refusal to address the fundamental argument is germaine. Modern antipopes are just that: "antipopes". Also, your stated intention to act in clear contravention of concensus (all editors who have commented on this matter do not agree with a split). There is already a concensus not to split the article as you have suggested. The other three editors involved in this discussion have clearly voiced their opposition to your idea. To restate as clearly as possible: No split is required, nor is there any concensus whatsoever to split the article. Indeed, the opposite is true: there is a concensus not to split the article. This concensus is opposed by one editor: you. --Nicodemus75 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Two different definitions. Two lemmata needed. It's all stated in the article. Actually you are the only one opposong a split. --Pjacobi 19:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There are not two different definitions. No split needed. It's all stated in the article. Actually, two other editors have already voiced their objections to a split above: "There is no particular reason to split a short article. Level of notability is irrelevant. All of them are antipopes by definition. mikka (t) 18:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)" and ":::::Well, before deciding what should be split, what's needed is sources to verify each and every modern anti-pope exists, and has at least some followers/beleivers, to be considered notable. Those citations must be put in the article itself (not just argued here). Those that can't be verified, can then be deleted. After the cleanup, it will be possible to revisit the issue of whether the article should be split or not. --rob 17:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)".

Do not act against concensus.--Nicodemus75 20:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

@rob: Your argument is still a non sequitor. It even better fits the other way around: As the article part on modern ones is still lacking, it would be nic to habe separate articles, as the historical ones are well researched and easily topic.
@Nicodemus: I already know that you disagree. Calling that consensus is a bit far-fetched.
Pjacobi 12:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nai Yi Xu

  • Nai Yi Xu (Urban IX), self-proclaimed in 2005 in China

Anon's addition, removed until verification. mikka (t) 18:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is a new addition and I have not yet had a chance to review.--Nicodemus75 18:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antipopes in other churches

Have there been antipopes in churches other than the Roman Catholic Church that use the title of Pope - and have there been equivalents in churches which use other designations? (eg Patriarchs)

Jackiespeel 16:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Bishop Schuckardt. There is no verifiable evidence that Bishop Schuckardt ever claimed to be the pope or has ever called himself pope Hadrian VII. This claim first surfaced when those who sought to overthrow him made the accusation in order to stir up the people against him. Their motive was the retention of their positions of power and a church worth millions of dollars. Power and greed are historically strong motives for dishonesty and claims from such people without outside verification have historically been given very little credence. It has now been over twenty-one years since these accusations were first made and those making the claim still have not produced a single piece of verifiable evidence to substantiate their claims. Those who think a picture of him in a white cassock is evidence of such a claim simply demonstrate their own ignorance of permitted episcopal attire.

I plan on removing Bishop Schuckardt from this article as a self-proclaimed papal claimant, but first wanted to give others a chance to present verifiable evidence, as is Wikipedia's written policy, to demonstrate that he did indeed make such a claim. My name is Frater John. I have personally known Bishop Schuckardt for 30 years and make no false pretense at being someone without a personal bias in his favor. I also know first hand, that much of what is said about him is false, and where I can present the actual facts in his regard, I plan on doing so. NOT MY OPINION, but the facts. Thanks.

[edit] Links between Popes

I have created the article Links between popes: a list of how the parallel claimants's dates overlap (a table or otherwise) would be a useful addition. Jackiespeel 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split done

I've finally split the article per the "undue weight" clause of NPOV. Regarding of the opposition swhoen by this page's regular editors, I refer to WP:OWN. --Pjacobi 18:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clemente Domínguez y Gómez

This article says "[Domínguez] was viewed by mainstream Roman Catholicism as an antipope." These events started in the 1970's from reading the article. There seems to be a discrepancy here between the Clemente Domínguez y Gómez article and the antipope article. Perhaps someone knowledgable about Catholocism can look into this, as this article' last mentioned antipope is over five hundred years old. BigNate37(T) 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theofylact

There was no Antipope Theofylact. Would someone please see that the stub article on him is deleted. There was an Archdeacon Theophylact who is mentioned several times in the Catholic Encyclopedia] as acting on behalf of Pope Adrian I, but there is no hint that he ever set himself up as Pope. He is also not mentioned in the list of Popes and Antipopes at the start of the Annuario Pontificio. Lima 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the Theofylact article to Archdeacon Theophylact and deleted him from the antipope template. He only was a candidate for the papacy in 757 but not an antipope. Whether the "Pope-stub" note is justified I will leave to others. Str1977 (smile back) 12:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silvester III

Dear Lima, I am not sure what the Annuario says about Silvester III. Does it number him as a legitimate Pope or merely ignores hims? At any rate, he should be included in our list, which is why I restored him. But if the Annuario comment now is wrong, please correct it. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The part of the Annuario's series of Popes and Antipopes that interests you runs as follows (my hurried translation - where I use two terms, the first is the original Italian form, the second is a more English form; Roman numerals indicate the month):

Benedict IX, Teofilatto (Theophylact) of the Counts of Tuscolo (Tusculum), ...VIII or IX. 1032 - ...IX.1044
Silvester III, Roman, Giovanni (John), 13 or 20.I.1045 - ...III.1045
Benedict IX (for the second time), 10.III.1045 - 1.V.1045
Gregory VI, Roman, Giovanni (John) Graziano, 1.V.1045 - 20.XII.1046
Clement II, from Saxony, Suitgero of the Lords of Morsleben von Horneburg, 24.XII.1046 - 9.X.1047
Benedict IX (for the third time), ...X.1047- ...VII.1048.

A footnote to the last entry says:

The pontificate of Benedict IX was interrupted for the first time through the intrusion of Silvester III; the second time, Benedict IX resigned and was succeeded by Gregory VI; finally, Benedict IX again became Pope for the third time, after the death of Clement II.

Typographically, the Annuario presents antipopes as follows:

Gregory V, from Saxony, Bruno of the Dukes of Carinthia, 3.V.996 - ...II or III.999
[John XVI, from Rossano, Giovanni Filagato, ... II or III.997 - ...V.998]

Thus, the Annuario Pontificio presents Silvester III as Pope, not Antipope. And 1045 is in the mid-eleventh century, a period in which the Annuario says (in the footnote about Pope Leo VIII, partly quoted in the article) that it is impossible to determine with certainty who was the lawful Pope.

The footnote about Pope Leo VIII begins as follows: "Leo VIII was elected in the Council of Rome held in the Basilica of Saint Peter by Emperor Otto I after the deposition on the same day, 4.XII.963, of John XII, who died on the following 14 May. Was the deposition valid? If it was, Leo VIII was a lawful Pope. At this point, as again ..." (the rest of the note, in a translation to which I devoted more time, is in the article)

I leave it to you to adjust the article in view of this information.

By the way, I already noticed the difference in spelling between the Annuario (Filagato) and the article (Filagatto), but, in case the article is correctly based on a good source, I did not retouch it.

Lima 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick information. I will semi-revert my edit to reflect this. I do not know on what the sources the article is based, re Filagatto. Str1977 (smile back) 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about Heraclius 310

Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope St. Eusebius:

The latter, however, is by far more probable in the hypothesis that Heraclius was the chief of a party made up of apostates and their followers, who demanded immediate restoration to the body of the Church. Damasus characterizes in very strong terms the conflict which ensued (seditcio, cœdes, bellum, discordia, lites). It is likely that Heraclius and his supporters sought to compel by force their admittance to divine worship, which was resented by the faithful gathered in Rome about Eusebius. In consequence both Eusebius and Heraclius were exiled by Emperor Maxentius. Eusebius, in particular, was deported to Sicily, where he died soon after. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by anonymous 75.14.211.31 (talk • contribs).

There is no suggestion that Heraclius claimed to be Bishop of Rome, still less that he "made a widely accepted claim to be the lawful Pope." Lima 07:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A list of antipopes

I think the list should be no more than a list. The annotations that have been added to several names belong to the articles on the individuals. What do others think? Lima 04:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some thins can be deleted in the list, which should tell us the name (papal and personal), the dates and in case of the great schism the "papal line" a certain anti-pope came from. Also, the "see above" notes should stay. Str1977 (smile back) 07:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. I am now removing "Antipope" from my watchlist. Lima 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Huch, I thought you wanted, Lima. But as you please, I will go ahead. Str1977 (smile back) 14:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAntipope_013c.html"