Anti-Popes

Anti-Pope

In the first twelve centuries of her existence the Church was disturbed some twenty-five times by rival claimants of the Papacy. The strife thus originated was always an occasion of scandal, sometimes of violence and bloodshed, but in most cases it was eaay for men of honest will to distinguish between the true Pope and the Anti-Pope or false claimant. It was very different in the great schism of the fourteenth century. For forty years two and even three pretenders to the Papacy claimed the allegiance of Catholics: whole countries, learned men and canonised saints, ranged themselves on different aides, and even now it is not perhaps absolutely certain who was Pope and who Anti-Pope.

It is usually said that Novatian, who became the leader of a schismatical party at Rome in 251, was the first Anti-Pope, but Dollinger ("Hippolytus and Callistus," Engl. Tr. p. Ul teg.) argues with weighty reasons that he was anticipated thirty years before by Hippolytus, the supposed author of the "Philosophumena." In the election of Felix II. (A.D. 355-6) a new element appears which was often to manifest itself again - viz. the influence of the court. The Arian Kmperor Constantius, after removing Pope Liberius from Rome, compelled three disreputable bishops "to establish as bishop in the pnlace a certain Felix, who was worthy of them." So Athanasius writes ("Ad Monach. et Hist. Arian." 75) only three years after the event, and one can scarcely doubt that his account is accurate in the main. It is accepted, e.y., by Natalia Alexander (Diss. xxxii. a. 3 in S»c. iv.), Helele (" Concil." i. p. 661), ami many other Catholic authorities.

But Felix is commemorated as a saint in the Latin Church on July 20, and Pagi ("In Annal. Baron." ad ann. 367, n. 3, ad 357, n. 16 seg.) tries to show that he was no Arian intruder, but succeeded Liberius upon hia resignation. After Felix, there were no more heretical Anti-Popes, although Laurentius (498) was supported by the Byzantine Court in the belief that he would approve the Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno.

Indeed, for many centuries Anti-Popes were upheld simply by factions among the clergy and people, who had the power of election. Thus Eulaliua (418 10) was supported by a minority of clergy and people, and by the Prefect Symraachus; he was finally expelled by the Emperor Honorius. Laurentius (498) had a party of the people and Festus the patrician on his side; the case was decided ngainst him by the Arian king Theodoric till. xxx. 48). Dioscorus (530) was raised by popular faction and died a month afterwards (16. xxxii. 21). Pascal (687-692) gained a party among the people and the favour of John Exarch of Ravenna by bribery (ib. xl. 39). The tumultuous mob which chose John (844) abandoned him almost immediately (ib. xlviii. 15). The deputies of the Emperor Lothair and the arms of the Frankish soldiers enabled the usurper Anastasius to defy the true Pope Benedict III for a brief space in 855 (ib. xlix. 20).

At this time the fabulous Pope Joan is said to hove reigned. The story first appeared in a book by the French Dominican Stephen da Bourbon (d". 1261) ; tben in early MSS. of the bistorv of Martinus Polonus, also a Dominican (u. 1219). The work of Polonus was the popular history of the middle ages, and obtained universal belicr for the legend. It found n place in the Mirabilia Urbii Roma, a sort of handbook for strangers visiting Rome. Nay, acquiescence in the fable induced John XX. to Style himself "John XXI." It was not till the fifteenth century that doubts arose, nnd the Calvinist Blondel (Joanna J'apisia, Amstelodam. 1G57) first demonstrated the unhistorical character of the legend. He was followed by Leibnitz (Floret Sparri in tumulum Papiss&, Goettinp. 1758), and by nearly all historians since.

A new complication occurred in 964. Benedict V does not deserve to be called an Anti-Pope. He was duly elected by the Roman people. But the Romans had sworn in the previous year that they would not proceed to elect a Pope except with the Emperor's consent and according to his wishes. Benedict was degraded and humbly confessed his sin. In the two following centuries a number of AntiPopes raised to this eminence by the violence of popular and Baronial factions in the darkest age of the Church's history. Such were Franco, a deacon of the Ilomnn Church, who took the title of Boniface VII. and usurped the Roman bishopric in 875 and again in 884 (Fleury, Ivi. 36, Ivii. 12.); John XVI. (Philogathus), who won his place by bribery in 997; a certain Gregory who headed a party after a contested election in 1012 (ib. Iviii. 35).

It was believed till quite lately that the Church in the middle of the eleventh century was distracted for the first time by the claims of three rival Popes. The investigations of Stemdorff have shown this supposition to be inaccurate, and his conclusions are accepted by Hefele in his second edition. The following seem to be the facts of the case. In 1033 the Count of Tusculum raised his son, a boy of twelve, to the Papal throne. He called himself Benedict IX. In 1044 this "devil on the chair of Peter" was overthrown in a popular uproar, and Silvester III., not without simony, succeeded to his place. He in turn, after the lapse of a year, resigned in favor of Gregory VI., an excellent man, though apparently he bribed Benedict to resign. Although therefore there were not three rival Popes, still there were three parties in the Roman Church and some reason to fear that a triple schism might arise. It was this fear which induced the German King Henry III to interfere. A council of Sutri deposed Gregory and Silvester, Benedict was deposed the same year in a synod of Rome, and Suidger of Bamberg, at the recommendation of the king, was canonically elected. He took the title of Clement II. (Hefele, "Concil." iv. p. 706 grq.)

The election of the Anti-Pope Cadalaus (the name is spelt in many ways), known as Honorius II, has greater and wider interest, connected, as it is, with the general history of the Church. The party of reform chose Alexander II. Beatrice of Canossa was zealous in his cause, and he was acknowledged as true Pope in 1002 at a synod of Augsburg. But many feared the strong measures a good Pope might take against the simony and concubinage prevalent among the clergy. The Lombard bishops were determined to have a Pope who came from the Paradise of Italy (i.e. Lombardy), and who would have patience with human weakness. A powerful party at Rome was at one with them, at least on the latter point. Thus it came to pass that Cadalaus, bishop of Parma, a man of licentious life, was chosen Pope at a council of Basle by the Lombard prelate and Ronman deputies in 1061, took the title of Honorius II, and was invested by the young King Henry IV with the insignia of the Papacy just twenty-eight days after the cardinal bishops had elected Alexander II. The schism was a formidable one. The German court abandoned the cause of Cadalaus at the synod of Augsburg, but he found favor ever after that with the Empress Agnes and with the king, and he had money and arms at his command. He died in 1072 (Hefele, "Concil." iv. p. 870 seq.).

The spectacle at which the West looked for eight consecutive years, from 1130 to 1138, has remained unique in history. Two popes, Anacletus II and Innocent II, had been elected at the same time, and Bernard, in order to end the schism, made himself supreme judge in an infinitely complex and delicate case. St. Bernard governed Christianity in the West from 1125 to 1153 by the mere prestige of his eloquence and holiness. Bernard thought that, in the choice of a pope, votes should be weighed and not counted.

Henry V died childless in May 1125, and with him closed the Franconian line of German emperors. His natural heirs were his two nephews, the brothers Conrad and Frederick of Hohenstaufen. The Hohenstaufen, by their fidelity to Henry IV, had first established his power. The Gregorian Papacy could never long remain reconciled to any measure which tended to thwart its greed for secular power or to allow it less than absolute control in temporalities. Pope Honorius died on the 14th of February 1130. Honorius was hardly dead when five of the electors proclaimed the cardinal Gregory of St. Angelo as Innocent II. The other party, much the more numerous, and supported by the Roman nobility and people, elected Peter, the son of Peter Leonis, as Anacletus II.

Anacletus at once proceeded to storm and despoil St. Peter's and other churches of the city, and two days after his election took possession of the Lateran. He then attempted to seize Innocent, but he had escaped to the protection of the Frangipani. But a fortnight had not passed before Innocent was reminded of the saying, "Put not your trust in princes." The Frangipani, probably on account of bribes, deserted him, and he secretly made his escape to France. Many of Innocent's partisans were gained by threats or bribes, and Anacletus conferred privileges and issued canonical decisions as if he were in undisputed possession.

But declarations in favor of Innocent began to make themselves heard. Henry of England gave his adherence to Innocent, and had a personal interview with him at Chartres. Innocent and Lothair met at Liege in March, and the synod held at that time, at which ninety bishops and abbots and thirteen cardinals were present, pronounced Innocent Pope and banned Anacletus, Conrad, and Frederick. The Synod of Rheims followed in October, and commissioners to that body from England and from Castile and Aragon presented the homage of those kingdoms to Innocent. Thus, soon after his expulsion from Rome, he was acknowledged by Germany, England, France, a great part of Italy, and all the monastic orders.

Anacletus remained master of Rome and of Italy. Lothair and Innocent entered Rome together, and the emperor was crowned by the pope (1133), while Anacletus and his defenders barricaded themselves in the castle of St. Angelo. But, almost as soon as the imperial forces had departed, the anti-pope succeeded in again driving out his rival, who took refuge at Pisa. A council was held in this city (June, 1135); it was necessary again to excommunicate Anacletus and his partisans, to affirm the authority of Innocent, to reform the abuses, and to fortify the discipline of the Church.

There was uncertainty among Romanists as to the succession of the Popes, as illustrated by John. Platina, in his "Lives of the Popes," calls this Pope John XXIV. Milner, in his "End of Controversy," calls him John XXIII. Reeve, in his "General History of the Church," calls him John XXII; and River, in his "Manual," set him down as John XXI. Harding, the Jesuit, in his controversy with Bishop Jewel, denies that John XXIII was a true Pope. He says, "Neither was he a true Pope, lawfully elect, but an usurper, as two others were with him at the same time." The only answer necessary to Harding's assertion is that the same cardinals who elected Alexander V., unanimously elected Pope John XXIII, and that both these Popes are given as true Popes in many lists.

Among the articles of accusation sworn to against Pope John XXIII, at the Council of Constance, was the following one : " That he had obstinately maintained before persons of honor that there is no life after this, nor resurrection, and that the soul of man dies with the body like that of beasts." This article is one of twenty that were suppressed "for the honor of the Apostolic See and the cardinals." John XXIV was a diamond of the first water. He crowned himself with the infallible tiarra, while the wondering cardinals looked on in astonishment. To be sure he had an army to overawe them. But John XXIV was at length deposed, for he was convicted by the council of Constance, of being an apparent heretic, an ungodly knave, a pillar to barterers in benefices, a glass of dishonesty, a vessel full «f all vice, yea, a devil incarnate. He was convicted by witnesses that he unlawfnlly kept company with his brother's sister, many holy nuns, young maids, and married wives, and also made sale of benefices, prebends, churches, and bishoprics, for his profit to bestow on his infant bastards. Moreover, that he condemned even masses, and above all, had sold St. John's head (which lay in Sylvester's cloister) to the Florentines for fifty thousand ducats, if so be he had not been hindered in this by the citizens of Rome.

When pope Hadrian died, the cardinals assembled to choose a successor. Having deliberated several days, they elected Alexander III, but two cardinals, John and Guido, declared Octavianus pope, by the name of Victor IV, who observing the other competitor with the papal robe, ran to him and snatched it from his shoulders; a senator, however, taking it from him, he called to his chaplain, who had brought a robe on purpose, and taking that robe, he hastily put it on himself. The doors of the church being then opened, a body of armed men rushed in to his assistance: the other party retired to the castle of St. Angelo, where they were besieged for nine days by the Romans whom Victor had corrupted. The popes now excommunicated each other. The emperor referred their cause to a general council, to which Alexander refused to submit. Victor appeared, and after consulting seven days, they declared him pope. Victor dying, his successor, Paschal III. was acknowledged by the emporor, who swore never to acknowledge Alexander.