A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[racer]

Here are the quotes cited, since apparently you can't distinguish between them and what the commentary says regarding them. Also, the author provides proper citations with his quotes, if you'll just take the time to read them:

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
​

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?​

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock [SIZE=-1](Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).[/SIZE]
​

Now, I'm not going to provide further comment other than what was previously given to you. I find Webster and others far more qualified to speak than myself. So, if you really don't understand the implications of what these quotes represent. I refer you back to the posts which provide commentary for you.

 

[racer]

More quotes of which you missed, citations also provided:

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) [SIZE=-1](A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).[/SIZE]
​

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates [SIZE=-1](A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).[/SIZE]​

 

[racer]

Again:

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer [SIZE=-1](John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).[/SIZE]

​

 

[racer]

Again:

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.

For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church [SIZE=-1](Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).[/SIZE]

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church [SIZE=-1](Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).[/SIZE]

Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all.

I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone’ [SIZE=-1](John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermons, III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp. 197-198).[/SIZE]

​

 

[Uphill Battle]

At one point, wasn't there three men proclaiming to be Pope. Didn't they all excommunicate each other?

I don't remember. I know there have been popes at the same time who anathemized their competitor.

My FAVORITE story is the one Pope that supposedly exhumed his predecsessor, and held trial on the corpse.

I think it was Pope Stephen VI....




the Cadaver Synod.

The Cadaver Synod (also called the Cadaver Trial or, in Latin, the Synodus Horrenda) is the name commonly given to the posthumous ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, held in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January of 897.[1]
Before the proceedings the body of Formosus was exhumed and, according to some sources, seated on a throne while his successor, Pope Stephen VI, read the charges against him (to which Formosus was found guilty) and conducted the trial. The Cadaver Synod is remembered as one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of the medieval papacy.

 

[racer]

http://www.answers.com/topic/western-schism

Western Schism

(1378 – 1417) In Roman Catholic history, a period when there were two, and later three, rival popes, each with his own College of Cardinals. The schism began soon after the papal residence was returned to Rome from Avignon (see Avignon papacy). Urban VI was elected amid local demands for an Italian pope, but a group of cardinals with French sympathies elected an antipope, Clement VII, who took up residence at Avignon. Cardinals from both sides met at Pisa in 1409 and elected a third pope in an effort to end the schism. The rift was not healed until the Council of Constance vacated all three seats and elected Martin V as pope in 1417.


Western Schism


The Western Schism or Papal Schism (also known as the Great Schism of Western Christianity) was a split within the Catholic Church (1378 - 1417). By its end, three "popes" (or one holy Pope and two unholy antipopes) claimed to be the true Bishop of Rome. Lacking any real theological or doctrinal underpinnings, being rather driven by politics, it was ended by the Council of Constance (1414). Simultaneous claims by three would-be Popes hurt the reputation of the office.

The Western Schism is occasionally called the Great Schism, though this term is more often applied to the East-West Schism of 1054.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism

The Western Schism or Papal Schism (also known as the Great Schism of Western Christianity) was a split within the Catholic Church (1378 - 1417). By its end, three men simultaneously claimed to be the true pope. Driven by politics rather than any real theological disagreement, it was ended by the Council of Constance (1414). The simultaneous claims by three would-be Popes hurt the reputation of the office

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.Arnold.RMT.1.HTML

The Papal Schism. From 1378-1417 there were three simultaneous popes, each claiming to be the true pope: Urban VII, an Italian; Clement VII, a Frenchman; and a third pope elected by the Council of Pisa. For several years there were three popes anathematizing and excommunicating one another.

http://www.biblequery.org/History/ChurchHistory/ReformationChurch.htm

The Council of Constance​

1415 AD.​

The Council of Constance was called in 1415 primarily to settle the division among the three simultaneous Popes, for all saw that this division, and even granting indulgences to those who participated in a crusade against a rival Pope, were harmful to the respect people had for the Catholic Church. At the Council the writings of John Wycliffe were condemned, and Jan Huss was burned to death. The purpose of reading this is two-fold; first to expose the character of the leaders who condemned Huss, and second to lay to rest the assertion that official church councils can be trusted as used by God. Just as the Decretals issue proved that Popes have led many into grave sin, Constance, above all other official church councils, shows that even some church councils can be tools of the devil that all true Christians, Protestant and Catholic, are to repudiate.

 

[racer]

Yes, a like power. "binding and loosing". We all know that. Jesus gave the other apostles that power later on. That is how all Bishops can forgive sins.

Yes, and it was the “possession of the keys” which gave them this power. Let me reiterate a quote by Augustine: After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all . . . I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven,

You are misunderstanding this because you do not understand the importance of two things.

I do not misunderstand. You are attempting to take isolated remarks made by ECFs that appear to support your faith’s claim regarding the primacy of Peter. I’m just revealing the fallacy of that argument.

First, you do not understand the importance of Peter receiving the Keys to the Kingdom and no one else.

This untrue teaching is only important to the RCC. The rest of our faiths stand firm without it.

Second, you do not understand the importance of Jesus making Peter the Shephard in his stead.

Again, this myth is only pertinent to the RCC. The faith of my church stands just fine without it.

I do not think I can make you see this. It is only by the Holy Spirit that we are able to see.

You can not make me believe something that is Scripturally unfounded, and any seeming historical evidence is shaky at best.

That is my view Racer and is in no way meant to be codescending or insulting.

It is not your view or beliefs that are condescending. It is your refusal to accept that I am very familiar with what the RCC teaches and believes. You continue to speak to me as if I’m someone who hasn’t a clue, even though I’ve told you that I have studied Catholicism and the fathers quite extensively. Yes, I have much more studying to do considering the fathers, especially the ones of the later years.

These are my beliefs and what I have been taught.

So, you admit that you have formed your beliefs based upon what you’ve been taught? You have based you beliefs upon your own discernment and comprehension skills?

I have read some of the many letters from the ECF and especially those referenced here and I feel certain that I understand it correctly.

What if you don’t? What if you never do? Do you believe that all RCCs have an adequate understanding of RCC teachings? What if they don’t?

But, I would enjoy seeing if you can find the points these other authors are referring to and then making your own observations with ECF quotes. Maybe you may show something that makes sense. After all I do not refute what Cyprian wrote and that he wrote "No Bishop of Bishops".

I’m not nearly obnoxious enough to believe that I can explain the quotes provided better than the Scholars whose commentaries I provided for you.

 

[racer]

First, you do not understand the importance of Peter receiving the Keys to the Kingdom and no one else.

Second, you do not understand the importance of Jesus making Peter the Shephard in his stead.

'

Yet, Von Dollinger a very qualified Catholic scholar did not think so:

But whatever may have been his reasons, he ultimately became the leader of those who were energetically opposed to any addition to, or more stringent definition of, the powers which the Papacy had possessed for centuries. In some speeches delivered at Munich in 1861 he outspokenly declared his view that the maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church did not depend on the temporal sovereignty of the pope. His book on The Church and the Churches (Munich, 1861) dealt to a certain extent with the same question. ​

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Pope Stephen VI,

That would make for a good Halloween tale too. LOL

Too bad he was strangled and only had about a year for his craziness...

 

[Uphill Battle]

That would make for a good Halloween tale too. LOL

Too bad he was strangled and only had about a year for his craziness...

the very fact that he was strangled, for his succession, adds to my skepticism about the papacy, not adds to it.

alot of Papal history was politically motivated.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

the very fact that he was strangled, for his succession, adds to my skepticism about the papacy, not adds to it.

alot of Papal history was politically motivated.

For me it is Faith. Faith in God to do as he promised and protect the Church.

I know we will have some people that become Pope and these few will be sinful. I know there have been some Popes that I find embarrassing to the Catholic Church.

But the Catholic Church is not interested in covering up these guys because the truth is always better.

I would like to share one Pope's story because it shows an example of Infallibity. The Pope (I cannot recall his name) was dedicated to changing a doctrine or some teaching and had even written a book in support of his theory. He did all this as a Bishop and so when he became a Pope he had a perfect opportunity to do what he had devoted his life to, to change a teaching of the Catholic Church for something he had dedicated himself to change previously. When it was put to his chair to decide in an ex cathedra fashion he did not change a thing. Kind of like his hands were tied or he had a personal revelation.

 

[racer]

Link to this epistle chapter 33: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050633.htm

I cannot locate any such text from your post to that of the letter itself... can you?

Maybe I am looking in the wrong spot???

Well, actually, I'm not finding it either. But, I don't always cut-n-paste, sometimes I do retype text. So, I may be consumed today looking for the quote or the error.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, actually, I'm not finding it either. But, I don't always cut-n-paste, sometimes I do retype text. So, I may be consumed today looking for the quote or the error.

That is a relief... I thought I was losing my mind.

 

[racer]

Found it!


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050626.htm

Epistle 26

Cyprian to the Lapsed.

Argument.—The Argument of This Letter is Found Below in Letter XXVII. "They Wrote to Me," Says He, "Not Asking that Peace Should Be Granted Them, But Claiming It for Themselves as Already Granted, Because They Say that Paulus Has Given Peace to All; As You Will Read in Their Letter of Which I Have Sent You a Copy, Together with What I Briefly Replied to Them" But the Letter of the Lapsed to Which He Replies is Wanting.


1. Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: "I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith. For far be it from the mercy of God and His uncontrolled might to suffer the number of the lapsed to be called the Church; since it is written, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Matthew 22:32 For we indeed desire that all may be made alive; and we pray that, by our supplications and groans, they may be restored to their original state. But if certain lapsed ones claim to be the Church, and if the Church be among them and in them, what is left but for us to ask of these very persons that they would deign to admit us into the Church? Therefore it behoves them to be submissive and quiet and modest, as those who ought to appease God, in remembrance of their sin, and not to write letters in the name of the Church, when they should rather be aware that they are writing to the Church.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

^ I am reading it now...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Cyprian clearly says that Peter is the rock. If his comments were restricted to the above citation it would lend credence to the idea that he was a proponent of papal primacy. However Cyprian’s comments continue on from the statements given above. His additional statements prove conclusively that although he states that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in a pro–Roman sense. His view is that Peter is a symbol of unity, a figurative representative of the bishops of the Church. Cyprian viewed all the apostles as being equal with one another. He believed the words to Peter in Matthew 16 to be representative of the ordination of all Bishops so that the Church is founded, not upon one Bishop in one see, but upon all equally in collegiality. Peter, then, is a representative figure of the episcopate as a whole. His view is clearly stated in these words:

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) [SIZE=-1](A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).[/SIZE]​

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates [SIZE=-1](A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 26.1).[/SIZE]
​

​

Your claim (as I highlighted) is that all Bishops were seen as equals with no one having a primacy.

You are using a couple of quotes which you feel show this.

We can look at Matthew 16 where Jesus gave Peter the power to loose and bind and then a later chapter of Matthew we know Jesus gives the other Apostles the power to loose and bind.

But the primacy of Peter and his successors is not based on the power to loose and bind so much as the Keys Jesus gave only to Peter.

These are Jesus words:
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

We know this passage Jesus was speaking to Peter alone because in the next line Jesus turns to all the disciples and speaks to them all.

Your passages only show that all bishops have the same powers to lose and bind or to judge others in the churches. That these Bishops are entrusted with the same truth and to shephard their flocks.

But if we look at other writings from Cyprian we know he also placed an importance on the Keys and Peter receiving them solely. I believe I posted previously a link where Cyprian distinguishes Peter above other and that Peter received a crown and he has a primacy. Cyprian has also stated that bishops need to have a succession. Cyprian also condemned an anti-pope. Cyrpian has more writings then these few quotes and only when we ignore parts of his writings can we make claims that Cyprian saw ALL Bishops as equal. Just the writings about Peter show that Peter was an elevated Bishop of primacy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

First one? I think St. Hippolytus.

I've only scratched the surface on it so far.

tell me, where you unaware of the claimed anti-popes?

Ok...

I read up some on this guy but there is not a whole lot out there.

This from Newadvent seem an appropriate response:

The fact that Hippolytus was a schismatic Bishop of Rome and yet was held in high honour afterwards both as martyr and theologian, explains why as early as the fourth century nothing was known as to his see, for he was not on the list of the Roman bishops. The theory championed by Lightfoot (see below), that he was actually Bishop of Porto but with his official residence in Rome, is untenable.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Ok...

I read up some on this guy but there is not a whole lot out there.

This from Newadvent seem an appropriate response:

The fact that Hippolytus was a schismatic Bishop of Rome and yet was held in high honour afterwards both as martyr and theologian, explains why as early as the fourth century nothing was known as to his see, for he was not on the list of the Roman bishops. The theory championed by Lightfoot (see below), that he was actually Bishop of Porto but with his official residence in Rome, is untenable.

well, you asked for the first one identified as an Anti-Pope. That's it. There is a much longer list than one!

Racer posted about the three Popes at once... did you see that?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Lot's of material.

List of historical antipopes
AntipopeOriginal nameDatesNotesIn opposition to:Nataliusaround 200later reconciled (see above)Pope ZephyrinusHippolytus217–235later reconciled with Pope Pontian (see above)Pope Callixtus IPope Urban IPope PontianNovatian251–258founder of NovatianismPope CorneliusPope Lucius IPope Stephen IPope Sixtus IIFelix II355–365installed by Roman Emperor Constantius IIPope LiberiusUrsicinusUrsinus366–367Pope DamasusEulalius418–419Pope Boniface ILaurentius498–499
501–506supported by Byzantine emperor Anastasius IPope SymmachusDioscorus530Pope Boniface IITheodore (II)687Pope Sergius IPaschal (I)687Pope Sergius IConstantine II767–768Pope Stephen IIIPhilip768installed by envoy of Lombard King DesideriusJohn VIII844elected by acclamationPope Sergius IIAnastasius III Bibliothecarius855Pope Benedict IIIChristopher903–904between Pope Leo V and Pope Sergius IIIBoniface VII974between Pope Benedict VI and Pope Benedict VII984–985between Pope John XIV and Pope John XVJohn XVIJohn Filagatto997–998supported by Byzantine emperor Basil IIPope Gregory VGregory VI1012Pope Benedict VIIIBenedict XJohn Mincius1058–1059supported by the Counts of TusculumPope Nicholas IIHonorius IIPietro Cadalus1061–1064supported by Agnes, regent of the Holy Roman EmpirePope Alexander IIClement IIIGuibert of Ravenna1080, 1084–1100supported by Henry IV, Holy Roman EmperorPope Gregory VIIPope Victor IIIPope Urban IIPope Paschal IITheodoric1100–1101successor to Clement IIIPope Paschal IIAdalbert or Albert1101successor to TheodoricSylvester IVMaginulf1105–1111supported by Henry V, Holy Roman EmperorGregory VIIIMaurice Burdanus1118–1121Pope Gelasius IIPope Callixtus IICelestine IIThebaldus Buccapecus1124Pope Honorius IIAnacletus IIPietro Pierleoni1130–1138Pope Innocent IIVictor IVGregorio Conti1138successor to Anacletus IIVictor IVOttavio di Montecelio1159–1164supported by Frederick I, Holy Roman EmperorPope Alexander IIIPaschal IIIGuido di Crema1164–1168Callixtus IIIGiovanni of Struma1168–1178Innocent IIILanzo of Sezza1179–1180Nicholas VPietro Rainalducci1328–1330supported by Louis IV, Holy Roman EmperorPope John XXIIClement VIIRobert of Geneva1378–1394AvignonPope Urban VIPope Boniface IXBenedict XIIIPedro de Luna1394–1423AvignonPope Innocent VIIPope Gregory XIIPope Martin VAlexander VPietro Philarghi1409–1410PisaPope Gregory XIIJohn XXIIIBaldassare Cossa1410–1415PisaClement VIIIGil Sánchez Muñoz1423–1429AvignonPope Martin VBenedict XIVBernard Garnier1424–1429AvignonBenedict XIVJean Carrier1430–1437AvignonPope Eugene IVFelix VDuke Amadeus VIII of Savoy5 November 1439 –
7 April 1449elected by the Council of BaselPope Nicholas V

 

[Uphill Battle]

shoot, that was a table, didn't come out right.