In a case of doubt about the legitimacy of a pope, all claimants must first be physically deposed before a new election can take place.

This objection is made on one of two grounds:

 

a) on the grounds that the pope must be elected and/or reside in Rome,

b) on the grounds that whilst there is a usurper in Rome, any newly elected pope would be rendered a doubtful pope (and therefore not a legitimate pope).

The first point has already been answered in our previous response: it is not necessary that a pope either reside in Rome nor be elected in Rome, as proven by both history and papal decree.

The second point is answered by a further historical consideration: there have been multiple antipopes in Church history and multiple antipopes ruled in Rome whilst the legitimate Pope was outside of Rome. This shows the objection to be false because if a usurper or contestant in Rome would render the legitimate Pope doubtful (and therefore illegitimate), we would have to conclude that the Church could have never had a legitimate pope at the same time as an antipope because the latter would render the former impossible. However, we see that this is not true. Indeed, the definition of an antipope is “a false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.” [1] and therefore every one of the twenty-nine or more official antipopes [2] in Church history existed alongside a legitimate pope. Here are some key examples:

Antipope Constantine II:

“Stephen (III) IV, Pope, born about 720; died 1 or 3 August, 772. Paul I was not dead when trouble began about the election of his successor. Toto of Nepi with a body of Tuscans burst into Rome, and, despite the opposition of the primicerius Christopher, forcibly intruded his brother Constantine, a layman, into the chair of Peter (June, 767). In the spring of 768, however, Christopher and his son Sergius contrived to escape from the city, and with the aid of the Lombards deposed the usurper. They were also able to overthrow the monk Philip, whom some of their Lombard allies had clandestinely elected pope. By their efforts Stephen, a Sicilian, the son of Olivus, was at length canonically elected and consecrated (7 August, 768). He had been a Benedictine monk, and had been ordained priest by Pope Zachary. After his consecration the antipopes were treated with the greatest cruelty which, it seems to be generally allowed, Stephen was unable to hinder.” [3]

Therefore, from this account we see that an antipope was seated in Rome, the legitimate pope was elected outside of Rome, and the usurper was removed after this.

Antipope Benedict X:

“As soon as the news of the death of Stephen X at Florence reached Rome (4 April, 1058). the Tusculan party appointed a successor in the person of John Mincius, Bishop of Velletri, under the name of Benedict X. His elevation, due to violence and corruption, was contrary to the specific orders of Stephen X that, at his death, no choice of a successor was to be made until Hildebrand’s return from Germany. Several cardinals protested against the irregular proceedings, but they were compelled to flee from Rome. Hildebrand was returning from his mission when the news of these events reached him. He interrupted his journey at Florence, and after agreeing with Duke Godfrey of Lorraine-Tuscany upon Bishop Gerhard for elevation to the papacy, he won over part of the Roman population to the support of his candidate. An embassy dispatched to the imperial court secured the confirmation of the choice by the Empress Agnes. At Hildebrand’s invitation, the cardinals met in December, 1058, at Siena and elected Gerhard who assumed the name of Nicholas II. On his way to Rome the new pope held at Sutri a well-attended synod at which, in the presence of Duke Godfrey and the imperial chancellor, Guibert of Parma, he pronounced deposition against Benedict X.” [4]

Therefore, this shows that a legitimate pope can be elected after the election of an antipope and still be regarded as legitimate even before the antipope is removed.

Antipope Felix II: (N.B.: There are some people of great fame who claim that Felix II was a true pope. We are not willing to enter this controversy here, but merely give examples of situations that might resemble a potential future situation in the Church.)

“In 355 Pope Liberius was banished to Beraea in Thrace by the Emperor Constantius because he upheld tenaciously the Nicene definition of faith and refused to condemn St. Athanasius of Alexandria. The Roman clergy pledged itself in solemn conclave not to acknowledge any other Bishop of Rome while Liberius was alive. (‘Marcellini et Fausti Libellus precum’, no.1: ‘Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos’ in ‘Collectio Avellana’, ed. Gunter; Hieronymus, ‘Chronicon’, ad an. Abr. 2365). The emperor, however, who was supplanting the exiled Catholic bishops with the bishops of Arian tendencies, exerted himself to install a new Bishop of Rome in place of the banished Liberius. He invited to Milan Felix, archdeacon of the Roman Church; on the latter’s arrival, Acacius of Caesarea succeeded in inducing him to accept the office from which Liberius had been forcibly expelled, and to be consecrated by Acacius and two other Arian bishops. The majority of the Roman clergy acknowledged the validity of his consecration but the laity would have nothing to do with him and remained true to the banished but lawful pope.” [5]

Therefore, from this account we see that a legitimate pope was banished from Rome and residing outside of Rome, and that the antipope was installed in Rome. Even the clergy publicly recognised this antipope, but the Pope retained his legitimacy.

Antipope Anacletus II:

 

“Both claimants [Analcetus II and Pope Innocent] were consecrated on the same day, 23 February, Anacletus in St. Peter’s and Innocent in Sta. Maria Nuova. How this schism would have been healed, had the decision been left to the canonists, is hard to say. Anacletus had a strong title in law and fact. The majority of the cardinals with the Bishop of Porto, the Dean of the Sacred College, at their head, stood at his side. Almost the whole populace of Rome rallied around him. His victory seemed complete, when, shortly after, the Frangipani, abandoning what appeared to be a lost cause, went over to him. Innocent sought safety in flight. No sooner had he arrived in France than his affairs took a favourable turn. ‘Expelled from the City, he was welcomed by the world’, says St. Bernard, whose influence and exertions secured for him the adhesion of practically the entire Christian world. The Saint states his reasons for deciding in favour of Innocent in a letter to the Bishops of Aquitaine (Op. cxxvi). They may not be canonically cogent; but they satisfied his contemporaries. ‘The life and character of our Pope Innocent are above any attack, even of his rival; while the other’s are not safe even from his friends’…

“...In the spring of 1133, the German King conducted Innocent, whom two great synods, Reims and Piacenza, had proclaimed the legitimate Pope, to Rome; but as he came accompanied by only 2,000 horses, the antipope, safe within the walls of Castle St. Angelo, looked on undismayed. Unable to open the way to St. Peter’s, Lothair and his queen Richenza, on 4 June received the imperial crown in the Lateran. Upon the Emperor’s departure Innocent was compelled to retire to Pisa, and for four years his rival remained in undisturbed possession of the Eternal City. In 1137 Lothair, having finally vanquished the insurgent Hohenstaufens, returned to Italy at the head of a formidable army; but since the main purpose of the expedition was to punish Roger, the conquest of Rome was entrusted to the missionary labours of St. Bernard.” [6]

Therefore, from this account we see another history of a rivalled papacy with some other interesting points of note: The legitimate pope was legitimate but the Church still saw it as prudent to confirm this with two synods; despite grounds for doubt and rejection by clergy, the legitimate pope was nonetheless accepted by the faithful (which further confirmed his legitimacy) and the Church did not wait for the usurper to be removed from Rome before they supported the legitimate Pope, but this Pope himself acted as a rallying point for Catholics to re-claim Rome.

There are many other examples like this in the history of the antipopes, but the conclusion they present is that a usurper occupying Rome is not a sufficient reason to waylay the election of a new pope, and the usurper need not be removed before a legitimate Pope can be elected or become meaningfully active.