The Bishops of Rome,
the Popes,
42 AD-present

On the map we have the Roman Empire as it was partially restored at the death of Justinian I. The capital, of course, is Constantinople, with the recovered western areas ruled from Ravenna (Italy, the Exarchate of Ravenna) and Carthage (Africa and Spain, the Exarchate of Carthage). The Roman Church is governed through the Emperor and the Patriarchs, namely the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. The role of the Emperor in governing the Church is now called "caesaro-papism," i.e. an Emperor acting like a Pope. However, the Emperor had exercised his powers since Constantine I, while the familiar powers of the Pope were much later claims and inventions. It is thus much less anachronistic to characterize the claims of later Popes, not the Emperors, as the "caesaro-papism," i.e. the Pope trying to act like an Emperor. Chief among the powers of the Emperor was that of calling Church Councils -- as Constantine had called the Council of Nicaea in 325. The first Council called by a Pope was the Lateran Council I in 1123. To resolve the Great Schism, the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, was called by the Emperor Sigismund; but once a single line of Popes was secure in Rome again, they denied that the Emperor had any authority to call Councils. The last Emperor in any position, and with any need, to call a Council, Charles V, deferred to the Pope -- who then was the one to call the Council of Trent, 1545-1563. At the time of Justinian, the Pope was regarded as primus inter pares, first among equals of the Patriarchs, but that was all. The Patriarch of Constantinople was second in rank, although this was a bit resented by the other, older Patriarchates.

In this period there were four significant centers of Christianity outside what had ever been in the Roman Empire:  in the Caucasus, in Mesopotamia, in Ethiopia, and in Ireland. In the Caucasus were the Churches of Georgia and Armenia. Georgia was doctrinally in union with Rome, but Armenia had not accepted the decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Patriarchate of Armenia was thus regarded by the Roman Church as heterodox. Similarly heterodox was the Patriarchate of the East, seated at the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon, which had not accepted the decision of the Third Ecumenical Council. The authority of the Patriarch of the East already extended to Christians in India, and subsequently would reach all the way to China. Ethiopia was under the authority of the Patriarch of Alexandria and so, until the Fourth Ecumenical Council, was doctrinally in union with Rome -- later it would continue to follow the lead of the Coptic Church. Ethiopia has had its own autonomous Patriarchate just since 1959. That leaves Ireland, which traditionally was converted by St. Patrick after 432 AD. As communication between Ireland and the Empire became more tenuous, the Irish Church preserved literacy, as Britain itself fell out of history, and developed some of its own traditions -- though these never came to serious heterodoxy and any differences were later fixed up.

On the other hand, the moral standing of the Church now stands gravely challenged by scandals over priests who take advantage of their positions to sexually prey on children. In the most scurrilous of anti-Catholic rumor and libel, Catholics were required to provide children to priests for sexual purposes. However innocent of this, the Church put itself in a very false, immoral, and illegal position by often simply transfering priests accused of sexual crimes instead of turning them over to the police. Why the Church would be reluctant to respond appropriately is understandable, since it has been harder and harder, especially outside of Ireland and Poland, to get men to commit to a life of celibacy to become priests. The Church invests a great deal in the education and training of priests and is going to be reluctant to lose them. Also, the priesthood might unfortunately tend to attract men who might otherwise be uninterested in marriage, i.e. homosexuals and those sexually attracted to children. In principle, homosexuals are going to be in no worse position than heterosexual priests in that the Church has no objection to anyone being a homosexual, as long as they don't engage in homosexual sex. Since priests are expected to avoid any kind of sex, homosexual priests face temptations in much the same way as heterosexual priests. A priest tempted into homosexual sex may be committing a greater sin than a heterosexual priest, but at least it is not illegal. Child molesting is something else. While homosexual priests as such may not be the problem, conservatives sometimes think it is, since much of the abuse really isn't of children, but of teenage boys. Either way, however, these particular priests don't seem to be able to observe either their vows of celibacy, the Church's teachings on sexuality, or the laws about the age of consent.

A reasonable solution to all this, since the fundamental problem is the scarcity of parish priests, could be married priests. While priestly celibacy is founded on the text, Matthew 19:12, "and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it," it may be that the emphasis on celibacy in the Latin Church developed mainly to prevent priestly offices from becoming hereditary -- a grave danger in the Middle Ages, as seen recently also in Japan, where a married Buddhist clergy has resulted precisely in hereditary succession to Buddhist temples. This not likely to become a danger in the modern Catholic Church, however, and the Church would do well to adopt a somewhat more relaxed policy, as in the Greek Orthodox Church, where married priests are simply disqualified from advancing in the hierarchy.

The mythic beginning of the Papacy with St. Peter may not be quite as mythic as Protestants like to suppose. St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican is built over a 1st century Christian cemetery. Rebuilt over time, ever since the first version built by Constantine, the altar turns out always to have been over a particular grave, with its own humble monument, of a man whose bones date from the correct era. This may or may not really be Peter, but the antiquity of bones and tomb rule out the kind of crude mediaeval fraud that the sceptic might suppose.

Since St. Peter's and the Papacy really are so old, the opposite temptation, from the one of priestly fictions, is that the Popes know far more about history than anyone suspects. One favorite notion, which may or may not have originated in the novel Another Roadside Attraction by Tom Robbins, is that the Vatican possesses the actual body of Jesus Christ. Since Christ is supposed to have risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, his body would be, to say the least, an embarrassment. But when one wonders whether these few bones are actually St. Peter, the intact mummy of Jesus seems rather less credible. Another conceit, apparently taken seriously by the 1999 movie Stigmata, is that the Vatican possesses texts of the Gospels, even in Aramaic (surviving Gospels are in Greek), which contradict various points of Catholic doctrine, like the existence of the Church. Stigmata, however, very much, perhaps inadvertently, overstates its case, since the sayings of Jesus it treasures as directed against the (not yet existing) Catholic Church could, at the time, have had no possible object other than the Temple of Herod in Jerusalem. The viewer of the movie, taking into account the historical context in which Jesus spoke, might therefore take it as an anti-Semitic rather than just an anti-Catholic screed.

The antiquity of the Papacy is perhaps often forgotten when it comes to the monuments of Rome. The mediaeval Popes did not live in the Vatican, but in the Lateran Palace, which had been seized from its private owners by, of all people, the Emperor Nero. Constantine then donated it to the Bishop of Rome and built adjacent to it the church of San Giovanni in Laterno, which has remained ever since the actual episcopal church of Rome (not St. Peter's). Most of the mediaeval Church councils in Rome are thus "Lateran" Councils, held at the Pope's residence (as the last two Councils have been "Vatican" Councils). Later, while the Popes were in Avignon, the Palace burned twice, in 1307 and 1361. Although the Palace was rebuilt, when the Popes returned, they never lived there again, settling at Santa Maria in Trastevere, then at Santa Maria Maggiore (also ancient; built in 432), and finally, as we all know, at the Vatican. What was left of the ancient Lateran Palace was removed by Sixtus V, who then built the smaller existing building.

The ability of the Popes to control the outlying territories, or even Rome itself, was, however, very uneven. Rome was often under the control of turbulent local aristocrats, and one reason for the Papal relocation to Avignon was to escape them. After the return of the Popes to Rome, it was some time before the territorial fortunes could be restored. The son of Alexander VI, Cesare Borgia, then conquered Romagna. This was for his own benefit; but the deaths of him and his father (who was perhaps trying to poison someone else) and the accession of the warrior Pope Julius II resulted in its being secured for the Papacy. Avignon was still a Papal possession, and there were some outlying holdings in Italy, like Benevento. This arrangement was then fairly stable until the French Revolution, when Avignon was lost, the Papal States temporarily annexed, and the Pope himself eventually imprisoned by Napoleon. The restorations of 1815 returned the Papal Italian territories, until the period of the unification of Italy, 1859-1870. This formally ended the political independence of the Papacy until the Concordat with Mussolini in 1929 recognized the sovereignty of the Vatican City.

The Donation of Pepin and the subsequent crowning of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor gave the Popes ideas. A document was manufactured, the "Donation of Constantine," whereby secular authority over the entire Western Roman Empire had been given to the Pope by Constantine the Great. This became the basis of Mediaeval Papal claims of authority over all secular rulers in Francia. Papal claims were occasionally enforced with some success, against the Emperors and even against the Kings of France and England; but they came to a bad end when Boniface VIII had to face the ruthlessness of King Philip IV of France. The subsequent Babylonian Captivity and Great Schism, not to mention the Reformation and the exposure of the Donation of Constantine as a forgery, put the Papacy at such disadvantages that it never again had as much leverage as before over secular rulers.

As it happens, if we switch off between these Popes and Anti-Popes, it still leaves the count the same. So where does the difference come from between the 363 Popes here and the 365 in the Catholic Encyclopedia? Well, the 365 number in the Encyclopedia list comes from numbering Benedict IX (1032) three times, as the 146th, 148th, and 151st Pope. He was a layman elected by the power of his family, the Counts of Tusculum, following his uncles Benedict VIII (1012) and John XIX (1024). Opposition to his family, to his own secular ways, and by the Emperor, resulted in him being deposed three times, first in favor of Sylvester III (1045), then second in favor of Gregory VI (1045). Gregory, Sylvester, and Benedict were all pushed aside by the Emperor Henry III, who installed Clement II (1046). After Clement's death, Benedict finally returned again, only to be deposed a third time in 1048 by Boniface of Tuscany, who installed the Emperor's candidate, Damasus II (1048).

It is because of this mess that Benedict, uniquely, like President Grover Cleveland, can be numbered with non-consecutive "terms" as Pope. I am not sure this makes as much sense for Popes as for Presidents, however. We are not really dealing with terms of office. If we ask "How many popes?" we want to know the number of individuals. So I have dispensed with the extra numberings. Reckoning them into the count, if anyone really wants to do that, does make John Paul II the 265th Pope (given the other judgments about Popes and Anti-Popes).

The count of John Paul II as 264th may come from using the three reigns for Benedict IX but not counting Stephen II (752), who died after reigning for only three days. Since he was properly elected but was never consecrated, judgment has wavered about whether to count him as a proper Pope. This results in different numberings seen for subsequent Stephens. Here, however, I have included the original Stephen II as a true Pope. Even if we discount him, however, I think it is very wrong to renumber the subsequent Stephens. This can create tremendous confusion when dealing with older (mainly pre-1961) histories, which will not have the renumbering. Stephen III was a Pope of great historical significance, and it should be possible to refer to him, or read about him, without confusion. There are several cases where Popes now considered Anti-Popes nevertheless retain their place in the sequence of names. Thus, Boniface VII (974), John XVI (997), Benedict X (1058), and Alexander V (1409) are now all Anti-Popes who nevertheless are figured in the numbering of subsequent Popes of their name. Since Stephen II had a legitimate election, and has never been considered an Anti-Pope by anyone, it is especially inappropiate to create confusion with anyone after him.

The only other Papal name where we get this kind of confusing renumbering is with "Felix." Felix II (355) was the early Anti-Pope with the name, but the subsequent Felixes, III (or II, 483) and IV (or III, 526), are early and not of great historical significance -- so not much confusion arises. However, the Anti-Pope Felix V (1439), chosen by the Council of Basle, and the last Anti-Pope, is of rather more importance, and appears to always be numbered with the Anti-Pope Felix II in the sequence.

The Schism between Greek and Latin Churches came at a very bad time for the Greeks. Defeat by the Turks and the loss of Asia Minor deprived Romania of more than half its territory. This was a catastrophe, and actually the Empire never recovered. The Emperor Alexius Comnenus appealed to the West for help. He had no idea what this would set off. Pope Urban II got the idea to call for a "Crusade," a great Christian army, not just to help the Greeks, but to go on and reconquer Jerusalem. This is what happened. The First Crusade defeated the Turks badly enough that Romania was able to recover considerable territory, but then it went on and obtained the great goal of Jerusalem, which had been in Islâmic hands for 463 years.

No sooner was the Papacy out of all this trouble, however, that it got into new problems. The Popes became wealthy Renaissance Princes. Alexander VI Borgia was one of the most infamous Popes ever, with rumors of incest as well as murder dogging him. He produced multiple illegitimate children, like Cesare and Lucretia Borgia, and was so busy poisoning his enemies that he seems to have accidentally poisoned himself and Cesare! This did not look good to the morally earnest.

The following tables contain some genealogy of two families of Renaissance Popes, the Borgias and the della Roveres. More della Rovere genealogy is given under the rulers of Urbino. Popes from a similiar family, the Medici, are featured in the genealogy of the Medici given with the rulers of Tuscany. Originally Spanish (Borja), Alexander VI's descendants through his son Juan returned to Spain and multiplied.

Click on image to enlarge

Leo X, the first of the Medici Popes, under whom the Protestant Reformation began, is supposed to have said, "God has given us the Papacy, so we might as well enjoy it." He dismissed Martin Luther as "some drunken German," but Luther's movement not only shook Francia, it shattered it. A division something like the Great Schism happened again, but this time is not was not over who would be Pope, but whether there would be a Pope at all.

The political divisions of the Reformation were only settled by war. The Dutch revolted against Spain (1568), and as the Spanish kept trying to defeat them, the Emperor moved to suppress heresy in Bohemia (1618). After Imperial forces secured Bohemia and advanced in Germany, France began to subsidize opposition. This brought Sweden into the war; and after Swedish fortunes faded, France, a Catholic state, entered the war against the Catholic side. Spanish power was permanently broken, and the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 secured Dutch (and Swiss) independence and the Protestant states in Germany. The Pope lost even theoretical and spiritual authority over most of Northern Europe.

In Mediaeval Europe, as it happens, one place that Jews could always be sure of a secure reception was in Rome. As early as 1247, for instance, a Papal Bull refuted with learned detail the "blood libel" charge against Jews, that they mixed the blood of Christian children with Passover matzos. This refutation was confirmed by another Bull in 1540. Meanwhile, Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 could easily find refuge in Rome, where the contemporary Pope, the notorious Alexander VI, had a Jewish personal physician. When the Emperor Maximilian I was about to order that the Talmud be banned, and burned, in Germany for reputed blasphemies against Jesus, Pope Leo X responded by ordering the entire Talmud published at Rome. These are the sorts of things that those with an animus for Catholicism or the Papacy don't seem to notice.

Although Catholicism has declined in much of the secular West, John Paul himself made the Papacy a presence and a player in modern religion, culture, and politics. In the days of Paul VI, this hardly seemed possible. John Paul was able to accomplish it all through a combination of qualities that may be difficult to repeat. Personally, he was outgoing and appealing, giving a personal touch to an office that can easily swallow a Pope in pompous ritual and the trappings of Mediaeval monarchy. John Paul believed in the pastoral vocation of the Pope, and he travelled the world, meeting millions, to carry this out. All the same, he would not compromise Catholic doctrine just to be in tune with modernity. This turned many away from the Faith, even while it earned the respect, even of some of them, for his conviction and principles. Catholicism was not going to be some wimpy, pop, feel-good religion. But on the stage of history, looming over all of this, was John Paul's place as the de facto sovereign of Poland and the leader of the fight against Communism. In the dark days of the 80's, when the leaders of Solidarity had been arrested and dissent suppressed, the Poles knew that their Saviors, John Paul and Ronald Reagan, lived. And their Saviors delivered them. Josef Stalin had asked once how many divisions the Pope had. This was a joke. Now, burning in Hell, Stalin knows that the joke is on him.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the first German Pope in many centuries, has now been elected as Benedict XVI. Ratzinger is older, a close supporter of John Paul II, and very much more a Vatican insider, indeed a bureaucrat, than John Paul. Ratzinger was one of only two Cardinals who had elected John Paul himself and was still young enough to vote this time. His may be a kind of transition Papacy, as John XXIII's was expected to be. But one never knows, as with John XXIII himself. More dramatic might have been the election of a Latin American, African, or, I don't know, an Irish Pope. Perhaps that comes next.