Alternate Catholic Popes:Pre-1900

A pretty simple thread.

Who are some of the men who could have ended up being The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church but didn't? I realize this may be hard to find information on, since their is a shroud of secrecy around all papal conclaves, but I'm curious to see what is out there.

This thread is to discuss all possible Popes up until the twentieth century. I will be starting a post-1900 thread in just a bit.

Edit: The post-1900 thread is now up.
 
There's so many possible popes. A couple off the top of my head is Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, who almost won in 1492 but lost to Alexander Vi Borgia and Cardinal Reginald Pole, who lost to Pope Julius III. Actually, I'm planning a timeline around Cardinal Pole's possible Pontificate.
 
Do any Anti-Popes ever end up being officially recognized by the Church?

Sort of. The judgement of who was the Antipope and who the true Pope is often only clear in hindsight. Opinion is still divided on Sylvester III, and there's been quite a bit of confusion over a few of the Johns. I don't think it was officially settled which of Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII was the true Pope at the end of the Western Schism, until 1958, when Cardinal Roncalli was elected to the papacy and took the name John XXIII rather than John XXIV.
 
Do any Anti-Popes ever end up being officially recognized by the Church?

Or did you mean specifically during their lifetimes, someone started out as an apparent Antipope, but is later accepted by the Church as a whole?

If so, Benedict IX is one such example. He got chased out of Rome a couple times, but managed to regain his throne both times before eventually being deposed by the Holy Roman Emperor and a church council.
 
Georges d'Amboise, the man everyone expected to succeed Alexander VI until della Rovere threw his hat in the ring. A humble, frugal man concerned primarily with providing medical care to the poor; would have provoked a schism, since the Italians would never have accepted a non-Italian as pope at the time simply because he did something silly like get a 2/3 majority at a papal conclave.

Had he not been sidetracked into the French Regency, Giulio Mazarini would definitely have been pope, and probably a pretty decent one.

Had Philip of France (1116-1131) not died so young, his little brother would have stayed in the Church, and the man we know as Louis VII may well have been pope instead.

A few off the top of my head.
 
Do any Anti-Popes ever end up being officially recognized by the Church?

Maniakes makes good points.

Additionally, the status of some antipopes has been unclear enough for long enough that the numbering of the popes still takes the antipapacies into account, although strictly the numbers should have been reused (like John XXIII was). For example, Felix I and III are legitimate popes; Felix II was an antipope, but there isn't a legitimate Felix II.

The most complicated case that I can think of is Boniface VII, who claimed to be pope twice in the late 10th century. His first reign is definitely thought of as an antipapacy, but he didn't have any rivals during his second reign, so for a long time he was counted as the true pope (and he's the only Boniface VII in the list). I think he's officially considered an antipope, now. [P.S., he was one of the worst men to have ever claimed the title, which might have influenced the decision to undesignate him].
 
Georges d'Amboise, the man everyone expected to succeed Alexander VI until della Rovere threw his hat in the ring. A humble, frugal man concerned primarily with providing medical care to the poor; would have provoked a schism, since the Italians would never have accepted a non-Italian as pope at the time simply because he did something silly like get a 2/3 majority at a papal conclave.

Don't forget Ascanio Sforza, the Italian cardinals, and the Spanish cardinals :D

In addition to helping the poor and other equally praiseworthy goals, it's also interesting to consider the effect on Italian politics of the time. It would have strengthened France's position in the peninsula; he would have validated France's claim to Naples and Milan.

I wonder what this means to della Rovere's ambitions to the papacy. If d'Amboise dies as he did in OTL and doesn't get poisoned or something, he dies in 1510. Della Rovere in OTL died in 1513, so he would certainly have a shorter papacy. Maybe if he's on his best behaviour and keeps promising things to everyone he might get elected in 1510, but with a much stronger French presence, he would have to be very careful and play all of his cards exactly right. Part of the reason why he got elected was because all sides (Spanish cardinals, France, Cesare Borgia, Italian cardinals after some favour) thought they could trust him, just like how Pius III before him may have been elected as a way of buying time with a relatively inoffensive candidate since there were too many factions.
 
Assuming a surviving napoleonic empire, would he have put pressure on the conclave at the death of Pius VII to elect someone of his chosing and if yes, who ? Maybe Dominique Dufour de Pradt, his First Chaplain and archbishop of Mechelen (more then likely cardinal by then).
 
Let's try a List of Popes (0-...) thread like the US Presidents one!
Hmm... I'd rather start after St. Miltiades (died January 314), one year after the Edict of Milan. I think that'd be more fun than going through the early years when almost nothing is known. (Also, Miltiades' successor St. Sylvester I was the one who supposedly received the Donation of Constantine.)
 
Don't forget Ascanio Sforza, the Italian cardinals, and the Spanish cardinals :D

In addition to helping the poor and other equally praiseworthy goals, it's also interesting to consider the effect on Italian politics of the time. It would have strengthened France's position in the peninsula; he would have validated France's claim to Naples and Milan.

I wonder what this means to della Rovere's ambitions to the papacy. If d'Amboise dies as he did in OTL and doesn't get poisoned or something, he dies in 1510. Della Rovere in OTL died in 1513, so he would certainly have a shorter papacy. Maybe if he's on his best behaviour and keeps promising things to everyone he might get elected in 1510, but with a much stronger French presence, he would have to be very careful and play all of his cards exactly right. Part of the reason why he got elected was because all sides (Spanish cardinals, France, Cesare Borgia, Italian cardinals after some favour) thought they could trust him, just like how Pius III before him may have been elected as a way of buying time with a relatively inoffensive candidate since there were too many factions.
Ascanio Sforza was a man of his word, apparently; his life had been spared on condition that he vote for d'Amboise, and he kept it OTL, so you have to monkey with the Italian wars a fair bit to make him a candidate.


d'Amboise would/could be elected because, unusually, the French and Spanish cardinals were able to attend the conclave en masse and vote for him. What happens next is that the second the French disappear Naplesward, the Italian cardinals get together again and elect della Rovere as Julius II. They really wouldn't have accepted a "foreign" pope. But since there's already a Pope whose election had no irregularities, France definitely regards Julius as an antipope and Spain and the Empire might as well (politically, they're aghast at a French Pope, but these are both very pious monarchs). The only people backing Julius are Rome and Venice; but if you're trying to be Pope, Rome is a good backer to have. I expect Pope Georges flees to Avignon (which was his archbishopric anyway).

I agree that having d'Amboise die first is more interesting; who attends his conclave? Does it validate Julius II or not? (I sort of doubt it; people regarding Julius II as a legitimate pope probably wouldn't attend the resulting conclave...)
 
Last edited:
Top