Talk:Antipope

message: Is there any evidence for the second Benedict XIV?  The standard sources (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, The Catholic Encyclopedia, the Liber Pontificalis) are silent about him, the source seems to be a novel, and, most importantly, it makes no sense for a successor to style himself identically to the person he is succeeding.  There were two Pope Benedict XIVs, one a pope and one an antipope, but I'm not buying the story about Carrier...
Ansat (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article about the anti-pope Benedict XIV, Carrier, styled a cardinal, elected Garnier by himself.If he was the cardinal who elected Benedict XIV, how could he be the preceding anti-pope? And yes, why would Garnier take Carrier's regnal name and nominal? Confusing.--Gazzster (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Catholic Encyclopedia [] does not mention an anti-pope Benedict XIV.The Britannica doesn’t. []. This unreferenced document does. []. It’s hard to find stuff on the web about these figures because almost all information is sourced from the Wikipedia article. It’s possible that they were minor characters who had very little support, not enough to be considered a challenge to the Council of Constance. In a similar vein there is an anti-pope Peter II at Palmar de Troya (two actually – the other Peter II is in Australia), a Linus II and a Michael I, elected by his family. These are of course not serious anti-popes. And if the article on Benedict XI is to be credited, one of them was elected by one cardinal (who had been the previous anti-pope?). That’s hardly an election. I suggest we remove them from the list.--Gazzster (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kelly's book (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes) confirms antipope Clement VIII and (the first) antipope Benedict XIV (Garnier) existed, but, as you say, they were minor characters from after the Western Schism ended (Benedict XIII refused to abdicate, but the rest of the world ignored him, and these fellows succeeded him).  The second Benedict XIV appears to have come into existence in a novel by Raspail and been legitimized in a French work of speculative history by Bavoux (Le porteur de lumière).  I'd vote at least for removing him.Ansat (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two antipope Benedicts XIVs? 

message: Have Antipopes only ever happened in the Roman Catholic Church? The head of the Coptic Orthodox Church is also a Pope, and I'm wondering if there has ever been an Antipope to that other denomination. (I suppose we could use the term for any kind of Anti-Patriarch in Eastern Orthodoxy or some other Apostolic sect, but for now, as I only know of one denomination other than Roman Catholic that uses the word "Pope" for its head, I'm asking if there have been any Antipopes there.) 
Anyway, have there been any Coptic Orthodox Antipopes? If so, the Article should at least have a section on them. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I dare say there are, but 'pope' in that meaning would be a disambiguation and deserve its own page. 'Pope' simply means 'father', and is used by other denominations.Gazzster (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the delay, Mmxbass, I know it's been a while. Anyway, the definition I was thinking of is someone within the respective denomination who falsely claims to be its Supreme Archbishop (whether they call their Supreme Archbishop "Pope," "Patriarch," "Catholicos," or some other name). This would be an internal perspective to each respective group, so no leader (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) or other would be defined as an "Antipope" just because Protestants say none of them are legitimate. Does that make sense? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other denominations? 

message: The entry "Mirko Fabris Krav" under modern antipopes is someone's idea of a joke. First of all, Croats wouldn't elect an antipope because they are too loyal to the Pope. Second, you can simply Google "Mirko Fabris Krav" and you'll see that he is a stand-up comedian.
I'll try to erase this. If it re-appears, please erase it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.0.139 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some might cynically say that they are all, or nearly all, a joke.  Esoglou (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would the editor(s) who are constantly re-adding Mirko Fabris Krav please stop?  We know that he is a stand-up comedian, not an antipope  .  If by some amazing chance there are two people by this name, one of whom was a claimant to the papacy, please supply a source for this claim.  Also, please stop blanking this section of the talk page.  Thanks!  — Lawrence King (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of Krav is sourced.    Esoglou (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you provided is not a legitimate source. It leads to a google search page for John Cornwall. If his book, The Pontiff In Winter, mentions Krav, please cite chapter and page. Nahum (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone's idea of a joke - Modern antipopes 

message: It is difficult to argue that Constantine II was in opposition to Stephen III, as Stephen was elected more than a year after Constantine and had to wait a week until Constantine was dethroned before being consecrated himself.  It might be more accurate to say Constantine was in opposition to Christophorus's belief that there was a sede vacante --Rumping (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Constantine II

message: Hello. I am a bit confused about the article. In the history division I see a lot of talk about some (as if) clerics sticking with the pope or antipope in the 3rd century but to my knowledge the Roman Empire was not officially a Christian state before the 4th century and it is impossible to have popes as well as antipopes already in the 3rd century. But maybe I misunderstand something. So if I do, please explain.77.180.65.49 (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: When do you propose discussing the early, pre-State church leaders? The Bishop of Rome was already a powerful figure at that time. Ogress 23:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd century and already Popes?? 

message: Antiope. And/or vice versa. I didn't actually read the name of the asteroid as "Antipope" myself, but it could happen...? Oh, wait, there's an Antipop as well. Having opened the can of worms, I shall now depart... 79.73.148.17 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be confused with... 

message: The term "secular" in the second paragraph is suspicious, as monarchs who interfere with religion and install their own religious officials are not simply "secular," which is a modern term misapplied to ancient times, sometimes they are just political and anti-religious. -Inowen (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secular 

message: I know the "In Popular Culture" section is always a useless and embarrassing waste of space and everybody knows it, but you have to have one to keep the borderline autistics who seem to write most of your "encyclopedia" happy. However, since it needs to exist for that reason, and since you consider any passing mention or implied mention of antipopes in sitcoms, Japanese cartoons, computer games, etc. etc. etc. to be important enough to list in aspergic detail, shouldn't you perhaps include a few words to the effect that in 1981 the best-selling author Robert Rankin published a comic fantasy novel about an antipope called "The Antipope"? Just saying. 86.141.29.229 (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Omission From Fictional Antipopes 

message: At the end of the history section, someone has listed the last several Popes as antipopes. 96.242.166.142 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed, will keep an eye on. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism