The Bishops of Rome, the Popes;
the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Armenia, and the East; Archbishops of Canterbury and Prince Archbishops of Mainz, Trier, Cologne, and Salzburg

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 One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, Una Sancta Romana Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia, is governed through the Emperor and the Patriarchs, namely the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in that order of precedence.

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 anarchonistic to characterize the claims of later Popes, not the Emperors, as the "caesaro-papism," i.e. the Pope trying to act like an Emperor.

Part of that act of play-acting a Roman Emperor are actually the famous "red shoes" of the Popes. But those are stolen shoes, and nothing like what would have been the shoes (or sandals) of the original "fisherman," i.e. St. Peter. Roman Emperors wore red shoes, not prelates of the Church. The last legitimate red shoes were on Constantine XI on May 29, 1453, as he died defending Constantinople against the Ottoman Turks. The red shoes of the Popes, which recent Popes have begun to avoid, are part of "caesaro-papism."

Chief among the powers of the Emperor -- the "Equal to the Apostles," ἰσαπόστολος, isapóstolos, always portrayed with a halo, -- was that of calling Church Councils, as Constantine had called the Council of Nicaea in 325. Indeed, he had already called a Council at Arles in 314 to deal with the Donatist controversy in North Africa, a production carried out, apparently, without any reference to the Bishop of Rome. The first Council called by a Pope, and regarded by him as Ecumenical, was the Lateran Council I in 1123. Orthodox Churches have never recognized any such councils.

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 made second in rank, although this was a bit resented by the other, older Patriarchates. The Papacy, of course, claims that its full authority and its position as the head of whole Church existed from the beginning; and, indeed, the Popes did begin to make such claims as early as the 5th Century.

The diagram at right gives some impression of how the One Catholic Church has broken up -- setting aside the Protestant fragmention of the See of Rome in the West, which of course would require a complex diagram in its own right.

The convention of calling the Latin Church "Catholic" and the Eastern Churches "Orthodox" obscures the circumstance that katholikḗ, καθολική, "universal," signifies the Church of the Roman Empire, whose Patriarch in Constantinople the Bishop of Rome (through his representative) excommunicated in 1054 AD (although the Pope had just died and the representative no longer had any authority).

The Greek Church therefore still uses katholikḗ, while the Churches that fell out over one of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the Nestorians and Monophysites, would be heterodox, not "Orthodox," to both the Latin and Greek branches of the Catholica Ecclesia. While the Coptic and Syrian Churches broke away over the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, there remained a continuous line of Greek Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, even as the Patriarch of Constantinople proselytized Bulgaria, Russia, and other states in the Balkans.

Beginning with the Crusades, the Church of Rome sought converts over the same territory; and so we see Latin/Catholic churches and counter-churches swarming around the older, Orthodox ones. The counter-churches double up with the existing Orthodox churches, but sometimes a Catholic church exists, e.g. in the Ukraine or Ruthenia, where a separate Orthodox one doesn't. The Popes claim doctrinal authority, while the doctrine of Constantinople is based on the Church Councils.

Just how people can be confused about the history of the Church we see in a statement by film maker Francis Ford Coppola in the director's commentary on his movie, Bram Stoker's Dracula [1991, 2007], as he is watching the stars (Winona Ryder & Keanu Reaves) being married, which was actually filmed at a Greek Orthodox church in Los Angeles:

The Orthodox religions, Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, is [sic] in fact the original Christianity and, for my part, I think the most beautiful expression of Christianity -- that Roman Catholicism is Christianity having been fused with the Roman Empire and really I think has more to do with the Roman Empire than it does with Christianity. [transcribed from audio track]

The religion of the City of Rome detached itself from the religion of the Roman Empire, i.e. Mediaeval Romania, centered in Constantinople. Few people, indeed, remember that Mediaeval "Romans" meant the Greek, Albanian, Vlach, Armenian, and other inhabitants of the so-called "Byzantine" Empire. The phenomenon that Coppola describes is thus not Christianity being "fused" with the Roman Empire, which is actually the way it began -- it was the "Roman" religion to one and all -- but Catholicism being corrupted by the attempt of the Popes to assume the authority of Emperors. When the Emperors were strong, whether in Constantinople or in Germany, the ability of the Popes to make good their claims was limited; but in the decline of the power of both Thrones, there was little to restrain them -- until Philip IV of France sent thugs to assault Boniface VIII and henceforth did as he wished.

A different sort of confusion involving the Roman Empire comes from a more scholarly source, the classic study of Delphi by Peter Hoyle [Cassell, London, 1967].

Religion in the Greek world was tolerant, there was no religious persecution... it was through the Romans, the strong and well-organized, the cruel and authoritative power, that Christianity developed and became a state religion. The terrors and massacres, the inquisitions, the persecutions of Christian by Christian, might never have come about if Greece and not Rome had prevailed. [p.7]

Villa of the Mysteries, Villa dei Misteri, Pompeii

Hoyle has apparently forgotten that Socrates was put to death for "not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual [things]." That looks like some kind of religious persecution, on behalf of the state religion of Athens. Furthermore, the practice of Roman religion as generally tolerant was little different from that of Greece.

With some exceptions, Christians were not asked to renounce their faith or to desecrate its images, as Christians were in Japan; they were simply asked to honor the traditional gods as well and to demonstrate this by pouring a small libation to them. The subsequent intolerant exclusivism we see, when pagan practice and belief were suppressed, came from the Christians, not from previous Roman traditions.

And where then did this Christian exclusivism come from? Clearly from Judaism -- לֹא יִהְיֶה־ לְךִָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עַל־ פָּנָי׃; Οὐκ ἔσονταί σοι θεοὶ ἕτεροι πλὴν ἐμοῦ· Non habebis deos alienos coram me; Thou shalt have no other gods before me [Exodus 20:3] -- but I doubt that Hoyle would have wanted to put in print that the "terrors and massacres" were ultimately due to Judaism. I do not want to place all the blame there either, for something that is the most characteristic of Christianity may in fact derive from the Greeks rather than the Jews. We find Sophocles saying:

                                          ὡς τρισόλβιοι
κεῖνοι βροτῶν, οἳ ταῦτα δερχθέντες τέλη
μολωσ᾽ ἐς Ἅιδου· τοῖσδε γὰρ μόνοις ἐκεῖ
ζῆν ἔστι, τοῖς ἄλλοισι πάντ᾽ ἔχειν κακά.

Thrice blessed are those among men who, having seen these rites, go down to Hades; for only to them is there life; to the others there will be all evils [πάντα κακά].

[Fragment 837, "Fragments Not Assignable to Any Play," Sophocles III, Fragments, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1996, 2003, pp.368-369.]

Sophocles is talking about the Eleusinian Mysteries, which promised rebirth and eternal life to those who were initiated and denied it to those who were not. There is nothing in Judaism like that -- except in beliefs about the afterlife that developed later, already with some elements in late books of the Bible, and implied by references in the New Testament to the Sadducees rejecting an afterlife, but not the Pharisees -- or the unmentioned Essences.

In the modern polemic against Christianity, Nietzsche was willing to blame Judaism for the evils of Christianity (the "slave revolt" in morals), but then this is little noted in the popular apologetic for Nietzsche's anti-Semitism. Nietzsche was also willing to blame Socrates (that victim of religious persecution) and Plato for corrupting the Greek spirit and making it vulnerable to Judaism and Christianity.

Perhaps Hoyle, consciously or not, tries to avoid this mess by simply placing the blame on the Romans -- the opposite of Nietzsche, who said that the Romans were the most noble people who had ever lived, and that "Rome viewed Israel as a monstrosity; the Romans regarded the Jews as convicted of hatred against the whole of mankind" [The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956, p.185-186]. Yet the characteristic attitude of traditional Christianity, that we are saved and you are going to Hell -- Extra Ecclesiam, nemo salvatur (Outside the Church, no one is saved):  that looks like something from Hoyle's "tolerant" Greeks.

The Patriarchates, as illustrated at right, consist, as we have seen, originally of the five indigenous to the Roman Empire and, from an early date, that of Armenia and of the East. Schisms multiplied the number of claimants to each Seat, initially between the Roman Church (i.e. the Melkite, Μελχίτης, "Royal" -- here what I call "Ecumenical," after the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople) and the Monophysites but later between the Latin and the Greek Churches, with the former claiming, and conventionally conceded, the appellation "Roman Catholic."

However, this leaves the "Orthodox" Churches as, conventionally, everything else that we see. All of Christendom, indeed, could be divided between Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Churches, with the Protestants missing from the diagram because there are no Protestant claimants to a Patriarchate at the traditional Seats or any Protestant institution of new Patriarchate. For instance, the Primate of England is still the Archbishop of Canterbury, just as when the country was Catholic. Meanwhile, however, we get other Orthodox Patriarchates, as of Russia, and most recently of Ethiopia. The tendency of the Orthdox Churches to become Patriarchates is that, even when in doctrinal communion with an older Church (as at Constantinople), they are characteristically autocephalous, i.e. self-governing.

In this period there were five significant centers of Christianity outside what had ever been in the Roman Empire:  in the Caucasus, in Mesopotamia, in India, in Ethiopia, and in Ireland. In the Caucasus were the Churches of Georgia and Armenia. Georgia was doctrinally in union with Romania, 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 -- and thus is often called the "Nestorian" Church, after the doctrine condemned by the Third 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, and now 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 subsequently straightened out. As Irish nationalism later became identified with the Catholic Church, over and against the Protestant Church of England and British rule in Ireland, Ireland became one of the most staunchly Catholic states in Europe -- and today, with Poland, provides a disproportionate number of priests to the Catholic Church. However, Catholic observance in both Ireland and Poland recently has declined.

• Introduction
• Bishops of Rome and Popes
  • Pilgrimage Churches in Rome
  • Kenneth Clark's Big Room
  • Latin Rite and Uniate Patriarchates
  • Numbering of the Popes
  • The Legend of Pope Joan
  • The Popes and Fascism
  • John Paul and Francis
  • The Anti-Capitalist Statement of Pope Francis
  • Critique of Roman Catholic Ethics
  • Patriarchs of Aquileia, Grado, and Venice
  • Archbishops of Ravenna
  • Archbishops of Canterbury
  • Archbishops of Milan
  • Archbishop-Electors of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne
  • Prince-Bishops of Liège
  • Archbishops of Salzburg
  • Bishops and Patriarchs of Goa, the West Indies, & the East Indies
  • Patriarchs of Lisbon
• Patriarchs of Constantinople
  • Primates of Russia, Metropolitans & Patriarchs of Kiev & Moscow
  • Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople
  • Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople
  • The See of Athens
• Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria
  • Melkite Patriarchs of Alexandria
  • Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
  • Coptic Catholic Patriarchs of Alexandria
  • Patriarchs of Ethiopia
• Patriarchs of Antioch
  • Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch
  • John of Damascus
  • Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, & Alexandria
  • Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon
  • Syriac Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch
  • Latin Patriarchs of Antioch
• Patriarchs of Jerusalem
  • Armenian Patriarchs of Jerusalem
  • Got Temple?
  • Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem
  • Jerusalem in Sacred Geography
    • Purgatory
• Patriarchs of Armenia
  • Patriarchs of the Great House of Cilicia
  • Armenian Catholic Patriarchs of Cilicia
• Patriarchs of the East
• Patriarchs of Georgia

Popes in Frames with Emperors

Philosophy of History

Philosophy of Religion

Home Page

Copyright (c) 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2017, 2019, 2023, 2024 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

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

The passage from the Catholicism of the Fathers to that of the modern Popes was accomplished by willful falsehood; and the whole structure of traditions, laws, and doctrines that support the theory of infallibility and the practical despotism of the Popes stands on a basis of fraud.

Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet Acton, 1st Baron Acton, North British Review, 1869, p.130

---

This is why, for example, St. Augustine's battle against the Donatist heresy was so important: if the validity of the sacraments depended on the moral qualities of priests, or the perfection of the Church on the perfection of the faithful (as the Pelagians thought), the identity of the Church body would soon have been destroyed. The Church's substance, the corpus mysticum, cannot be damaged or polluted by human sins or offenses.

Leszek Kołakowski (1927-2009), "On Collective Identity," Is God Happy? Selected Essays, Basic Books, 2013, p.258

BISHOPS OF ROME
1 St. Peter	c.42-c.64
2 St. Linus	c.66-c.78
3 St. Anacletus	c.79-c.91
4 St. Clement I	c.91-c.101
5 St. Evaristus	c.100-c.109
6 St. Alexander I	c.109-c.116
7 St. Sixtus I	c.116-c.125
8 St. Telesphorus	c.125-c.136
9 St. Hyginus	c.138-c.142
10 St. Pius I	c.142-c.155
11 St. Anicetus	c.155-c.166
12 St. Soterus	c.166-c.174
13 St. Eleutherius	c.174-189
14 St. Victor I	189-198
15 St. Zephirinus	198/9-217
16 St. Calixtus/ Callistus I	217-222
[St. Hippolytus]	217-235
17 St. Urban I	222-230
18 St. Pontianus	230-235
19 St. Anterius	235-236
20 St. Fabianus	236-250
killed in persecution of Decius, 250
21 St. Cornelius	251-253
[Novatianus]	251-258
22 St. Lucius I	253-254
23 St. Stephen I	254-257
24 St. Sixtus II	257-258
25 St. Dionysius	260-268
26 St. Felix I	269-274
27 St. Eutychianus	275-283
28 St. Caius/Gaius	283-296
29 St. Marcellinus	296-303/4
Persecution of Diocletian, 303; apostasy of Marcellinus
Sedē Vacantē	304-306/8
30 St. Marcellus I	306/8-308/9
31 St. Eusebius	309/10
32 St. Melchiades/ Miltiades	311-314
Toleration by Maxentius & Constantine, gift of Lateran Palace, 312
POPES
33 St. Sylvester I	314-335
Edict of Milan, Constantine and Licinius decree toleration for Chistianity, 313; Council of Arles, Donatism condemned, 314; Ecumenical Council I, Nicaea I, Arianism condemned, Nicene Creed, 325; various churches and palaces, especially the Lateran Palace, in Rome donated to the Pope
34 St. Marcus I	336
35 St. Julius I	337-352
36 Liberius	352-366
Meletian Schism, 361-401
[St. Felix II]	355-365
37 St. Damasus I	366-384
Ecumenical Council II, Constantinople I, Arianism condemned, regarded as definitively establishing Roman Catholic Orthodoxy, 381
[Ursinus]	366-367
38 St. Siricius	384-399
39 St. Anastasius I	399-401
40 St. Innocent I	401-417
Sack of Rome by Visigoths, 410; Conference of Carthage, Donatism condemned, 411
41 St. Zosimus	417-418
[Eulalius]	418-419
42 St. Boniface I	418-422
43 St. Celestine I	422-432
Ecumenical Council III, Ephesus I, Nestorianism condemned, 431
44St. Sixtus/ Xystus III	432-440
45 St. Leo I the Great	440-461
"Robber" Council, Ephesus II, Monophysitism affirmed, still recognized by Monophysite Churches, 449; Ecumenical Council IV, Chalcedon, Monophysitism condemned; fatal disaffection of Syria & Egypt, 451; Sack of Rome by Vandals, 455
46 St. Hilarus (Hilary)	461-468
47 St. Simplicius	468-483
48 St. Felix III (II)	483-492
Acacian Schism, 484-519
49 St. Gelasius I	492-496
50 St. Anastasius II	496-498
51 St. Symmachus	498-514
[Laurentius]	498-499, 501-506, d.507/08
52 St. Hormisdas	514-523
End of Acacian Schism, 519
53 St. John I	523-526
54 St. Felix IV (III)	526-530
Council of Orange, 529
[Dioscorus]	530
55 Boniface II	530-532
56 John II	533-535
57 St. Agapetus Agapitus I	535-536
58 St. Silverius	536-537, d.537
Rome regained by Belisarius from Ostrogoths, 536 (#1); end of dating by Consuls, 537; Silverius deposed by Belisarius, dies in exile, 537
59 Vigilius	537-555
Ostrogoths revive, 541; Rome lost, sacked, by Totila, 546 (#2); Rome regained by Belisarius, 547 (#3); Rome lost, 549 (#4); Ostrogoths defeated by Narses at Busta Gallorum or Taginae, Rome regained, 552 (#5); Ecumenical Council V, Constantinople II, the "Three Chapters" condemned to reconcile Monophysitism, 553
60 Pelagius I	556-561
61 John III	561-574
62 Benedict I	575-579
63 Pelagius II	579-590
Lombard siege of Rome, 579-585
64 St. Gregory I the Great	590-604
Senate in Rome ceases to meet, 602
65 Sabinianus	604-606
66 Boniface III	607
Greek Pope
67 St. Boniface IV	608-615
Column of Phocas, last Imperial monument in the Forum of Rome, 608; Pantheon converted into Church, 609
68 St. Deusdedit/ Adeodatus I	615-618
69 Boniface V	619-625
The iussio, Imperial confirmation of Papal election, delegated to Exarch of Ravenna, 620
70 Honorius I	625-638
Senate building in Rome converted into Church of St. Adriano, c.630; condemned as Monothelete heretic by Council VI
Sedē Vacantē, 638-640
71 Severinus	640
72 John IV	640-642
73 Theodore I	642-649
Greek Pope
74 St. Martin I	649-653, d.655
arrested by Emperor Constans II and died in exile in Crimea
75 St. Eugenius I	654-657
76 St. Vitalianus	657-672
77 Adeodatus II	672-676
78 Domnus/Donus (I)	676-678
79 St. Agathon	678-681
Sicilian Pope; Ecumenical Council VI, Constantinople III, Monotheletism condemned, 680-681
80 St. Leo II	682-683
Sicilian Pope
81 St. Benedict II	684-685
Imperial ratification of Papal elections abolished, 684/685
82 John V	685-686
Syrian Pope
83 Conon	686-687
Sicilian Pope
[Theodorus]	687
[Paschal]	687, d.692
84 St. Sergius I	687-701
Syrian & Sicilian Pope; ordered arrested but Italian garrison refuses
85 John VI	701-705
Greek Pope
86 John VII	705-707
Greek Pope
87 Sisinnius	708
Syrian Pope
88 Constantine I	708-715
Syrian Pope; last Pope to visit Constantinople, 710-711, called by iussio of Jusintian II
89 St. Gregory II	715-731
90 St. Gregory III	731-741
Syrian Pope; appeals to Franks for help against Lombards
91 St. Zacharias	741-752
last Greek Pope, from Calabria; gives permission for the deposition of King Childerich III of Francia and for Boniface of Crediton to crown Pepin III King of Francia, 751
92 Stephen II ??	752
93 Stephen III (II)	752-757
Donation of Pepin, Byzantine Exarchate of Ravenna becomes Papal States, 754
94 St. Paul I	757-767
[Constantine II]	767-768
[Philip]	768
95 Stephen IV (III)	768-772
96 Hadrian/Adrian I	772-795
Ecumenical Council VII, Nicaea II, Iconoclasm condemned under guidance of Empress Irene, 787; Council of Frankfurt, Frankish Church rejects Council VII, contradicts Pope, 794
97 St. Leo III	795-816
Crowns Charlemagne Roman Emperor, gives Papacy basis for claiming sovereign rights over later (Holy Roman) Emperors, 800
98 Stephen V (IV)	816-817
99 St. Paschal I	817-824
100 Eugenius II	824-827
101 Valentinus	827
102 Gregory IV	827-844
[John]	844
103 Sergius II	844-847
Sack of Ostia & the Vatican by the Aghlabids, 846
104 St. Leo IV	847-855
Arab fleet destroyed off Ostia, 849; Leonine Walls completed around Vatican, 852
[John/Joan? (VIII), XX ?!?]	(855-857?)
105 Benedict III	855-858
[Anastasius]	855
106 St. Nicholas I	858-867
107 Hadrian II	867-872
Ecumenical Council VIII, Constantinople IV, patched up filioque and other differences, later repudiated by East, last Oecumenical Council recognized by West which included Eastern Church, 869-870
108 John VIII	872-882
Has Formosus crown Charles the Bald Emperor at Pavia, 875; Excommunicates Duke of Naples for collaborating with the Arabs, 880; whole Duchy excommunicated, 881; crowns Charles the Fat Emperor, 881; first Pope assassinated, 882
109 Martin II/ Marinus I	882-884
110 St. Hadrian III	884-885
111 Stephen VI (V)	885-891
112 Formosus	891-896
Crowns Arnulf of Carinthia Emperor, 896
113 Boniface VI	896
114 Stephen VII (VI)	896-897, deposed
Exhumes & tries the corpse of Formosus for heresy, "Cadaver Synod," instigated by Lambert II of Spoleto, 897; St. John Lateran collapses after earthquake, 897; deposed & strangled, 897
115 Romanus	897, deposed; d.?
116 Theodore II	897
117 John IX	898-900
118 Benedict IV	900-903
119 Leo V	903, deposed; d.904
[Christopher ??]	903-904, deposed; d.904
120 Sergius III	anti-pope, 898
	904-911
121 Anastasius III	911-913
122 Lando	913-914
123 John X	914-928, d.929
Arabs defeated at Garigliano River, 915
124 Leo VI	928
125 Stephen VIII (VII)	928-931, d.932
deposed & mutilated by Alberic II of Spoleto
126 John XI of Spoleto or Tusculum	931-935/6
127 Leo VII	936-939
128 Stephen IX (VIII)	939-942
129 Martin III/ Marinus II	942-946
130 Agapetus II	946-955
131 John XII Octavian of Spoleto	955-963, 963-964
East Frankish/German King Otto I crowned Emperor after he defeats Magyars, 962
132 Leo VIII ??	963, 964-965
133 Benedict V	964, d.966
134 John XIII of Spoleto	965-972
135 Benedict VI	973-974
[Boniface VII Franco]	974-985
{Domnus II}	c.974
136 Benedict VII	974-983
137 John XIV Peter Canepanova	983-984
138 John XV	985-996
139 Gregory V Bruno	996-999
[John XVI John Philagathos]	997-998, d.1001
140 Sylvester II Gerbert	999-1003
141 John XVII John Sicco	1003
142 John XVIII John Fasanus	1003-1009
143 Sergius IV Peter	1009-1012
144 Benedict VIII Theophylact of Tusculum	1012-1024
[Gregory (VI)]	1012
145 John XIX Romanus of Tusculum	1024-1032
146 Benedict IX !! Theophylact of Tusculum	1032-1044, 1045, & 1047-48, d.1055/56
147 Sylvester III ?? John of Sabina	1045, d.1063
148 Gregory VI John Gratian	1045-1046, d.1047
149 Clement II Suidger	1046-1047
150 Damasus II Poppo	1048
151 St. Leo IX Bruno	1049-1054
Lord of Benevento, 1051; defeated & captured by Normans at Civitate, 1053; Schism between Eastern and Western Churches, "Donation of Constantine" cited, 1054
152 Victor II Gerbhard	1055-1057
153 Stephen X (IX) Frederick of Lorraine	1057-1058
[Benedict X ?? John Mincius]	1058-1059, d.1073
154 Nicholas II Gerard	1058-1061
Lateran Synod, decree for election of Popes by a college of Cardinals, 1059; beginning of Papal heyday
155 Alexander II Anselm	1061-1073
[Honorius (II) Peter Cadalus]	1061-1064, d.1071/2
156 St. Gregory VII Hildebrand	1073-1085
Investiture Controversy, 1076-1122; gratuitously excommunicates the Emperors Nicephorus III Botaniates, 1078, and Alexius I Comnenus, 1081; rescued from Castel Sant'Angelo by Normans, who then loot and burn Rome, 1084
[Clement (III) Guibert]	1080, 1084-1100
Sedē Vacantē, 1085-1086
157 Victor III Desiderius	1086, 1087
158 Urban II Odo/Eudes	1088-1099
First Crusade, defeats Seljuks, recaptures Jerusalem, 1096-1099
[John/Joan? (VIII), XX ?!?]	(1099-1106?)
159 Paschal II Rainerius	1099-1118
[Theodoric]	1100-1101, d.1102
[Albert]	1101
[Sylvester (IV) Maginulf]	1105-1111
160 Gelasius II John of Gaeta	1118-1119
[Gregory (VIII) Maurice Burdinus]	1118-1121, d.1140
161 Callistus/ Calixtus II Guy/Guido of Burgundy	1119-1124
Bull Sicut Judaeis, 1120; Lateran Council I, 1123
162 Honorius II Lamberto	1124-1130
[Celestine (II) Teobaldo]	1124, d.1125/26
163 Innocent II Gregorio Papareschi	1130-1143
Lateran Council II, 1139; defeated & captured by Normans at Galluccio, 1139
[Anacletus II Pietro]	1130-1138
[Victor IV Gregorio Conti]	1138
164 Celestine II Guido of Città di Castello	1143-1144
165 Lucius II Gherardo Caccianemici	1144-1145
166 Eugenius III Bernardo Pignatelli	1145-1153
Second Crusade, 1147-1149
167 Anastasius IV Corrado	1153-1154
168 Hadrian IV Nicholas Breakspear	1154-1159
only English Pope; confers Ireland on Henry II of England, 1155; Treaty of Benevento, recognizes William I as King of Sicily and Vassal of Rome, 1156
169 Alexander III Orlando Bandinelli	1159-1181
Lateran Council III, 1179
[Victor IV Ottaviano of Monticelli]	1159-1164
[Paschal III Rainald of Dassel]	1164-1168
[Callistus (III) Giovanni]	1168-1178, d.1183
[Innocent (III) Lando]	1179-1180
170 Lucius III Ubaldo Allucingoli	1181-1185
171 Urban III Umberto Crivelli	1185-1187
172 Gregory VIII Alberto de Morra	1187
173 Clement III Paolo Scolari	1187-1191
Third Crusade, 1189-1192
174 Celestine III Giacinto Bobo, Bobini, Orsini	1191-1198
175 Innocent III Lotario Scotti, dei Conti di Segni	1198-1216
Fourth Crusade, Constantinople taken by Crusaders in employ of Venice, first break in line of Roman (Rhōmaic/Byzantine) Emperors, 1202-1204; Lateran Council IV, 1215; Albigensian Crusade, 1209-1229
176 Honorius III Cencio Savelli	1216-1227
Fifth Crusade #1, 1217-1221
177 Gregory IX Ugo, Ugolino dei Conti di Segni	1227-1241
Fifth #2/Sixth Crusade, Frederick II excommunicated both for not going on Crusade and then for going on one and negotiating the possession of Jerusalem (until 1244), 1228-1229
178 Celestine IV Goffredo da Castiglione	1241
Sedē Vacantē, 1241-1243
179 Innocent IV Sinibaldo Fieschi	1243-1254
Council of Lyon I, 1245; "mandate" refuting the Blood Libel against the Jews, 1247; Sixth/Seventh Crusade, St. Louis IX of France, lands in Egypt, defeated, captured, ransomed, 1248-1254
180 Alexander IV Rinaldo dei Conti di Segni	1254-1261
181 Urban IV Jacques Pantaléon	Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, 1255-1261
	1261-1264
182 Clement IV Guy Foulques	1265-1268
requests work from Roger Bacon, 1266
Sedē Vacantē, 1268-1271
183 Gregory X Teobaldo Visconti	1271-1276
Seventh/Eighth Crusade, St. Louis IX of France, got no further than Tunisia, 1270, continued by Edward of England, 1270-1272; Council of Lyon II, 1274, Union with Constantinople, 1274-1282
184 Innocent V Pierre of Tarentaise	1276
185 Hadrian V Ottobono Fieschi	1276
186 John XXI !! Pedro Julião	1276-1277
187 Nicholas III Giovanni Gaetano, Orsini	1277-1280
188 Martin IV Simon de Brie	1281-1285
Repudiates Union with Constantinople to support Charles of Anjou, 1282
189 Honorius IV Giacomo Savelli	1285-1287
190 Nicholas IV Girolamo Masci	1288-1292
Sedē Vacantē, 1292-1294
191 St. Peter Celestine V Pietro del Morrone	1294-1294, d.1296
192 Boniface VIII Benedetto Caetani	1294-1303
most exaggerated claims for the mediaeval Papacy; captured, humiliated, and beaten by Philip the Fair of France, 1303
193 Benedict XI Niccolò Boccasino	1303-1304
A 194 Clement V Bertrand de Got	1305-1314
Templars arrested and suppressed, 1307-1312; Last Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, tortured & burned by Philip IV of France, 1314
moves to Avignon, 1309; lines of Popes reside at Avignon (A), Rome (R), and Pisa (P) during the Babylonian Captivity (1309-1377) and the Great Schism (1378-1417); Council of Vienne, 1311-1312
Sedē Vacantē, 1314-1316
A 195 John XXII Jacques Duèse	1316-1334
R [Nicholas (V) Pietro Rainalducci]	1328-1330, d.1333
A 196 Benedict XII Jacques Fournier	1334-1342
A 197 Clement VI Pierre	1342-1352
Half of Colosseum collapses in earthquake, 1349
A 198 Innocent VI Étienne Aubert	1352-1362
A 199 Urban V Guillaume de Grimoard	1362-1370
R 200 Gregory XI Pierre Roger de Beaufort	1370-1378
leaves Avignon, 1376; returns to Rome, 1377
R 201 Urban VI Bartolomeo Prignano	1378-1389
resides at Rome, Anti-Pope elected at Avignon; Great Schism (1378-1417)
R 202 Boniface IX Pietro Tomacelli	1389-1404
Mission from Ethiopia in Rome, 1403, 1404
R 203 Innocent VII Cosimo Gentile de' Migliorati	1404-1406
R 204 Gregory XII Angelo Correr	1406-1415 d.1417
Council of Constance, called by Emperor Sigismund, Papal interregnum 1415-1417, resolves Great Schism, but principle of Council is threat to Papal authority, 1414-1418
Sedē Vacantē, 1415-1417
205 Martin V Oddo Colonna	1417-1431
Three Ethiopians attested at Council of Constance, receive Safe Passage document from Martin V, 1416-1418
206 Eugene (Eugenius) IV Gabriele Condulmaro	1431-1447
Council of Basil, 1431-1445; Council at Ferrara & Florence, 1431-1449, attended by John VIII Palaeologus, 1439-1440, and Ethiopian monks from Jerusalem, 1441
[Felix (V), Amadeus VIII of Savoy]	1439-1449, d.1451
207 Nicholas V Tommaso Parentucelli	1447-1455
Renaissance begins
208 Callistus/ Calixtus III Alfonso de Borja/Borgia	1455-1458
209 Pius II Enea Silvio Piccolomini	1458-1464
last piece of Romania, the fortress of Monemvasia, ceded by the Despot Thomas, 1461
210 Paul II Pietro Barbo	1464-1471
211 Sixtus IV Francesco della Rovere	1471-1484
212 Innocent VIII Giovanni Battista Cibò	1484-1492
213 Alexander VI Rodrigo de Borja y Borja/Borgia	1492-1503
214 Pius III Francesco Todeschini Piccolomini	1503
215 Julius II Giuliano della Rovere	1503-1513
recovers by combat all of Papal States, 1512-1517; Lateran Council V, 1512–1517
216 Leo X Giovanni de' Medici	1513-1521
1517 Reformation begins
217 Hadrian VI Adrian Florensz Dedal	1522-1523
218 Clement VII Giulio de' Medici	1523-1534
Sack of Rome by Imperial/Spanish army, 1527
219 Paul III Alessandro Farnese	1534-1549
Council of Trent, Counter-Reformation, 19th "Ecumenical" Council, 1545-1563
220 Julius III Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte	1550-1555
221 Marcellus II Marcello Cervini	1555
222 Paul IV Giampietro Carafa	1555-1559
223 Pius IV Giovanni Angelo Medici	1559-1565
224 St. Pius V Michele Ghislieri	1566-1572
225 Gregory XIII Ugo Boncompagni	1572-1585
5/15 October 1582, Gregorian Calendar instituted; Quirinal Palace, 1573, 1583
226 Sixtus V Felice Peretti	1585-1590
227 Urban VII Giambattista Castagna	1590
228 Gregory XIV Niccolò Sfondrati	1590-1591
229 Innocent IX Giovanni Antonio Fachinetti	1591
230 Clement VIII Ippolito Aldobrandini	1592-1605
Quirinal Palace principal residence of Popes until 1870
231 Leo XI Alessandro Ottaviano de'Medici	1605
232 Paul V Camillo Borghese	1605-1621
Quirinal Palace completed
233 Gregory XV Alessandro Ludovisi	1621-1623
234 Urban VIII Maffeo Barberini	1623-1644
235 Innocent X Giambattista Pamfili	1644-1655
236 Alexander VII Fabio Chigi	1655-1667
237 Clement IX Giulio Rospigliosi	1667-1669
238 Clement X Emilio Altieri	1670-1676
239 Innocent XI Benedetto Odescalchi	1676-1689
240 Alexander VIII Petro Ottoboni	1689-1691
241 Innocent XII Antonio Pignatelli	1691-1700
242 Clement XI Giovanni Francesco Albani	1700-1721
Protests grant without Papal authority of the title "King in Prussia," 1701
243 Innocent XIII Michelangelo Conti, dei Conti di Segni	1721-1727
244 Benedict XIII Pietro Francesco Orsini	1724-1730
245 Clement XII Lorenzo Corsini	1730-1740
246 Benedict XIV Prospero Lorenzo Lambertini	1740-1758
247 Clement XIII Carlo della Torre Rezzonico	1758-1769
248 Clement XIV Lorenzo Giovanni Vicenzo Antonio Ganganelli	1769-1774
249 Pius VI Giovanni Angelo Braschi	1775-1799
250 Pius VII Luigi Barnabà Chiaramonte	1800-1823
Roman Republic, 1799; Concordat with Napoleon, 1801; Annexation by France, Napoleon excommunicated, Pope arrested, 1809-1814
251 Leo XII Annibale Sermattei della Genga	1823-1829
252 Pius VIII Francesco Saverio Castiglione	1829-1830
253 Gregory XVI Bartolomeo Alberto Cappellari	1831-1846
254 Pius IX Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti	1846-1878
loss of Romagna, 1859; loss of the Marches & Umbria, 1860; occupation of Rome by Italy, 1870; Vatican I Council, 1869-1870
255 Leo XIII Gioacchino Vincenzo Pecci	1878-1903
256 St. Pius X Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto	1903-1914
257 Benedict XV Giacomo Della Chiesa	1914-1922
258 Pius XI Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti	1922-1939
Concordat with Mussolini, Independence of Vatican City, 1929
259 Pius XII Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli	1939-1958
260 St. John XXIII Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli	1958-1963
Vatican II Council, 1962-1965
261 Paul VI Giovanni Battista Montini	1963-1978
262 John Paul I Albino Luciani	1978
263 St. John Paul II Karol Wojtyla	1978-2005
first Polish Pope
264 Benedict XVI Joseph Ratzinger	2005-2013, abdicated
265 Francis, Franciscus I Jorge Mario Bergoglio	2013-present
first Pope from the Americas; first new name since Lando in 913; first Pope born outside Europe since Gregory III (Syrian born) in 731; attacks capitalism, protects pedophiles

The Papacy is one of the oldest institutions in the world, perhaps even the oldest. There are likely to be few neutral opinions about it. To Roman Catholics, the Pope may be the holiest man on earth, the heir and keeper of the deepest truths of religion. To others, the Papacy may only stand for ignorance and dogma, intolerance, torture, arrogance, and bigotry. Purely historical judgments, which cannot take into account religious truth or falsehood, may nevertheless leave a negative impression because of the factual nature of things like torture and intolerance. One would like, therefore, as a historian (or philosopher) to ask, "What good was the Papacy?"

There is one very good answer in that respect:  By claiming independent authority and resisting secular power, the Papacy paved the way for the later conception of the separation of Church and State. Not that the Church ever wanted to give up its authority over the conscience and morals of citizens, but it accustomed people to the idea that secular power was not the last word and that obedience to the same was not an unconditioned duty. Once the Church was divided by the Reformation, and Protestants found even their own sects multiplying, the easiest solution was, not only to keep secular authority separate, but to deny to churches any coercive function. Thus, while Catholic countries often still mix some religious authority into secular law, the separation of religion from the state, or the principle of liberty of conscience, is a far, far less secure proposition out of the Western world. When China prohibits an inoffensive religious sect, and various countries debate whether to institute Islāmic Law (or apply it in all its rigor), the long struggles between Popes and Emperors, or Popes and Kings, look positively remarkable.

St. Peter's Basilica, Rome, 2019

As with many people who look good out of power, for their resistance, but then prove as bad, or worse, as their tormentors once they are in power themselves, our appreciation of the Papacy has its limits. The Popes always looked better resisting than ruling. This has peristed into recent times, when the Church was the focus of undeniable opposition to communism in Poland, but then, again, sought to introduce Catholic moral teachings into the law of post-communist Poland. The irony of this dynamic is palpable when communism itself came to power in the name of the workers but then often slaughtered workers to stay in power.

Thus, one might well say, "OK, it was a worthy role to distinguish and limit the power of secular governments, but since then the Church has been more famous for its intolerance, for the Inquisition, for its authoritarianism. What has it done for us, outside of the Warsaw Pact, lately?" Indeed, if a Mediaeval or Cold War historical role is the best we can do, then perhaps the demise of the Church is long overdue. At the same time, the Church is no longer running any Inquisitions, and priests and nuns have often become activists in trendy political causes -- unfortunately sometimes poisonous leftist causes, as in "Liberation Theology."

The Baldachin (Baldacchino), bronze altar canopy, of Gian Lorenzo Bernini, St. Peter's Basilica, Rome, 2019

However, that kind of thing may be of less value than the continued conservative moral teaching of the Church. If the Catholic Church is not going to stand for conservative morality, who is? The principle lesson of traditional morality is self-control. If the Church argues that abortion and birth control are not necessary (apart from its moral objections) for economic success, this is actually true and an argument that should be made. Those who are so imprudent as to find themselves with illegitimate children, even if their fortunes can be retrieved by abortions, may not be prudent in any other areas of life either, to a great loss of fortune which cannot so easily be remedied. The proposition that people should be protected, usually by the government, from any adverse consequences of their own actions is the most destructive moral principle of the modern age, when relativism and nihilism have become the self-evident truths of the intelligentsia. Although the Church may err in the direction of moralism, this is no worse, and probably overall better, than the opposite popular trivializations of morality and prudence. The legendary, fortress-like chastity of Catholic girls, although often ridiculed as unhealthy inhibition, now, especially in the environment of herpes and AIDS, proves to have been the wisest of practical virtues.

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.

The Holy Spirit, St. Peter's Basilica, Rome, 2019

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. There is actually nothing new about this. The wish of King Henry II to be rid of Thomas à Becket was not because Becket was protecting the peasants from the oppression of the King, but because he was protecting Churchmen who were rapists and murderers from the King's Justice. Someone might consider staging a version of T.S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral in which the complaint against Becket (or perhaps Archbishop Roger Mahony of Los Angeles) was his protection of child molesters. Henry II could use some good press in this, since he hasn't gotten any since the 12th century.

It can be a problem that the priesthood might 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.

The Pietà, by Michelangelo, St. Peter's Basilica, Rome, 2019

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 particular 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. On the other hand, the horror or contempt of modern Protestants and secularists for celibacy in general is a bias that is inconsistent both with the history of Christianity, where celibacy is respected or required in all the Orthodox Churches, and in relation to the practice of religion in, say, India, where there is provision and an esteemed place for celibacy in all the autochthonous religions, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. After all, the great power of the noble hero Bhishma, , of the Mahābhārata, who could not be killed against his wish, and his name, derives from the "frightful" oath of celibacy he took. Western enthusiasts for Buddhism as a system of philosophy tend to be oblivious of the place of the Sangha, the monastic community, in the doctrine and history of Buddhism.

Anti-Popes are shown in brackets. Alternative numbers or numbers that do not count in the following sequence are in parentheses. Several Anti-Popes (e.g. Alexander V) actually figure in the count of legitimate Popes. Popes and Anti-Popes in the Great Schism at Avignon are shown with backgrounds in purple. Anti-Popes at Pisa are on a background in green. Sedē Vacantē is "with the Seat Vacant."

The Popes may be viewed in frames in conjunction with the Emperors of the Roman-Romanian-Byzantine lines and Popes of the Frankish-German-French-Austrian lines, using this link. In a screen 640 pixels wide, the formatting suffers considerable distortions. In a wider screen, the window should be enlarged or maximized. To exit the frames, links from this "Popes" window must be used. This device of running Popes and Emperors in parallel goes back to The Holy Roman Empire of James Bryce [1904, Schocken Books, 1961, 1964]. Because the Popes played a larger role in the story of the Emperors in Francia, Bryce ceased listing the Roman Emperors once Charlemagne had been crowned. Also, this shift probably also expresses the lack of regard of historians like Bryce for "Byzantium" and its heritage. See the "Note on 'Romania'."

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.

Basilica Papale di Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, 2019

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 St. John Lateran, which has remained ever since the actual episcopal church, the cathedral, 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. However, Gregory XIII began to build the Quirinal Palace as a summer residence, regarding the higher ground of the Quirinal Hill as healthier in the hot season. Soon afterwards, under Clement VIII, and before the present building was finished, this became the principal residence of the Popes. It continued as such until 1870, and has since then been the official (if not the actual) residence of both the Kings and the Presidents of Italy. The Popes retreated back to the Vatican and the Vatican Palace. What was left of the ancient Lateran Palace was removed by Sixtus V, who then built the smaller existing building.

Kenneth Clark's Big Room

Although the Pope had been the de facto governor of Rome for a few years, the Donation of Pepin in 754 begins the formal history of the Papacy as a territorial power. This would last until 1870, giving the Papal States a run of 1116 years. The original terms of the grant were for the "Exarchate of Ravenna," i.e. the Roman Imperial territory that was preserved across central Italy after the invasion of Lombards in 568. The most important parts of this were, of course, Rome itself and the area of Romagna around Ravenna in the north, with a narrow salient connecting them. While the Donation was made on paper in 754, Pepin was not able to deliver practical control of the territory to the Pope until 756, which thus is taken by many as the effective beginning of the Papal States.

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 (reputed) 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 Donation of Constantine, 1247, San Silvestro Chapel at Santi Quattro Coronati, Rome
The Donation of Constantine, Papal Apartments, the Vatican, Rome, 2019
The "Donation" discredited as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457), 1439–1440, because the language could be dated as Mediaeval, not 4th Century AD

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.

The Frankish Kingdom as the Roman Empire petered out (as it were) after a while, and the Pope granted the Imperial Crown for a few years to local Kings of Italy. This also lapsed. The institution got revived, for the rest of the Middle Ages, when the successful German King Otto I descended on Italy. This began a long struggle between the German Emperors and the Popes for control of Italy and control of the Church in Germany. The successes of the Popes crippled the authority of the German Throne, and ensured that Germany and Italy would enter the Modern period fragmented and anarchic. The political consequences even in the 20th century were severe, as the political immaturity of Germany and Italy rendered them vulnerable to ideologies like Fascism and Nazism. Italy remained tempted by Communism until its fall in 1989/91. The war and mass murder effected by the former temptations echo in the terrorism practiced by the die-hard believers of the latter, even after the Fall of Communism.

In the 10th and 11th centuries, we have a situation that looks like that under the Renaissance Popes of the Borgias, Della Roveres, and Medici, as we will see below. A family of Roman nobility, the Tusculani, in league with the Dukes of Spoleto, founds a virtual dynasty of Popes. The final score is eight Popes by marriage or descent, which is much better than any of the Renaissance families could boast of. The Tusculani, whose first member here is Theophylact, may have been, with such a Greek name, derived from a military family installed when Rome was ruled from Constantinople, or from a comparable family from Southern Italy. The period involves intense interaction with the German Emperors, with Otto I crowned by John XII in 962. This John may also have been the first Pope to adopt a new name as Pope, having previously been known as Octavian. Soon this becomes customary. At the same time, with the report that John XI was the natural son of Sergius III and Marozia of Tusculum, there is the kind of reputation about the Papacy, as a "pornocracy," that we later get again with the Borgias.

Although the Church of the Pope is called by one and all the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" (Sancta Romana Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia), and this is contrasted, not just with Protestant churches, but with the Orthodox Churches of the East, Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Bulgarian, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, etc., this has been no more than a very clever usurpation. The "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" was the Universal (katholikos) Church of the Roman Empire. The Pope was not the ruler of that Church, but one of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, along with the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. The Pope was allowed to be primus inter pares, "first among equals," but that was it. Governance of the Church was also shared with the Emperor, the "Equal of the Apostles," who had the authority to call Church Councils; and, after 476, that meant only the Emperor in Constantinople -- although, as it happened, only that Emperor had ever called Councils. After various disputes, the Latin and Greek Churches finally broke in 1054. Each thus claimed to be the proper "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church," but over time the Papal use of the terminology seems curiously to have been conceded by the East. "Eastern Orthodox" is not particularly insulting, but it is a surrender. Even the expression "Greek Catholic" is used for the Roman Catholic counter-church that was created to lure the Greek Orthodox into allegiance to Rome.

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 Islāmic hands for 463 years.

Later Crusades were the result of setbacks, like the fall of Edessa in 1144 and, much worse, the loss of Jerusalem in 1187. The Popes began to labor constantly to put together forces that could recover the Christian position in Outremer. The Third Crusade was the most powerful and direct, led by the heroic Richard the Lionheart of England, but it fell short. Much, much worse was the Fourth Crusade, which was redirected by the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, to the purposes of Venice. Pope Innocent III first had to excommunicate everyone for the use of the army in Dalmatia, and then the Venetians took it, not to Palestine, but to Constantinople. This could be seen as undoing the Schism between the Chruches, since now there was a Latin Emperor and Latin Patriarch in Romania, but it didn't accomplish the real purpose. Nor did it last long. Innocent also sanctioned the appalling Albigensian Crusade which precipitated massacre and cultural devastation in the South of France. Nevertheless, he also accepted the legitimancy of the new mendicant preachers, like the charismatic St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) and St. Dominic (1170-1221), the founders of the Franciscan and Dominican Orders.

Later Popes had to contend with an excommunicated Emperor, Frederick II, regaining Jerusalem by negotiation (Fifth Crusade), and then with St. Louis of France getting himself captured in Egypt (Sixth Crusade) and then dying in Tunisia (Seventh Crusade). That was about it.

While the last glimmers of the Holy Land were fading, the self-importance of the Papacy was expanding. Boniface VIII went the furtherest with this. The Popes were essentially going to be rulers of the world, deposing and enthroning rulers as they wished. These were naive and dangerous pretentions given some of the rulers that the Pope would have to deal with. The Emperor Henry IV might have been willing to stand in the snow as a penitant, but King Philip IV of France sent one of his agents, Nogaret, to do something about the Pope. With a gang of mercenaries, Nogaret seized Boniface in his summer palace at Anagni, holding him hostage and sacking the place. By one account, they intented to take him back to France for trial but then were driven off, and Boniface rescued, by the local citizens. On another account, they thought it impractical to move Boniface and simply left him without further harm. But they had broken his spirit, and he died weeks later.

In short order, a French Pope was elected, Clement V, who may actually have meant well but who ended up as a dupe and tool of Philip. Clement settled at Avignon, where the Papal Court then resided until 1377 -- later called the "Babylonian Captivity" of the Papacy. Clement was helpless against Philip's schemes, like the destruction of the Templars, even though the Crusading Order was under the direct authority of the Pope and was theoretically immune to French sovereignty. That didn't help them, and Philip ended up burning the Grand Master, without so much as notifying Clement beforehand. Subsequently, all of Europe saw the Papacy as an instrument of French policy.

Popes at Avignon during Great Schism
A [Clement (VII) Robert of Geneva]	1378-1394
A [Benedict (XIII) Petro de Luna]	1394-1417 d.1423
1414-1418 Council of Constance, called by Emperor Sigismund, Papal interregnum 1415-1417
A [Clement (VIII) Gil Sanchez Muñoz]	1423-1429, d.1446
A [Benedict (XIV) Bernard Garnier]	1425-? in Armagnac

Finally, the Babylonian Captivity was ended when a French Pope, Gregory XI, returned to Rome, but not without great trouble wading in to Italian politics. When he died a new Pope was elected in Rome, but another was soon also elected at Avignon. This resulted in two Papacies, the "Great Schism," and the states of Francia lined up on one side or another. As with the Northern Emperors in Japan, the Popes at Avignon during the Schism are now considered Anti-Popes and not numbered in the succession.

1409 Council of Pisa, adds third Pope at Pisa
P [Alexander V Pietro Philarghi]	1409-1410
P [John (XXIII) Baldassare Cossa]	1410-1415 d.1419

This awkward and mortifying division of Catholic Christendom eventually moved many to find a solution. A Council at Pisa in 1409 elected a new Pope, but then the two old ones refused to resign. So the Great Schism now divided Europe in three, rather than just two. Even worse, the second Pope at Pisa, John XXIII, behaved so disgracefully that no legitimacy was left for the Pisa line, and no Pope would again take the name "John" for five hundred years, until 1958 -- then we get another John XXIII because the first was considered an anti-Pope and his number discounted.

Finally, a General Church Council was called at Constance by the Emperor Sigismund. All three Popes were asked to resign. They did, and the Schism was resolved with the election of a new Pope, Martin V. Although Benedict XIII at Avignon resigned, two more "Avignon" Popes were elected, though they were not in possession of the Papal city. The principle that Church Councils might be called by the Emperor and rule on matters of Church doctrine and discipline, although affirmed by Constance, was soon repudiated by Martin. The next Emperor who wanted to call a Council, and who had the power to do so,

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 became one of the most infamous Popes ever, with rumors of incest as well as murder dogging him. It has long been accepted that he produced multiple illegitimate children, like Cesare and Lucretia (Lucrezia) Borgia, kept Giulia Farnese as a mistress, and was so busy poisoning his enemies that it has long been thought that he accidentally poisoned himself and Cesare.

This traditional view has now been forcefully disputed by G.J. Meyer in The Borgias, The Hidden History [Bantam, 2013]. Meyer finds the evidence that Alexander had any illegitimate children, or had any mistresses, unconvincing. Cesare and his siblings seem to have been born in Spain at the time when Rodrigo Borja was already a Cardinal living in Rome. The children may in fact have great-nephews and nieces, as indeed they were often identified in contemporary accounts. That such relatives would have been brought to Rome, especially after their father died, was not unusual at the time.

The greatest practitioners of using the Papacy to house and promote their family were actually Alexander's greatest enemies, the della Roveres. The documentation for Meyer's case, however, has long existed. It was meticulously collected by Peter De Roo and published in 1924 as Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI, His Relatives and His Times. This was "material for" rather than an actual history because De Roo was already 84 years old when the five volume work was published.

Such a monument of Renaissance historiography, however, has been so neglected that when Meyer examined the copy held by the Bodleian Library at Oxford in 2010, the pages had not yet been cut -- 86 years after their printing. I had noticed that other historians were already walking back some of the accusations against the Borgias, for instance that Alexander seems to have been a victim of disease, not poisoning, from which Cesare himself recovered, later to die in battle (involved in the affairs of his Navarrese in-laws).

The effort to blacken the reputations of the Borgias seems to have been launched by political enemies, especially from della Roveres such as Pope Julius II, later happily piled on by Protestants, looking for any iniquities in Rome.

The following tables contain some genealogy of 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 nephew Juan returned to Spain and multiplied. Indeed, much of the resentment of the Borgias was that they were Spanish, not Italian.

Showtime ran a series on the Borgias [2011-2013], which, however, not only accepted all the prurient details of the traditional narrative, but was heavily fictionalized in other and easily discovered ways. Further comment on this can be found under the Aragonese Kings of Naples. The series badly misrepresents the fate of King Ferdinand II, whose brother was the second husband of Lucretia Borgia and whose sister was the wife of Goffredo (a person ignored in the series).

Lucretia's first husband was Giovanni Sforza, from a collateral line of the Sforza's of Milan. I had some difficulty running down his descent, which was not shown in my usual sources but was not a problem to find at Wikipedia. Giovanni, however, although his marriage to Lucretia was indeed annulled for impotence, was not murdered by Cesare as in the television series. On the other hand, Cesare may have murdered Lucretia's second husband, Alfonso of Aragon and Naples, apparently in her presence. Lucretia's third, final, and apparently happy marriage was to the Duke of Modena. In memory and propaganda, however, Lucetia is presented as the equivalent of Messalina, the promiscuous (to say the least) wife of the Emperor Claudius.

The series followed in some detail the doings of Giuliano della Rovere, but without tipping us off that he will become Pope Julius II or cluing us in that his own position at Rome was due to the nepotism of his uncle, Pope Sixtus IV. Julius did not become the target of personal smears, such as he promoted against Alexander VI, but his opposition to the Borgias was purely political and personal, without any disinterested justification.

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.

If we ever wanted to know what a Counter-Reformation Pope was like, all we need is the portrait of Innocent X (1644-1655) by Velázquez (from 1649/50). This is often regarded as Velázquez' greatest portrait, and it is perhaps one the greatest in all history -- and the subject of more than one disturbing interpretation by the artist Francis Bacon (1909-1992).

By the 19th century, Popes were spending much of their energy just trying to maintain their rule over Rome and the Papal States. They were ultimately unsuccessful. A Concordat with Napoleon (1801) meant that the Corsican took a crown from the hands of Pius VII to crown himself Emperor. Later, Napoleon annexed Rome and arrested the Pope for excommunicating him. A few years later, after riding out the troubles of 1848, Napoleon III came to the rescue of the Papacy with French troops who prevented the absorption of Rome into the new Kingdom of Italy.

When French troops were withdrawn to fight Prussia in 1870, the Italians rolled into Rome, made it the capital of Italy, and the Pope removed himself to sulk in the Vatican (and proclaim Papal Infallibility at the Vatican I Council). This was the end of the 1116 year history of the Papal States. Pope Pius XI finally settled for a Concordat with Mussolini (1929) that gave him sovereignty over the Vatican City. This left him with nothing to do but worry about religion and morality, which the Popes have largely confined themselves to since -- as most Catholics probably figure that they should. The Pope's Swiss Guard, still in 15th Century costume (at least on ceremonial occasions), remains to remind us of the day when the Pope had armies.

The present St. Peter's, of course, is a product of the Renaissance. St. John Lateran is the actual cathedral of Rome, the Seat of the Bishop of Rome, built adjacent to the Lateran Palace, which the Emperor Constantine donated the Pope, probably in 313. The new Church was dedicated by Pope Sylvester I in 324.

The Lateran Palace was the residence of the Popes until the relocation of the Papacy to Avignon. St. Paul's was originally built under Constantine, but it was expanded into a very large church under Theodosius I.

"Outside the Walls," fuori le Mura, which figures in the names of three of the Pilgrimage Churches, means outside the Aurelian Walls of ancient Rome, built by the Emperor Aurelian, 271-275 AD. The Vatican is also outside the Aurelian Walls, but it is inside the Leonine Walls, built 848-852 AD by Leo IV after the Arab sack of Rome in 846.

There are three "minor" basilicas among the Pilgrimage Churches, Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, St. Lawrence outside the Walls, and St. Sebastian outside the Walls. Santa Croce may be the most interesting of these churches. The site was originally the palace of the mother of the Emperor Constantine, St. Helena. On a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, 326-328, Helena is supposed to have discovered relics of the Crucifixion, including the Cross itself, the Titulus, which held the inscriptions attached to the Cross, and nails used in the Crucifixion. She reportedly ordered the building of the Church of the Holy Selpulchre on the site of her discoveries. St. Lawrence was originally constructed in the 6th century, and St. Sebastian in the 4th. St. Sebastian, on the Old Appian Way, is also called "at the Catacombs," because of the existence of catacombs under the church. However, in 2000, Pope John Paul II replaced St. Sebastian as a Pilgrimage Church with the Sancturary of Our Lady of Divine Love, which was only originally built in 1745.

To the Popes, they have always been the only Supreme rulers of true One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. That the Orthodox Churches do not agree with this is an inconvenience to be dealt with as necessary, but in general it could be ignored, even with some contempt. Given the long subjugation of many Orthodox Churches under Islam and under the Ottomans, and the ability of the Papacy to draw on the wealth and political power of Francia, older Christianity, including even the Patriarch of Constantinople, was at a disadvantage in dealing with the intrusion of Papal authority and influence. Only Russia could be counted on for a fierce Orthodox response from a Great Power.

Thus, it long seemed proper to the Papacy that there should be a Latin Patriarch for each of the original four Patriarchates that had split from Rome. The Crusades allowed for Latin Patriarchs to be installed in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria. The latter was the most tenuous, since Alexandria was never in the hands of Crusaders.
Also, the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was no longer welcome there when the city was retaken by the Greeks in 1261. Consequently, the phenomenon developed of titular Latin Patriarchs actually living in Rome. The only such Patriarchate that survives today is the one for Jerusalem, which was reestablished in the city in 1847. The others were simply and finally abolished in 1954/65, as part of an outreach to Orthodoxy, especially to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Apart from the historic Eastern Patriarches, there are also the "Minor" Latin Rite Patriarchates that have always been within the jurisdiction of the See of Rome. This began with Aquileia in 557 AD, which had actually split with Rome over the Fifth Ecumenical Council and thus claimed Patriarchal status to assert its independence. The independence didn't last long, but the title survived and indeed passed on to Grado and Venice. In asserting its own primacy, Venice saw to it that its rivals did not continue. Both are now pretty much forgotten, and I expect most people of some small familiarity with history may even think that Aquileia disappeared when sacked by the Huns in 452 AD, rather than continuing as a significant city and a Patriarchal Seat until 1751. The other Minor Pariarchates, of the West Indies, Lisbon, and the East Indies, were all a function of the Portuguese and Spanish colonial Empires. Only the See of the East Indies, at Goa, was ever actually outside of Iberia.

If the abolition of the Latin Patriarchates was a gesture to Orthodoxy, it was compromised by the existence of the "Uniate" Patriarchs. Thus, it became the practice of the Papacy to create "counter-churches" to uncooperative Orthdox Churches, retaining the rite and liturgical language of the original Church. To all superficial appearances, the counter-church might not look like a Latin or Catholic church at all. It may only be in matters of doctrine and Papal Supremacy that the new Church differs from the traditional one. Such a Church could be created out of whole cloth, or it often could be established because of a disputed election or some other schism in the local Church. On the other hand, by 1584 the Maronite Church, in the fastness of Mt. Lebanon, as a whole accepted Papal Supremacy. Now I hear that the Church had always been in communion with Rome, but this seems ahistorical both because the early history of the Maronites is very poorly known, because they apparently were Monotheletes, the doctrine of their founder, Maron, and because claims of Papal Supremacy scarcely existed in a credible way in the early Church of the Roman Empire. While the Maronite Patriarch, who has always resided in Lebanon, claims the See of Antioch, two other Uniate Churches, split off from the Syriac Orthodox and (Melkite, Μελχίτης) Antiochian Orthodox, also claim the See of Antioch. There are therefore three Patriarchs of Antioch all in communion with Rome. The Uniate Churches can be recognized because they usually have "Catholic" in their name, in contrast to "Orthodox" in the name of the traditional Church. "Uniate" or "Uniat" is sometimes thought to be insulting; but I don't quite get the insult, which, if based on the sort of colonial character of the counter-churches, will be offensive whatever name is picked to characterize the Churches.

One sees differing numberings of the Popes. Here I have John Paul II as the 263rd Pope. At the time of his death, I began seeing him referred to as the 264th -- with the new Pope Francis identified in the press as the 266th -- but the Catholic Encyclopedia gave John Paul as the 265th (they have now conformed to 264). Part of this uncertainty is that there has been disagreement about which Popes are legitimate. Thus, in this list, Christopher (903) and Benedict X (1058) were formerly counted as Popes, but they are not on the Catholic Encyclopedia list and are characterized as Anti-Popes by The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. On the other hand, Leo VIII (963) and Sylvester III (1045) are now on the Catholic Encyclopedia list but were formerly, at least by some, considered Anti-Popes.

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 up to John Paul II 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 and Francis as the 266th Pope comes 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. The principle now is that someone becomes the Pope the minute he is elected and accepts the position. The consecration, like the coronation of a king, is extra. Edward VIII of England was never crowned, but he became King of England the minute his father, George V, died. This should determine that Stephen II was a proper Pope, regardless of former practices. 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. As it happens, the Catholic Encyclopedia now sensibly follows the practice of keeping the number for Stephen II even though it does not number him as a proper Pope.

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.

There actually is no Pope John XX. When John XXI (1276) became Pope, there was some confusion about the numbering of the earlier Johns. Since John XXI styled himself the "XXI," this number has been allowed to stand, even when the confusion has been cleared up. How much more appropriate, then to retain even a discounted Stephen II.

Joan's inappropriate sex is supposed to have been revealed when she suddenly gave birth while in a procession from St. Peter's to the Lateran. She was immediately killed and buried on the spot, under an inscription that said Petre, Pater Patrum, Papisse Prodito Partum, "O Peter, Father of Fathers, Betray the Childbirth of the Women Pope." In later processions to the Lateran, subsequent Popes are said to have avoided this place, where there was a statue of Joan with her child. Such a practice is actually attested in 1404 by a Welshman, Adam of Usk, who also added that Popes never ride on horseback nearby, as Joan had been doing. The existence of the statue is attested by a German cleric, Theodoric of Niem, in 1414. It is subsequently supposed to have been thrown in the Tiber by the order of Sixtus IV (1471-1484). Since the statue thus appears to have actually existed, within living memory when Martin Luther visited Rome in 1510, one wonders if such a legend grew up just because of the statue -- a remnant of Roman art that in origin had nothing to do with Joan. John Julius Norwich features a sensible discussion, and a whole chapter, on the business in his recent Absolute Monarchs, A History of the Papacy [Random House, 2011]. Even if we wanted to dismiss the matter of the legend as silly, it should remain significant as one explanation why there is no "John XX."

There is another explanation why there is no "John XX," which is that for a while there was a mistaken belief that there had actually been two Popes numbered as a single "John XIV." When Pedro Julião (Petrus Hispanus) was elected Pope in 1276, he chose to be "John XXI" on the understanding that there had actually been twenty "Johns" at that point. However, if it was understood that there had been two Popes named "John XIV," it is not clear why a simple renumbering had not been carried out, as we have seen with the renumbering of the Stephens. John XXI's election would have been the appropriate occasion for that; but it did not happen. So perhaps "John XX" was thought to have been Pope Joan after all.

Many of the details of the story of Pope Joan were current so early that we find them in the history of the Greek historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles (c.1430-c.1465). Thus, he says that after a Pope is elected:

They seat him upon a chair with a hole so that his testicles dangle down and can be touched by a man appointed to that duty, and in this way it becomes clear that he is a man. They believe that long ago a woman attained the pontificate at Rome. The uncertainty was due to the fact that almost all men in Italy and the western lands regularly shave their beards. She then became pregnant and, when she went to perform the eucharist, she gave birth to a child during the ceremony in full view of the congregation. It is for this reason, so that they may know for certain and have no doubts, that they do this touching, and the person doing the touching calls out, "Our lord is a man!" [The Histories, Volume II, translated by Anthony Kaldellis, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library, Harvard University Press, 2014, pp.38-39]

Here we do not have quite the same story as related above, since the scene of the birth during the procession is now instead at the performance of a Mass, but we have the detail of the "pierced chair" (chaise percée) that is part of the legend, and the test of the new Pope's genitals. Priests of the Orthodox Churches, of course, did not shave, which is why Chalkokondyles mentions that those of the Latin Church do. However, we are certain that at least one Patriarch of Constantinople was a eunuch, Ignatius (847-858, 867-877), a son of the Emperor Michael I Rhangabé, who had been castrated by the Emperor Leo V. We see images of Ignatius without a beard, which means he must have been castrated before puberty. The Orthodox Church displayed mixed feelings about eunuchs but tended not to blame or penalize them if the mutilation was not self-inflicted. But it was accepted that a eunuch could not be Emperor, hence the action of Leo V.

In much recent writing, Pope Pius XII has been accused of being little better than a Nazi collaborator during World War II -- "Hitler's Pope," in the title of one book. There is one fact that all by itself refutes such charges. When the Germans occupied Rome after the surrender of Italy in 1943 and began rounding up Jews, no less than three thousand Jews found refuge at the Pope's summer residence, Castel Gandolfo (originally built, ironically, by the Roman Emperor Domitian). The Pope's own private apartments became an obstetrics ward. Critics of Pius generally ignore this case, or lamely and incredibly argue that this was done without the Pope's knowledge. That would have been, to say the least, impossible.

But inferences are not necessary; the testimony and the evidence is abundant that Papal instructions to all were to rescue Jews. For instance, Tibor Branaski, honored by Israel as a "righteous gentile" for helping Jews escape Hungary, testifies that he worked with the Papal Nuncio, Angelo Rotta, who showed him letters from Pius with such instructions. Similarly, Angelo Roncalli, the future John XXIII, who had a Papal diplomatic post in İstanbul during the War, supplied immigration and transit papers to Hungarian and Slovakian Jews. In 1957, Israel thanked Roncalli, still a Cardinal, for what he had done. But Roncalli refused to take credit:  "I referred to the Holy See and afterwards I simply carried out the pope's orders." In 1955, an Israeli deligation asked Giovanni Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, if he would accept an award for what he had done to rescue Jews. Montini declined, again referring to his instructions from the Pope, and affirming that he had simply done his duty.

The result of the Church's efforts, and of many other Italians, on their own, was that 80% of Roman Jews and 85% of Italian Jews were saved from the Nazis. But to the "Hitler's Pope" crowd, this was apparently in spite of Papal indifference or even collaboration. This is hardly believable. In truth, Pius never approved of the Nazis, spoke out against them, and had no friendly dealings with them [cf. The Myth of Hitler's Pope, How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis, by Rabbi David G. Dalin, Regnery Publishing, 2005]. The implication of the "Hitler's Pope" thesis, that Pius would have met with or had some understanding with Hitler, is all false. Indeed, the attacks sink so low that a photograph is used of Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pius XII, leaving a building guarded by German soldiers, with the implication that this was from a meeting with Hitler. In fact, it was Pacelli, who was a Papal diplomat in Germany, leaving a reception in 1928 for the German President, Paul von Hindenberg. The soldiers were those of the Weimar Republic.

A recent summary of the story is by Michael Burleigh:

High level of assimilation, and the low resonance of anti-Semitism also meant that many Italian Jews survived, although it helped that Italy had a dense network of ecclesiastical sanctuaries amenable to the instructions of Pope Pius XII, who, recent research shows, intervened to help the Jews with a familiar clerical combination of kindness that hardly justifies the Communist-inspired attempts to demonize him in the post-war years. While such sanctuary very occasionally involved attempts to convert Jewish children to Christianity, it should be recalled that the Franciscan friars who sheltered two hundred Jews at Assisi actually provided them with kosher meals, which suggests that conversion was not among their priorities. Rather it reflected the religious virtues of charity and hospitality. [Moral Combat, A History of World War II, Harper Press, London, 2010, p.468, bolface added]

While Burleigh may be referring to Italian Communists, whose own agenda would be pretty obvious, one wonders about the animus of American or other scholars whose anti-Catholicism may have some other inspirations.

Burleigh's "recent research" unfortunately appears to be missing from John Julius Norwich's Absolute Monarchs, A History of the Papacy [Random House, 2011]. Norwich obviously dislikes and disapproves of Pius XII and mentions nothing in the way of mitigating evidence in regard to his actions in World War II. Norwich does cite the deeds of the Hungarian Church and of Angelo Roncalli in rescuing Jews [pp.449 & 454], but then he omits the testimony that these actions were on instructions from the Pope. Instead, we get some examples of anti-Semitic sentiments expressed by Pius, but mainly the case against him, such as we usually see in public discourse, is his silence, his "contemptible silence" [p.447], on the matter of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Norwich says that to Pius "even the deportation of Roman Jewry would be a small price to pay" to avoid a Communist takeover in the place of the Nazis [p.448]. Disregarding the fact that the Church, with many others, saved 80% of Roman Jews, one of the better records in Europe (worse than Denmark or Bulgaria but much better than the Netherlands, where 79% of Jews were deported), one might well ask whether an openly hostile Church would have had a better chance of working to save Jews rather than a Church that was more discreet and may consequently have had a relatively freer hand to work.

Since Confucius, moralists have esteemed deeds before words [Analects 4:24]. I am willing to believe that Pius XII was an unpleasant person, and his actions on behalf of the Jews may even have been grudging and in bad conscience, but if we do judge Pius by actions and not by words (or lack of them), Norwich's treatment is unfair and dishonest. It is Norwich's judgment that I question, not the least because of his expression of conventional anti-Americanisms, e.g. his apparent disapproval of "American materialism" in "the accoutrements of capitalist-consumerist society" [p.449] and a snide reference to "Senator Joseph McCarthy's America, where Reds were found under every bed" [p.451] -- a stale and probably thoughtless recycling of Soviet propaganda that there were no Soviet spies to find and that actual "Reds" were just honest liberals and not dissimulating agents of totalitarian dictatorship. No wonder that Norwich seems to have little sympathy for the anti-Communism of Pius XII, or even that of John Paul II. Norwich, like so many modern academics and intellectuals, need to consider why they are still repeating Marxist and Soviet propaganda decades after it has all been exposed and discredited.

On the other hand, Pius XII cannot be entirely excused from a more complacent attitude towards, if not Nazism in general, then individual Fascists or Nazis in particular. In 1941 he granted an audience to Ante Pavelić, who, after exile in Italy, returned home to head the Nazi puppet state of Croatia -- for a while the state even had a figurehead King from the Italian royal family. Pavelić conducted round ups and massacres against Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and Communists. Nevertheless, after the War the Church apparently sheltered him in Italy before he fled to South America and found service with Juan Peron. Pavelić was not alone among Catholics who were potential war criminals who found refuge in the Church and passage away from justice.

This sort of thing, of course, is not to the credit of the Church or the Pope. Indeed, if Pius never had any use for the Nazis, the Church had much less of a problem with Mussolini's Fascism, or that of Franco in Spain (where Pavelić died in 1959) or Salazar in Portugal. That a Fascist like Franco could actually shelter Jews fleeing from Vichi France means that Fascism as such was not necessarily anti-Semitic, but it is troubling that conservatives or nationalists of the time, like Mircea Eliade, nevertheless became attracted to regimes like those of Mussolini or Franco. Then, as now, collectivist and statist politics were all too appealing, both to left and right, and liberal ideals disparaged. Indeed, few would confuse the traditional Papacy with a source of liberal policies or exhortations.

Nevertheless, despite a less than perfect record of dealing with Fascists and fugitives, the Church was already on record as opposing the fundamentals of Fascism. Thus, in 1931 (just two years after the Concordat of 1929), Pope Pius XI had issued an encyclical, Non abbiamo bisogno, that condemned Fascism for its "statolatry," a charge on target for far too much of 20th century politics, but certainly especially apt for fascism and communism. The Fascists were accused of trying "to monopolize completely the young, from their tenderest years up to manhood and womanhood, for the exlcusive advantage of a party and of a regime based on an ideology which clearly resolves iself into a true, a real pagan worship of the State." This not only bespeaks the better angels of the Papal nature but is a caution for continuing political traditions, for long under the influence of Hegel, that denigrate the individual and exalt the reality of state and government. Critics of Catholicism should be careful of the statist log in their own eye before practicing their ophthamology on the Papacy. If Pius XII walked back the forthright rhetoric of Pius XI, we may not admire him for this, but, again, we must also weigh the words against the deeds.

In Mediaeval Europe, as it happens, one place that Jews could always be sure of a secure reception was in Rome. In the Bull Sicut Judaeis (1120), Callistus (Calixtus) II forbid prejudice against the Jews, forbid forced conversion of them, and required that their persons, property, religious observances, and cemeteries be respected and unmolested. This pronouncement was motivated by recent attacks on the Jews as a result of the call for the First Crusade. The Bull was renewed and reaffirmed by Alexander III, Celestine III (1191-1198), Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272 & 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Clement VI (1348), Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).

Clement VI had reissued the Bull, and one other, in response to widespread belief and violence blaming the Jews for the Black Death (1346-1353). Furthermore, as early as 1247, Innocent IV issued another Papal Bull refuting with learned detail the "blood libel" charge against Jews, that they mixed the blood of Christian children with Passover matzos. This refutation was confirmed in 1540. Meanwhile, Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 could 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 (Popes had previously, at times, agreed to burn, or at least censor, the Talmud). These are the sorts of things that those with an animus for Catholicism or the Papacy don't seem to notice -- and it makes me wonder if the likes of Alexander and Leo were in some ways, like Bill Clinton, not such bad fellows after all. But the Papacy was also not entirely free from the spirit of the times. In 1555 Paul IV issued a spate of hostile regulations against Roman Jews. They were gathered into a ghetto, restricted to one synagogue, limited to certain professions, required to wear yellow hats in public, etc. This was a hostile enough regime that the Jewish population of Rome declined by half under Paul's Papacy. But Paul IV was disliked by the people of Rome, who at his death attacked the headquarters of the Inquisition, destroyed the building, and freed the prisoners. The measures against the Jews, however, like the Spanish "purity of blood" laws, continued until the 19th century.

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 (although some Catholics, or now former Catholics, still think that it has gone too far in that direction already). 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, perhaps even the Avici Hell (whose torments would cause you to exsanguinate and die if you only knew about them), Stalin knows that the joke is on him.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the first German Pope in many centuries, was elected as Benedict XVI. Ratzinger was 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 was seen as possibly 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.

Next has come sooner than anyone expected. In February 2013 Benedict dramatically announced that he would abdicate as of February 28th. We should find out soon enough what will indeed come next. The comment is that this is the first resignation of a Pope since Gregory XII in 1415. However, the comparison is not good, since Gregory abdicated as part of the deal at the Council of Constance to clear the decks of the Great Schism. Many other Popes have been deposed, but I am not aware of other Popes who simply retired from the office.

Basilica di San Francesco d'Assisi, Assisi, 2019

What is the most striking about the name "Francis," however, is that it had not been used previously. Its inspiration was either St. Francis of Assisi or St. Francis Xavier -- soon confirmed by Francis that he of Assisi was the idea. (See all the varieties of the name "Francis" elsewhere.) Since Francis Xavier was a Jesuit, like Cardinal Bergoglio, the first Jesuit Pope, some thought that may have been what he had in mind. However, the immediate public reaction was that it must have been a reference to St. Francis of Assisi, as it was, whose vow of poverty was the most commensurate with the personal habits of the Cardinal, who did not live in the traditional episcopal palace in Buenos Aires, cooked his own meals, and traveled on the bus. Although aged 76, Pope Francis may be indicating an increased emphasis on pastoral work and the poor. On the other hand, he has been known as a moral conservative, with no inclination to change the Church's teachings on birth control, abortion, or homosexuality.

On his first day as Pope, Francis drove himself to his hotel to pick up his own luggage. He stopped on the trip to pray at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. This was a practical and symbolic tribute to the Virgin Mary. To me, it is also noteworthy in that the church is a fifth century monument (432 AD), something that was built before the "Fall" of Rome but that, as a church, is rarely classified as a "Roman" construction. After all, it can't be from the Roman Empire if it isn't a ruin. I don't know if Francis had any of that in mind, but the comment in the press was that this was one of his favorite churches in Rome. Meanwhile, it sounds like Francis is reluctant to move out of his dorm room and take up residence in the proper Papal apartments. But he should be conscious that the dignity of his office may warrant some exceptions to his own inclinations.

Pope Francis embodies sanctity but comes trailing clouds of sanctimony. With a convert’s indiscriminate zeal, he embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false and deeply reactionary. They would devastate the poor on whose behalf he purports to speak -- if his policy prescriptions were not as implausible as his social diagnoses are shrill...

Francis deplores "compulsive consumerism," a sin to which the 1.3 billion persons without even electricity can only aspire. He leaves the Vatican to jet around praising subsistence farming, a romance best enjoyed from 30,000 feet above the realities that such farmers yearn to escape...

Francis grew up around the rancid political culture of Peronist populism, the sterile redistributionism that has reduced his Argentina from the world’s 14th highest per-capita gross domestic product in 1900 to 63rd today. Francis’s agenda for the planet -- "global regulatory norms" -- would globalize Argentina’s downward mobility.

George Will, "Pope Francis’s fact-free flamboyance," The Washington Post, September 18, 2015

---

Come to think of it, what about Argentina? The pope's native land used to rank among the world's wealthiest. Today it is a synonym for crony capitalism -- and decline.

Can it be just a coincidence the governments that fetter their economies in the name of social justice generally end up with more corruption and a class of elites enriching themselves on political connections while all others are left to fend for themselves? In this light, is it not a tragedy that a pope whose heart belongs to the poor reserves all his moral outrage for the one economic system that has already lifted billions of desperate people out of poverty?

William McGurn, "Pope Francis, Unfettered," The Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2015, A13

Although Pope Francis was remembered for denouncing Marxist "Liberation Theology," we would soon learn that he nevertheless has imbibed all the anti-capitalist clichés that plague his homeland, Latin America, and much of the Europe where he now lives as Pope. On November 24, 2013, Francis released an "Apostolic Exhortation," Evangelii Gaudium, "The Joy of the Gospel," which contained the following passage:

Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories, which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized working of the prevailing economic system. [color added]

There are so many falsehoods and misconceptions in this statement that a small wager might be in order that Pope Francis has never read anything remotely sympathetic to or informative about Capitalism. First of all, no one explaining Supply Side Economics with any understanding would characterize it as a "trickle-down theory." As Thomas Sowell says:

Those who attribute a trickle-down theory to others are attributing their own misconception to others, as well as distorting both the arguments used and the hard facts about what actually happened after the recommended policies were put into effect. ["Trickle Down" Theory and "Tax Cuts for the Rich", Hoover Institution Press, 2012, pp.10-11, color added]

Thus, a business is obliged to pay workers whether the business is successful or not, profitable or not. If the idea is that wealth for workers somehow "trickles down" from profits, this puts the matter exactly backwards. In turn, if profits are plowed back into a business, increasing its capitalization and productivity, this allows products to be sold more cheaply, which benefits all consumers. Since profits rest entirely on successful sales, a business must, again, be of benefit to the public before further profits can be made. This is nothing "trickling down," but sales are the very means by which a business, hopefully, can be profitable in the first place. In both cases, paying the workers and successful sales, the up-front benefit is not for the capitalist or his profits. This, indeed, is the risk that is characteristic of capital and investment. Businesses go bankrupt every day.

On the other hand, a government that loots the productive in order to distribute largess to the masses is engaging in the genuine "trickle-down," since much of the loot remains in the hands of the political class, bureaucrats, and their cronies, from whose tables the crumbs then fall to the hoi poloi -- or at least that part of the hoi poloi whose votes politicians particularly want to buy. By living simply, Pope Francis does not want to benefit in that way, but his attitude is unusal and generally unheard of when it comes to politicians, whose sense of their own self-importance characteristically is without bounds. Of the thirteen richest counties in the United States in 2012, eight of them are in a ring around Washington, D.C. They are wealthy off of the government. So much the less to pass on to the masses.

Beyond that, Pope Francis says that defenders of capitalism "assume" that it will be beneficial, which is a baseless ad hominem accusation, since free market economists do not "assume" anything of the sort and the accusation of Francis that they do so betrays an ignorance, and an ignorant hostility, for the nature of their arguments. And if Francis is going to say that capitalist theory has "never been confirmed by the facts," he might want to consider, specifically, what the facts are that economists cite, which presumably fail to make their case, or what facts he thinks refute capitalism. We hear nothing of the sort.

But the worst misconception comes next, that defenders of capitalism have a "crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power." Since economists from Adam Smith on have explicitly and clearly denied that they have any such trust, or that the goodness of actors in the market is any kind of postulate or expectation of the system, upon which its success would rest, then Francis has clearly done no research in this matter at all and has no knowledge of it. The honesty of businessmen is enforced first of all by those with whom they deal, who do not wish to be cheated, and by the government, whose job it is to enforce laws that protect persons, property, and contracts, and which provides the civil court system to resolve disputes that may arise either from good faith confusions or dishonesty. Francis and other ignorant critics of capitalism do not seem to be aware of these provisions. Or, as good Marxists, they simply detest capital and profits whatever their origin.

Finally, we get another cheap shot, that capitalists regard the "prevailing economic system" as "sacralized." This again attributes to others an attitude that, in a Pope, we might expect him to know something about. But there is nothing sacred about the market, except in the sense that it protects the sacred freedom and rights of citizens that it embodies, as opposed to the official thieves and looters who are the alternative that we can imagine is recommended by someone like Pope Francis -- whose recent complacent regard for the vicious government of Venezuela looks like an endorsement for some of the worst tendencies of our day. This does not inspire confidence in the economic, political, or even moral judgment of Pope Francis.

It is suitable to treat at some length the misconceptions and falsehoods in the statement of Pope Francis because these ideas have now been taught in American public schools for decades and are bearing bitter fruit in American, let alone foreign, politics. The constant assault on business, finance, banks, and Wall Street by the Obama Democrats who currently dominate American politics and government is nothing less than an assault on capitalism by people who clearly have no understanding or regard for freedom and who apparently have very different arrangements, with the precedents of France, Greece, and Venezuela, if not Cuba and North Korea, in mind. The continuing troubles of France and Greece, let alone the terror and poverty of the other countries, does not seem to trouble them. And the cluelessness and mindlessness of American students (and their teachers), who supposedly have been taught (and are teaching) "critical thinking" for some time, is shocking. But, of course, there is nothing "critical" about their instruction, except in Marxist terms.

A clue about where Francis is coming from may be found in The Economist of March 8th-14th, 2014:

The political landscape of Francis's homeland, however, offers a more accurate, and nuanced, understanding of his views. For most of his life Argentina has plotted a kind of third way between Marxism and liberalism -- albeit one with disastrous political and economic results. "[Francis] only knows one style of politics," says a diplomat accredited to the Holy See. "And that is Peronism." [p.61]

Since Peronism destroyed the level of economic development of Argentina, which has never recovered (i.e. the "disastrous political and economic results"), and where such ideas continue to distrupt any hope of recovery, it cannot be said that Francis, if his views are indeed Peronist, has anything like a successful model of economic development. He is as clueless as the political culture of his own country -- or as that of American universities.

The sentiments expressed by Pope Francis were later seconded by one of his advisers, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras, on 3 June 2014, at a conference called "Erroneous Autonomy: The Catholic Case Against Libertarianism," sponsored by The Catholic University of America. Maradiaga reportedly said, "Many of these libertarianists [sic] do not read the social doctrine of the church, but now they are trembling before the book of Piketty." Few if any libertarians are going to be "trembling" before Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century, especially after François Hollande stalled the French economy by putting into effect Piketty's recomendations for massive tax increases. If these foolish and ignorant ideas of Pope Francis and Cardinal Maradiaga are not "Liberation Theology," how would that be different?

In the Fall of 2015 it is looking more and more as though there is no difference between Pope Francis and "Liberation Theology." Activists previously condemned for their Marxism have been rehabilitated. Francis has now visited Cuba without acknowledging the repression and political prisoners of the regime, and without insisting on meetings with political dissidents, who were arrested to prevent their approaching him. So, while palling around with the Castros, Francis implicitly supports their police state. John Paul did not act that way with the Communist rulers of Poland. Francis has joined President Obama in the whitewash and fraudulent rehabilitation of the Cuban regime. At the same time, Francis has embraced the anti-energy, anti-wealth, anti-humanist, and anti-American ideology of "global warming," to the point of condemning air conditioning as "unfettered consumerism." Meanwhile, he still does not seem to have noticed that his sort of Peronism has ruined and impoverished Argentina.

Thus, it looks like the Cardinals made a serious mistake. They thought they were electing and modest and pastoral Pope, but what they got was an ignorant, vicious, and destructive ideologue. That he does seem personally modest and unassuming only makes it worse. If the mildest and nicest person condemns people to poverty and dictatorship, this doesn't make them any better and makes it likely to deceive the naive and foolish. The Leftists who have suddenly forgotten their horror and contempt at Catholic ethics are neither naive or foolish, but they know a useful idiot when they see one. With Francis visiting New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, they are rocking the band wagon with their enthusiasm. If John Paul could rise from the grave in divine wrath, it is high time he did so.

Detailed histories of the Papacy are readily available. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by J.N.D. Kelley [Oxford, 1986, 1988], has good discussion of all Popes individually. Chronicle of the Popes, by P.G. Maxwell-Stuart [Thames and Hudson, 1997], sometimes doesn't have as much on individual Popes but supplements this with extensive illustrations and maps, like other books in the Thames and Hudson "Chronicle" series. Now there is the narrative history Absolute Monarchs, A History of the Papacy, by John Julius Norwich [Random House, 2011]. Some defects in this history are discussed above. The dates here are now taken out of the Oxford Dictionary.

Popes in Frames with Emperors Return to Popes without Frames

Kenneth Clark's Big Room

Critique of Roman Catholic Ethics

Penance, Absolution, and Expiation

Purgatory

Patriarchal Index

Italy

Philosophy of History

Philosophy of Religion

Home Page

Copyright (c) 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Archbishop-Electors of
Mainz, Trier, and Cologne

Among the oldest Bishoprics, and Archbishoprics, in Germany, Mainz, Trier, and Cologne were all Roman cities -- their Latin names are given below. They all became Ecclesiastical States and then the Ecclesiasitical Electors of the Holy Roman Empire. Their status as Electors was confirmed in the Golden Bull of the Emperor Charles IV in 1356. The three Archbishops all participated in the subsequent crowning of a new Emperor, as seen in the 1764 coronation of Joseph II at right, though they were really crowning him "King of the Romans" (originally King of the Eastern Franks -- now we would just say "King of Germany"). Only the Pope could crown the King as the actual Emperor of the Romans. After Charles V, the last Emperor crowned by the Pope, the coronation by the Archbishops would be the only crowning for a German Emperor. Each Archbishop also had an ex officio status as one of the "Arch-Chancellors" for the three constituent Kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire:  Mainz for Germany; Cologne for Italy; and Trier for Burgundy. This was probably never more than a ceremonial business -- Cologne and Trier were in Lorraine, a long way from Italy, although Upper Lorraine was adjacent to the Free County of Burgundy -- and it became a dead letter once the authority of the Emperor over Italy and Burgundy was abandoned in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

From the map of Archbishoprics around 1500 (Historical Atlas of the World, Barnes & Noble, 1970, 1972, p.49) we can see that although Mainz, Trier, and Cologne are not that far from each other, their jurisdictions were extended to cover much of early Mediaeval Germany. Trier's domain almost perfectly matches that of Upper Lorraine, while that of Cologne is all of Lower Lorraine plus a bit of northern Germany. The jurisdiction of Mainz, then, covers much of the original area of East Francia, excepting only area under the Archbishops of Salzburg that included Bavaria. Otherwise, what we see at the margins are areas into which East Francia expanded with March territories, under the authority of the Archbishoprics of Magdeberg, Bremen, and Hamburg. The North March, east of Magdeberg, developed into the Margravate of Brandenburg.

While Mainz, Trier, and Cologne are today all in Germany, they were for a time within the borders of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, which expanded to the Rhine. The secular power of the Archbishops was brought to an end by Napoleon in 1803. The last Elector of Mainz, Karl Theodor, was first transfered as a secular Elector to Regensburg and then, after Napoleon abolished the Empire (1806), to Frankfurt as a Grand Duke -- until Napoleon was defeated and Frankfurt became a Free City. Mainz, Trier, and Cologne were not restored to pre-Napoleonic Ecclesiastical rule or independence.

Meanwhile, most of Upper Lorraine above Trier had been permanently annexed to France -- with the exception of Luxembourg -- and most of Lower Lorraine had lost its indentity to the Netherlands, including the future Belgium. Parts of Lorraine around Cologne and Trier, however, remain in Germany today.

The bishoprics begin with a curious chapter in Church history. The first fully historical Bishop and then Archbishop of Mainz on the list was an English (or Anglo-Saxon, if you like) missionary, Wynfrith, later Boniface, of Crediton.

St. Boniface of Crediton chopping down the "blood oak" of Thor at Geismar, Thuringia, in 720, where the pagan chief Gundhar was about to sacrifice his child, Asulf. Thor didn't stop him, and the tree fell, so the Thuringians converted.

In 718, at the age of about 43, Boniface left England to evangelize among the Germans. He coordinates his efforts by visiting the Pope three times and consulting with the powerful Carolingian Mayors of the Palace of Merovingian Francia, principally Charles Martel but then also Pepin the Short, who became King shortly before Boniface's death. Boniface brought a number of other English missionaries with him, including the nun St. Walburga who became an abbess in Germany, and who suffered the curious fate of having Walpurgisnacht, a sort of Springtime Halloween on April 30, grow up around her memory. This is discussed elsewhere. Since the letter "w" as used in modern German and Dutch was borrowed from English, I wonder if this may have been introduced by Boniface himself. However, written German isn't attested until, I think, the 9th century; so Boniface may be a bit early.

Bishops, Archbishops, Electors
Mainz, Moguntiacum		Trier, Augusta Treverorum		Cologne, Colonia Agrippina
Bonifatius, Wynfrith or Boniface of Crediton	Bishop, 722-732
	Archbishop, 732-754
Crowns Pepin III King of Francia, 751; martyred at Dukkum by Frieslanders, 754
Lullus	Bishop, 754-781
	Archbishop, 782-786
Riculf	787-813	Richbold	Archbishop, c.791-804	Hildebald	Bishop, 787-794
		Waso	804-809		Archbishop, 795-818
		Amalharius	809-814
Haistulf	813-826	Hetti	814-847	Hadebald	819-841?
Otgar	826-847
Hrabanus Maurus	847-856	Dietgald	847-863, d.868	Gunther	850-864, d.871
Charles of Aquitaine	856-863
Ludbert	863-889	Bertulf	869-883	Willibert	870-888
Sunderold	889-891	Ratbod	883-915	Hermann I	889-924
Hatto I	891-913
Heriger	913-927	Ruotbert	931-956
Hildebert	927-937			Wikfried	924-953
Friedrich	937-954
Wilhelm	954-968	Heinrich I	956-964	Brun I	953-965
Hatto II	968-970	Dietrich I	965-977	Folkmar	966-969
Rupert	970-975			Gero	969-976
Willigis	975-1011	Egbert	977-993	Warin	976-985
		Liudolf	994-1008	Everger	985-999
Erkenbald	1011-1021	Megingaud	1008-1015	Heribert	999-1021
Aribo	1021-1031	Poppo	1016-1047	Pilgrim	1021-1036
Bardo	1031-1051			Hermann II	1036-1056
Luitpold	1051-1059	Eberhard	1047-1066	Anno II	1056-1075
Siegfried of Eppenstein	1060-1084	Kuno I	1066
		Udo of Nellenburg	1066-1078	Hildolf	1076-1078
Wezelin	1084-1088	Egilbert	1079-1101	Sigewin	1079-1089
Ruthard	1089-1109			Hermann III of Hochstaden	1089-1099
Adalbert I of Saarbrücken	1110-1137	Bruno of Brettheim	1102-1124	Friedrich I of Schwarzenberg	1100-1131
		Gottfried	1124-1127, d.1128
		Meginher	1127-1130	Brun/Bruno II of Berg	1131-1137
Adalbert II of Saarbrücken	1138-1141	Alberto of Montreuil	1131-1152	Hugo of Sponheim	1137
Markulf	1141-1142			Arnold I	1138-1151
Heinrich I	1142-1153
Arnold of Seelenhofen	1153-1160	Hillin of Fallemaigne	1152-1169	Arnold II of Wied	1151-1156
Konrad I of Wittelsbach	1161-1165, 1183-1200	Arnold I	1169-1183	Friedrich II of Altena	1156-1158
				Rainald of Dassel	1159-1167
				Philipp of Heinsberg	1167-1191
Christian I of Buch	1165-1183	Johann I	1190-1212	Brun III of Berg	1191-1193, d.1196/1200
Siegfried II of Eppenstein	1200-1230	Dietrich II of Weid	1212-1242	Adolf I of Altena	1193-1205, 1212-1216, d.1220
				Brun IV of Sayn	1205-1208
				Dietrich I of Hengeberg	1208-1212, d.1224?
				Engelbert I the Holy of Berg	1216-1225
Siegfried III of Eppenstein	1230-1249	Arnold II of Isenburg	Elector, 1242-1259	Heinrich I of Molenark	1225-1238
Christian II of Weisenau	1249-1251, d.1253			Konrad of Hochstaden	Elector, 1238-1261
Gerhard I Wildgraf	Elector, 1251-1259
Werner of Eppenstein	1259-1284	Heinrich II	1260-1286	Engelbert II of Falkenberg	1261-1274
Heinrich II	1286-1288	Boemund of Warnesberg	1289-1299	Siegfried of Westerburg	1275-1297
Gerhard II of Eppenstein	1289-1305	Dieter of Nassau	1300-1307	Wikbold of Holte	1297-1304
Peter of Aspelt	1306-1320	Balduin of Luxemburg	1307-1354	Heinrich II of Virneburg	1306-1332
Matthias of Bucheck	1321-1328
Heinrich III of Virneburg	1328-1346, d.1353			Walram of Jülich	1332-1349
Gerlach of Nassau	1346-1371	Boemund of Saarbrücken	1354-1362, d.1367	Wilhelm	1349-1362
Golden Bull, 1356
Johann I of Luxemburg	1371-1373	Kuno II of Falkenstein	1362-1388	Adolf II of Mark	1363-1364
Ludwig of Meißen	1374-1381, 1382			Engelbert III of Mark	1364-1369
Adolf I of Nassau	1381-1390			Friedrich III of Saarwerden	1370-1414
Konrad II of Weinsberg	1391-1396	Werner of Falkenstein	1388-1418
Johann II of Nassau	1397-1419
Konrad III, Wild- and Rheingraf of Daun	1419-1434	Otto of Ziegenhain	1418-1430	Dietrich II of Moers	1414-1463
Dietrich of Erbach	1434-1459	Ulrich of Manderscheid	1430-1436
		Hrabanus of Helmstadt	1436-1439
		Jakob I of Sirk	1439-1456
Dieter of Isenburg	1459-1461, 1475-1482	Johann II of Baden	1456-1503	Ruprecht of the Palatine	1463-1480
Adolf II of Nassau	1461-1475
Albrecht I of Saxony	1482-1484
Bertold of Henneberg- Römhold	1484-1504			Hermann IV of Hesse	1480-1508
Jakob of Liebenstein	1504-1508	Jakob II of Baden	1503-1511	Philipp of Daun-Oberstein	1508-1515
Uriel of Gemmingen	1508-1514
Albrecht II of Brandenburg	1514-1545	Richard of Greiffenklau	1511-1531	Hermann V of Wied	1515-1547, d.1552
		Johann III of Metzenhausen	1531-1540
		Johann IV Ludwig of Hagen	1540-1547
Sebastian of Heusenstamm	1545-1555	Johann V of Isenburg	1547-1556	Adolf III of Schauenburg	1546-1556
Daniel Brendel of Homburg	1555-1582	Johann VI of Leyen	1556-1567	Anton of Schauenburg	1556-1558
				Johann Gebhard I of Mansfeld	1558-1562
				Friedrich IV of Wied	1562-1567, d.1568
				Salentin of Isenburg	1567-1577, d.1610
		Jabob III of Eltz	1567-1581	Gebhard II Truschseß of Waldburg	1577-1583, d.1601
Wolfgang of Dalberg	1582-1601	Johann VII of Schönenberg	1581-1599	Ernst of Bavaria	1583-1612
Johann Adam of Bicken	1601-1604	Lothar of Metternich	1599-1623
Johann Schweickart of Cronberg	1604-1626			Ferdinand of Bavaria	1612-1650
Georg Friedrich of Greiffenklau	1626-1629	Philipp Christoph of Soetern	1623-1652
Anselm Kasimir Wamboldt	1629-1647
Johann Phlipp of Schönborn	1647-1673	Karl Kaspar of Leyen	1652-1676	Max Heinrich of Bavaria	1650-1688
Lothar Friedrich of Metternich	1673-1675
Damian of Leyen	1675-1678	Johann VIII Hugo of Orsbeck	1676-1711
Karl Heinrich of Metternich	1679
Anselm Franz of Ingelheim	1679-1695			Joseph Clemens of Bavaria	1688-1723
Lothar Franz of Schönborn	1695-1729	Karl Joseph of Lorraine	1711-1715
		Franz Ludwig of Neuburg on Rhein	1716-1729, d.1732
Franz Ludwig of Neuburg on Rhein	1729-1732	Franz Georg on Schönborn	1729-1756	Clemens August of Bavaria	1723-1761
Philipp Karl of Eltz	1732-1743
Johann Friedrich Karl of Ostein	1743-1763	Johann IX Philipp of Walderdorf	1756-1768
Emmerich Josef of Breidbach	1763-1774	Klemens Wenzeslaus of Saxony	1768-1802, d.1812	Maximilian Friedrich of Köngiseck- Rothenfels	1761-1784
Friedrich Karl Josef of Erthal	1774-1802			Max Franz of Austria	1784-1801
Karl Theodor of Dalberg	1802-1803	Secularized, 1803		Secularized, 1803
	Secularized, 1803
	Regensburg, 1803-1810
	Grand Duke of Frankfurt, 1810-1813, d.1817
Joseph Ludwig Colmar	Bishop, 1802-1818	Charles Mannay	Bishop, 1802-1816
Joseph Vitus Burg	1829-1833	Josef von Hommer	1824-1836	Ferdinand August von Spiegel	Archbishop, 1824-1835
Johann Jakob Humann	1833-1834	Sedē Vacantē
Petrus Leopold Kaiser	1834-1848	Wilhelm Arnoldi	1842-1864	Clemens August II Droste zu Fischering	1835-1845
Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler	1850-1877	Leopold Pelldram	1865-1867	Johannes von Geissel	1845-1864
		Matthias Eberhard	1867-1876	Paul Melchers	1866-1885
Paul Leopold Haffner	1886-1899	Michael Felix Korum	1881-1921	Philipp Krementz	1885-1899
Heinrich Brück	1900-1903			Anton Hubert Fischer	1902-1912
Georg Heinrich Kirstein	1903-1921			Felix von Hartmann	1912-1919
Ludwig Maria Hugo	1921-1935	Franz Rudolf Bornewasser	1922-1951	Karl Joseph Schulte	1920-1941
Albert Stohr	1935-1961	Matthias Wehr	1951-1967	Josef Frings	1942-1969
Hermann Cardinal Volk	1962-1982	Bernhard Stein	1967-1980	Joseph Höffner	1969-1987
Karl Cardinal Lehmann	1983-present	Hermann Josef Spital	1981-2001	Joachim Meisner	1988-present
		Reinhard Marx	2002-present

The lists of all the Archbishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne are taken from the Regentenlisten und Stammtafeln zur Geschichte Europas, by Michael F. Feldkamp [Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2002, pp. 295-306 & 348-352] and from Wikipedia.

Patriarchal Index

Lorraine Index

Archbishops of Salzburg

Philosophy of History

Philosophy of Religion

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2002, 2003, 2008, 2011, 2013 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Archbishops of Canterbury
and Salzburg

Archbishops of Canterbury, Roman Durovernum
1 St. Augustine	597-605
2 Laurentius	605-619
3 Mellitus	619-624
4 Justus	624-627
5 Honorius	627-653
6 Deusdedit	655-664
7 Theodore of Tarsus	668-690
studied at Athens, ordained at Rome
8 Berhtuald/ Berctwald	693-731
9 Taetwine/ Tatwin	731-734
10 Nothelm	734-740
11 Cuthbert	740-758
12 Breogwine	759-762
13 Jaenberht	763-790
14 Aethelheard	790-803
15 Wulfred	803-829
16 Fleogild	829-830
17 Ceolnoth	830-870
18 Aethelred	870-889
19 Plegemund	891-923
20 Aethelm	923-925
21 Wulfelm	928-941
22 Odo	941-958
23 Aelsine	958-959
24 Dunstan	959-988
25 Aethelgar	988-989
26 Sigeric	990-994
27 Aefric	995-1005
28 Alphege	1006-1012
29 Lyfing	1013-1020
30 Aethelnoth	1020-1038
31 Eadsige	1038-1050
32 Robert of Jumièges	1051-1052
33 Stigand	1052-1070
34 Lanfranc	1070-1089
35 St. Anselm	1093-1109
36 Ralph de Turbine	1114-1122
37 William de Corbeuil	1123-1136
38 Theobald	1139-1161
39 St. Thomas Becket	1162-1170
40 Richard	1174-1184
41 Baldwin	1185-1190
42 Reginald Fitz- Jocelin	1191
43 Hubert Walter	1193-1205
44 Stephen Langton	1207-1228
45 Richard Wethershed	1229-1231
46 Edmund Rich (de Abbendon)	1233-1240
47 Boniface of Savoy	1240-1270
48 Robert Kilwardby	1273-1278
49 John Peckham	1279-1292
50 Robert Winchelsea	1293-1313
51 Walter Reynolds	1313-1372
52 Simon de Meopham	1327-1333
53 John Stratford	133-1348
54 John de Ufford	1348-1349
55 Thomas Bradwardin	1349
56 Simon Islip	1349-1366
57 Simon Langham	1366-1368
58 William Wittlesey	1368-1374
59 Simon Sudbury	1375-1381
60 William Courtenay	1381-1396
61 Thomas Arundel	1396-1414
62 Henry Chicheley	1414-1443
63 John Stafford	1443-1452
64 John Kemp	1452-1454
65 Thomas Bourchier	1454-1486
66 John Morton	1486-1500
67 Henry Deane	1501-1503
68 William Warham	1503-1532
69 Thomas Cranmer	1533-1556
executed by Queen Mary
70 Reginald Pole	1556-1558
71 Matthew Parker	1559-1575
72 Edmund Grindal	1575-1583
73 John Whitgift	1583-1604
73 Richard Bancroft	1604-1610
73 George Abbot	1611-1633
76 William Laud	1633-1645
Sedē Vacantē, 1645-1660
77 William Juxon	1660-1663
78 Gilbert Sheldon	1663-1677
79 William Sancroft	1678-1691
80 John Tillotson	1691-1694
81 Thomas Tenison	1694-1715
82 William Wake	1716-1737
83 John Potter	1737-1747
84 Thomas Herring	1747-1757
85 Matthew Hutton	1757-1758
86 Thomas Ecker	1758-1768
87 Frederick Cornwallis	1768-1783
88 John Moore	1783-1805
89 Charles Manners-Sutton	1805-1828
90 William Howley	1828-1848
91 John Bird Sumner	1848-1862
92 Charles Thomas Longley	1862-1868
93 Archibald Campbell Tait	1868-1882
94 Edward White Benson	1882-1896
95 Frederick Temple	1896-1902
96 Randall Davidson	1903-1928
97 Cosmo Gordon Lang	1928-1942
98 William Temple	1942-1944
99 Geoffrey Francis Fisher	1945-1961
100 Arthur Michael Ramsey	1961-1974
101 Frederick Donald Coggan	1974-1980
102 Robert Alexander Kennedy Runcie	1980-1991
103 George Leonard Carey	1991-2002
104 Rowan Douglas Williams	2003-2012
5 Anglican bishops convert to Catholicism, 2010
Justin Welby	2013-present

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of England. His seat is at Canterbury because this was the capital of the Kingdom of Kent, an obvious place for St. Augustine, who was sent in 596 by Pope Gregory (I) the Great (590-604), to seek royal favor, from King (later St.) Æthelbert I, for his mission. The early Archbishops, down to Taetwine (Tatwin) are given by the Venerable Bede (673-735) in his History of the English Church and People (731). The first part of this is still well in the Dark Ages, but it is already not too long before the time of Bede himself. Bede figures in these pages for his history of Dark Age Britain and for his contribution to the doctrine of Purgatory, which relies on certain reasoning about guilt, expiation, and the stain of sin.

Several Archbishops are particularly noteworthy. St. Anselm was one of the most important philosophers of the 12th century, responsible for the "ontological argument" for the existence of God which would bedevil subsequent thinkers. He was himself a Lombard who had entered a monastery in Normandy. As Archbishop, he was involved in the particular political dispute of his time, trying to strip secular rulers, in this case the Kings of England, of their powers to designate bishops of the Church. In Germany, this occurred as the formidable and epic Investiture Controversy (1076-1122). Things got so hot that Anselm spent some years in exile (1097-1100, 1103-1107).

Soon after Anselm came Thomas à Becket, who had been a friend and official of King Henry II but after becoming Archbishop entered into further attempts to limit secular authority, in this case in defense of clerics accused of crimes. Since the crimes were sometimes things like murder and rape, for which Becket's ecclesiastical courts often only handed down nominal punishments, it is understandable that Henry took exception to clerical immunity to secular prosecution. A careless wish expressed by Henry resulted in Becket's murder. While Becket was immediately canonized and enthusiastically venerated, he was not a selfless advocate for justice, but a rather foolish champion of clerical privilege who seems to have almost been eager to provoke his own martyrdom. He did succeed, and long afterwards inspired rather good books, plays, and movies of the business. Although some of these make Becket out to have been a Saxon, defending native Englishmen against Norman rulers like Henry, he was actually just as much a Norman himself -- engaged in a process of protected priests from justice in manner whose modern versions draw little sympathy for the Church.

After many centuries, Thomas Cranmer was the first Protestant Archbishop, helping King Henry VIII to break the Church of England away from Rome, seize monastic properties, etc. This earned him arrest by the subsequent Catholic Queen Mary. Tortured into confessing to heresy, Cranmer was going to be burned at the stake nevertheless. At the event, he recanted his confessions and thrust his own hand into the flames for signing the coerced documents, saying, "This hath offended; oh, this unworthy hand!" The Martyr's Memorial stands outside Balliol College, Oxford, where Cranmer and two other prelates were excecuted.

The See stood empty during the Civil War (1640-1649), Commonwealth (1649-1653), and the Protectorate (1653-1660) of the Cromwells but has had to endure little in the way of such political trials since. Instead, the Church has tried so hard, despite being a State Religion, not to be judgmental, exclusive, or demanding that it has seemed to cease to stand for, or mean, much of anything. It has thus steadily lost membership and excites comments like the following, from Michael Whelton:

Archbishops of Salzburg, Roman Iuvavum
Arno	Bishop, 785-798
	Archbishop, 798-821
Adalram	821-836
Liutpram	836-859
Adalwin	859-873
Adalbert I	873-874
Dietmar I	874-907
Pilgrim I	907-923
Adalbert II	923-935
Egilolf	935-939
Herold of Scheyern	939-958, d.984
Friedrich I	958-991
Hartwig	991-1023
Gunther of Meißen	1024-1025
Dietmar II	1025-1041
Balduin	1041-1060
Gebhard	1060-1088
Thiemo of Medling	1090-1101
Konrad I	1106-1147
Eberhard I	1147-1164
Konrad II of Austria	1164-1168
Adalbert III	1168-1177, 1183-1200
Konrad III of Wittelsbach	1177-1183, d.1200
Eberhard II of Regensburg	1200-1246
Burkard of Ziegenhain	1247
Philipp of Carinthia	1247-1256
Ulrich	1257-1265, d.1268
Ladislaus of Schlesien	1265-1270
Friedrich II of Walchen	1273-1284
Rudolf of Hoheneck	1284-1290
Konrad IV of Fohnsdorf- Praitenfurt	1291-1312
Weichard of Polheim	1312-1315
Friedrich III of Leibnitz	1316-1338
Heinrich of Piernbrunn	1338-1343
Ortolf of Weißeneck	1343-1365
Pilgrim II of Puchheim	1366-1396
Georg I Schenk of Osterwitz	1396-1403
Eberhard III of Neuhaus	1403-1427
Eberhard IV of Starhemberg	1427-1429
Johannes of Reichenberg	1429-1441
Friedrich IV of Emmerberg	1441-1452
Sigismund I of Volkersdorf	1452-1461
Burkard of Weißbriach	1462-1466
Bernhard of Rohr	1466-1482, d.1487
Johannes Beckenschlager	Coadjutor, 1482-1487
	Archbishop, 1487-1489
Friederich V of Schaumburg	1490-1494
Sigismund II of Holneck	1494-1495
Leonhard of Keutschach	1495-1519
Matthäus Lang of Wellenburg	Coadjutor, 1512-1519
	Archbishop, 1519-1540
Ernst of Bavaria	1540-1554, d.1560
Michael of Kuenberg	1554-1560
Johannes Jakob of Kuen-Belasy	1561-1586
Georg II of Kuenberg	Coadjutor, 1580-1586
	Archbishop, 1586-1587
Wolf Dietrich of Raittenau	1587-1612, d.1617
Marcus Sitticus of Hohenems	1612-1619
Paris of Lodron	1621-1653
Guidobald of Thun	1654-1668
Max Gandolf of Kuenberg	1668-1687
Johann Ernst of Thun	1687-1709
Franz Anton of Harrach	1709-1727
Leopold Anton of Firmian	1727-1744
Protestants discovered in Alpine valleys, 1731; their Exodus to Prussia, 1732
Jakob Ernst of Liechtenstein	1745-1747
Andreas Jakob of Dietrichstein	1749-1753
Sigmund Christoph of Schrattenbach	1753-1771
Hieronymous Joseph Franz of Colloredo- Waldsee	Archbishop, Landesherr, 1772-1803, d.1812
Ferdinand, III of Tuscany	Duke of Tuscany, 1790-1801, 1814-1824
	Elector of Salzburg, 1803-1806
	Elector of Würzburg, 1806
	Grand Duke of Würzburg, 1806-1814
Modern Archbishops of Salzburg
Sigmund Christoph, Graf von Zeil und Trauchburg	1812–1814
Sedē Vacantē
Augustin Johann Joseph Gruber	1823–1835
Friedrich Johann Joseph Cölestin, Prince of Schwarzenberg	1835–1849
	Arbhbishop of Prague, 1850-1885
Maximilian Joseph von Tarnóczy	1850–1876
Franz de Paula Albert Eder	1876–1890
Johann Evangelist Haller	1890–1900
Johannes Baptist Katschthaler	1900–1914
Balthasar Kaltner	1914–1918
Ignaz Rieder	1918–1934
Sigismund Waitz	1934–1941
Sedē Vacantē
Andreas Rohracher	1943–1969
Eduard Macheiner	1969–1972
Karl Berg	1972–1988
Georg Eder	1988–2002
Alois Kothgasser	2002-2013
Franz Lackner	2013-present

This position of so-called "inclusiveness" back in the 1950s and 1960s was perceived by many in the British Isles as slightly preposterous. Sadly, the Anglican Church lost respect, influence, and relevance, becoming the target of much satire and the butt of many jokes. One comedian declared, "In England we have a wonderful institution called the Anglican Church, and no one from Joseph Stalin to Mao Tse Tung can say with any certainty that he is not a member." [Popes and Patriarchs, Conciliar Press, 2006, p.15]

Even better we have the classic poem by T.S. Elliot, "The Hippopotamus," comparing that animal, favorably, to the Church of England. The poem can be examined in a popup.

We see a classic expression of the 19th century politics of the Church of England in Anthony Trollope's Barchester Towers (1857), with conflict between the traditionalist High Church and the Evangelical, Protestantizing Low Church. Indeed, even today the Anglican Church remains ritually so close to the Roman Catholic Church that Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism are accepted as Catholic priests, even if they are married. They are, I believe, the only married priests in the Catholic Church.

Already in the 19th century there were some high-profile converts to Catholicism, such as John Henry Newman (1801-1890), who went on from a pinacle of Anglican scholarship at Oxford to be a Catholic priest (1846) and then cardinal (1879) -- and now appears to be on the path to sainthood. Nevertheless, he is still commemorated at Oriel College, Oxford, where he obtained a fellowship in 1822. There he steadily moved from Calvinist sentiments and association with the Low Church to the creation of the High Church "Oxford Movement." This led steadily on towards Catholcism and conversion in 1845.

The current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Douglas Williams, seems to have been at pains to discredit himself as a sensible person. Thus, he told the BBC that the imposition of Sharia Law, i.e. Islamic religious law, a goal of Islamic Fascism, now seems "unavoidable." This led Theodore Dalrymple to say:

The English national church has long been an object of amusement and derison among the intelligent and educated, and the current Archbishop of Canterbury succeeds in uniting the substance and appearance of utter foolishness and unworldliness, not with sanctity, but with sanctimony. [The New Vichy Syndrome, Why European Intellectuals Surrender to Barbarism, Encounter Books, 2010, p.64]

The path trod by Cardinal Newman was followed, at first, by the author cited above, Michael Whelton, who, however, becoming as disillusioned with the Church of Rome as with that of England, continued on into an Orthodox Church in communion with Constantinople. The bloodlessness of Anglican religion seems to be shared by its American counterpart, the Episcopal Church, which was once the preference of the American social and political elite, from George Washington on, but now has also given itself over to the sort of "inclusiveness" and leftist social activism that has little patience with traditional Christian doctrine, ritual, or moral expectations. Such Christian Churches, as with Archbishop Williams himself, have none of the confidence, spirit, or even belief necessary in the face of the militancy of modern radical Islam.

Salzburg was a very large eccelesiastical state. Its principal claim to fame may be as the birthplace of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1736-1791). Apart from European tours, Mozart lived in Salzburg and worked for the Archbishop (who has been described as "strict and unkind") until 1781. He was dismissed then and, visiting Vienna, remained there the rest of life. At this time, of course, composers could be treated as feudal retainers not much above the status of footmen. Mozart's apartments in Vienna are lovingly preserved -- although, at the time of his death, he was in such poverty that his burial was in an anonymous pauper's grave. Before long, composers like Ludwig van Beethoven became such figures of public celebrity that such a fate was unthinkable -- Beethoven's funeral was an "Event". Mozart paved the way for that but was unable to benefit from it.

The interesting movie Amadeus [1984] by Miloš Forman suggested that Mozart had been murdered, because of jealousy, by the Court composer Antonio Salieri (1750-1825), played by F. Murray Abraham (whose paternal grandfather was a chanter in the Syriac Orthodox Church). This resulted in a comic moment in the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie Last Action Hero [1993], where the young boy Danny Madigan (Austin O'Brien), says of Abraham's character, within the magic movie-with-a-movie format, "He killed Mozart!" Indeed, Abraham does turn out to be a villain in Last Action Hero.

Another minor claim to fame for Salzburg may be that the location shots for the 1965 movie The Sound of Music were in or near the city. For people who have not visited the area, the movie contains the images of the Alps that they probably retain.

Before Mozart's time, there had been a event of some interest in Salzburg. In 1731, the Archbishopric discovered to its alarm that there were about 20,000 Protestants living in the high Alpine valleys. It is in the first place remakable that, two centuries after the beginning of the Reformation, the authorities had not noticed that these people were there. Obviously the archepiscopal government had rested lightly in the area, which was probably as remote and inaccessible as any place in Europe -- even today there are some places in Austria that you can really only get to from Germany, and in Switzerland from Austria. It is also remarkable, however, that the Archbishop had no intention of tolerating the faith of these people. It seems a bit late for such attitudes, but incidents like this were not all that unusual even in the 18th century. Without much military of his own, the Archbishop Leopold Anton asked Bavaria and Austria for the forces to crush local resistance and compel the Protestants to convert to Catholicism under duress.

All of this, of course, became a cause célèbre in Protestant Germany. King Frederick William I of Prussia offered to resettle all the Protestant Salzburgers in East Prussia, where recent plague and famine had significantly reduced the population. The Archbishop evidently prefered to crush rather than expel his Protestants -- reminding everyone of the attitude of Pharaoh towards the Israelites in Egypt. But King Frederick William had leverage:  he would not endorse the "Pragmatic Sanction," by which the Emperor Charles VI could leave Austria to his daughter Maria Theresa, unless the Emperor compelled the Archbishop to let his Protestants go. So he did; and in 1732 Germany was treated to the spectacle of an Exodus indeed, with the migrating Salzburgers showered with food, gifts, and money as they passed through Protestant districts on the way to Prussia, as the whole thing was celebrated in print and sermon throughout Germany for some time to come. [Christopher Clark, Iron Kingdom, the Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947, Belknap Press, Harvard, 2006, pp.141-144].

Eventually Salzburg fell to Napoleon's rearrangements of Europe. In 1803 it was made an Imperial Electorate for the deposed Hapsburg Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand III. When Napoleon gave the city to Austria in 1806, Ferdinand was moved to Würzburg, which became a Grand Duchy when Napoleon abolished the Empire in the same year. In 1809 Napoleon took Salzburg from Austria and gave it to a better ally, Bavaria; but then Austria got it back at the Congress of Vienna. Since 1815 it has remained part of Austria, with the line of Archbishops, divested of secular power, meanwhile reestablished. Ferdinand returned to Tuscany.

The list of the Archbishops of Salzburg is taken from the Regentenlisten und Stammtafeln zur Geschichte Europas, by Michael F. Feldkamp [Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2002, pp. 295-306 & 348-352].

The Stain of Sin in the Venerable Bede

Patriarchal Index

Philosophy of History

Philosophy of Religion

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2019, 2020 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Patriarchs of Constantinople

ἄξιον, ὦ [Νέα] Ῥώμη μεγαλοκρατές, ἀντία σεῖο
κάλλος ἀπ᾽ Εὐρώπης δέρκεαι εἰς Ἀσίην.
O, great-ruling [New] Rome, thou lookest from Europe
on a prospect in Asia the beauty of which is worthy of thee.

Marianus Scholasticus, "On the Palace called Sophianae," [The Greek Anthology, Volume III, Book 9, "The Declamatory Epigrams," Number 657, The Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1917, p.365]

---

Ῥώμη παμβασίλεια, τὸ σὸν κλέος ὄυποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται·
Νίκη γάρ σε φυγεῖν ἄπτερος οὐ δύναται.
Rome, queen of the world, thy fame shall never perish,
for Victory, being wingless, cannot fly from thee.

Anonymous, "On [New] Rome," [ibid., Number 647, p.358-359]

Bishops of Byzantium
St. Andrew the Apostle
Stachys the Apostle	38-54
Onesimus	54-68
Polycarpus I	69-89
Plutarch	89-105
Sedecion	105-114
Diogenes	114-129
Eleutherius	129-136
Felix	136-141
Polycarpus II	141-144
Athendodorus	144-148
Euzois	148-154
Laurence	154-166
Alypius	166-169
Pertinax	169-187
Olympians	187-198
Mark I	198-211
Philadelphus	211-217
Ciriacus I	217-230
Castinus	230-237
Eugenius I	237-242
Titus	242-272
Dometius	272-284
Rufinus I	284-293
Probus	293-306
Metrophanes	306-314
Archbishops of Constantinople, 324
Alexander	314-337
Ecumenical Council I, Nicaea I, Arianism condemned, Nicene Creed, 325
Paul I	337-339, 341-342
Eusebius of Nicomedia	339-341
Macedonius I	342-346, 351-360
Paul I	346-351
Eudoxius of Antioch	Patriarch of Antioch, 360
	360-370
Meletian Schism, 361-401
Demophilus	370-379
[Evagrius]	379
[Maximus]	380
Gregory I of Nazianzus, the Theologian	379-381
Patriarchs of Constantinople
Nectarius	381-397
Ecumenical Council II, Constantinople I, chaired by St. Meletius of Antioch without Papal participation, Arianism condemned, regarded as definitively establishing Roman Catholic orthodoxy, Patriarch of Constantinople Second in Precedence after Rome, 381
St. John I Chrysostom	398-404, d.407
Arsacius of Tarsus	404-405
Atticus	406-425
Sisinius I	426-427
Nestorius	428-431, d.c.451
Ecumenical Council III, Ephesus, Nestorius deposed, exiled to Antioch, Petra, & Egypt, Nestorianism condemned, 431
Maximianus	431-434
Proclus	434-446
Flavian, Phlabianus	446-449
Monophysite "Robber Council," Ephesus II, still recognized by Monophysite Churches, Flavian fatally beaten at the altar, 449
Anatolius	449-458
Ecumenical Council IV, Chalcedon, Monophysitism condemned, fatal disaffection of Syria & Egypt, 451
Gennadius I	458-471
Acacius	471-488/9
Excommunicated by Pope, Acacian Schism, 484-519
Fravitas, Phrabitas	488/9- 489/90
Euphemius	489/90-495/6
Macedonus II	495/6-511
Timothy, Timotheus I	511-518
John II of Cappadocia	518-520
End of Acacian Schism, 519
Epiphanius	520-535
Anthimus I	535-536
Menas	536-552
Eutychius	552-565, 577-582
Ecumenical Council V, Constantinople II, the "Three Chapters" condemned in attempt to (ineffectively) reconcile Monophysites, 553
John III Scholasticus	565-577
John IV Nesteutes, the Faster	582-595
Cyriacus	596-606
Thomas I	607-610
Sergius I	610-638
Pyrrhus	638-641, 654
Paul II	641-653
Peter	654-666
Thomas II	667-669
John V	669-675
Constantine I	675-677
Theodore I	677-679, 686-687
George I	679-686
Ecumenical Council VI, Constantinople III, Monotheletism condemned, Pope Honorius I & Patriarch Sergius I condemned as heretics, 680-681
Paul III	687/8-693/4
Callinicus I	693/4-705/6
Cyrus	705/6-711/2
John VI	712-715
Germanus I	715-730
Anastasius	730-754
Constantine II	754-766
Nicetas I	766-780
Paul IV, of Cyprus	780-784
Tarasius	784-806
Ecumencial Council VII, Nicaea II, Iconoclasm condemned under guidance of Empress Irene, 787
Nicephorus I	806-815
Theodotus I, Cassiteras, Melissenus	815-821
Anthony I	821-836
John VII Grammaticus	836-843
Iconoclasm finally repudiated under guidance of Empress Theodora, 843
Methodius I	843-847
St. Ignatius	847-858, 867-877
Eunuch Patriarch, son of Emperor Michael I, appointed by the Empress Theodora to restore the Icons; deposed by Bardas, restored by Basil I
St. Photius the Great	858-867, 877-886, d.893
significant scholar; sends Cyril & Methodius on mission to Moravia; "First-Second" Synod, Council, confirms Photius, 861; Photian Schism, 861-867; Papal legates disowned by Pope Nicholas I, Photius excommunicated, 863; deposed, 867, by Emperor Basil I; Ecumencial Council VIII, Constantinople IV, "Anti-Photian Council," patched up filioque and other differences, later repudiated by East, last Ecumenical Council recognized by West which included the Eastern Church, 869-870; restored as Patriarch, 877; New Council, Constantinope V, repudiates Council VIII, 879-880
Stephanus I	886-893
brother of Emperor Leo VI
Anthony II Cauleas	893-901
Nicholas I Mysticus	901-907, 912-925
St. Euthymius I	907-912
Stephanus II	925-927/8
Tryphon	927/8-931
Theophylactus	933-956
Son of Emperor Romanus I
Polyeuctus	956-970
Basil I Scamandrenus	970-973/4
Anthony III Studites	973/4-978/80
Nicholas II Chrysoberges	980-992/6
Sisinius II	996-998
Sergius II	999/1101-1019
Eustathius	1019-1025
Alexius I Studites	1025-1043
Michael I Cerularius	1043-1058
Schism with Latin Church, 1054
Constantine III Lichudes	1059-1063
John VIII Xiphilinus	1064-1075
Cosmas I of Jerusalem	1075-1081
Eustathius Garidas	1081-1084
Nicholas III Grammaticus	1084-1111
John IX Agapetus	1111-1134
Leo Styppes, Stypiotes	1134-1143
Michael II Curcuas	1143-1146
Cosmas II Atticus	1146-1147
Nicholas IV Muzalon	1147-1151
Theodotus II	1151/2-1153/4
[Neophytus I]	1153/4
Constantine IV Chiliarenus	1154-1156/7
Lucas Chrysoberges	1156/7-1169/70
Michael III of Anchialus	1170-1177/8
Chariton Eugeniotes	1177/8-1178/9
Theodosius I Boradiotes	1179-1183
Basil II Camaterus	1183-1186
Nicetas II Muntanes	1186-1189
Dositheus of Jerusalem	1189, 1189/90-1191
Leontius Theotocites	1189/90
George II Xiphilinus	1191-1198
John X Camaterus	1198-1206
Fall of Constantinople to Fourth Crusade, 1204; Seat at Nicaea, 1208-1261
Michael IV Autorianus	1207/8-1213/4
Theodore II Irenicus	1213/4-1215/6
Maximus II	1215/6
Manuel I Sarantenus, Charitopulus	1215/7-1222
Germanus II	1222-1240
Methodius II	1240
Manuel II	1244-1254/5
Arsenius Autorianus	1254/5-1259, 1261-1267, d.1273
Excommunicated Emperor Michael VIII; Arsenian Schism until 1315, his body reenthroned
Nicephorus II	1259/60-1260/1
Seat restored to Constantinople, 1261
Germanus III	1265-1266/7
Joseph I Galesiotes	1266/7-1275, 1282-1283
John XI Beccus	1275-1282, d.1297
Supports Union with Rome, Council of Lyon II, 1274, deposed, 1282
Gregory II Cyprius	1283-1289
Athanasius I	1289-1293, 1303-1309
John XII Cosmas	1294-1303
Nephon I	1310-1314
John XIII Glycys	1315-1319/20
Gerasimus I	1320-1321
Isaiah, Jesaias	1323-1332/4
John XIV Calecas	1334-1347
Isidore I Bucharis	1347-1350
Callistus I	1350-1353/4, 1355-1363
Philotheus Coccinus	1353/4-1354/5, 1364-1376
Macarius	1376-1379, 1390-1391
Nilus Cerameus	1379/80-1388
Anthony IV	1389-1390, 1391-1397
Callistus II Xanthopulus	1397
Matthew I	1397-1410
Euthymius II	1410-1416
Joseph II	1416-1439
Metrophanes II	1440-1443
Gregory III Mammas	1443-1450/1
Athanasius II	1450/1-1453
Fall of Constantinople to Ottomans, 1453; Seat at Church of the Holy Apostles, 1453-1455; at Convent of St. Mary Pammakaristos, 1455-1587
Gennadius II Scholarius	1453/4-1456, 1458?, 1462-1463, 1464
Isidore II Xanthopulus	1456-1457/62
Sophronius I Syropulus	1463-1464
Joseph, Ioasaph	1464-1466
Marcus II Xylokaraves	1466/7
Symeon I	1466/7
Dionysius I	1466-1471, 1489-1491
Symeon I of Trebizond	1471-1474, 1481-1486, 1482-1486
Raphael I	1475-1476
Maximus III	1476-1481
Nephon II	1486-1488, 1497-1498, 1502
Maximus IV	1491-1497
Joachim I	1498-1502, 1504
Pachomius I	1503-1504, 1504-1513
Theoleptus I	1513-1522
Jeremias I	1522-1545
Joannicus I	1546
Dionysius II	1546-1555
Joseph, Joasaph II	1555-1565
Metrophanes III	1565-1572
Jeremias II Tranos	1572-1579, 1580-1584, 1587-1595
Metrophanes III	1579-1580
Pachomius II	1584-1585
Theoleptus II	1585-1586
at Palace of the Wallachians, Vlach Saray, 1587-1597
Matthew II	1596, 1603
at St. Demetrius Monastery at Xyloporta, 1597-1599; at Church of St. George, Phanar Quarter, 1600 to present
Gabriel I	1596
Theophanes I Karykes	1597
Matthew II	1598-1602
Neophytus II	1602-1603, 1607-1612
Matthew II	1603
Raphael II	1603-1607
Cyril I Lucaris	Patriarch of Alexandria, 1602-1620
	1612, 1620-1623, 1623-1633, 1633-1634, 1634-1635, 1637-1638
Calvinist Confession of Faith, 1629, forged? Repudiated. Strangled by Janissaries, 1638
Timotheus	1612-1620
Greg IV	1623
Anthimus	1623
Cyril II Kontares	1633, 1635-1636, 1638-1639
Athanasius III Patelaros	1634
Neophytus III	1636-1637
Parthenius I	1639-1644
Parthenius II	1644-1646, 1648-1651
Joannicius II	1646-1648, 1651-1652, 1653-1654, 1655-1656
Cyril III	1652, 1654
Paisius I	1652-1653, 1654-1655
Parthenius III	1656-1657
Gabriel II	1657
Parthenius IV	1657-1662, 1665-1667, 1671, 1675-1676, 1684-1685
Dionysius III	1662-1665
Clement	1667
Methodius III	1668-1671
Dionysus IV Muselimes	1671-1673, 1676-1679, 1682-1684, 1686-1687, 1693-1694
Gerasimus II	1673-1674
Athanasius IV	1679
James	1679-1682, 1685-1686, 1687-1688
Callinicus II	1688
Neophytus IV	1688
Callinicus II	1689-1693, 1694-1702
Gabriel III	1702-1707
Neophytus V	1707
Cyprianus I	1707-1709, 1713-1714
Athanasius V	1709-1711
Cyril IV	1711-1713
Cosmas III	1714-1716
Jeremias III	1716-1726, 1732-1733
Paisius II	1726-1732, 1740-1743, 1744-1748
Serapheim I	1733-1734
Neophytus VI	1734-1740, 1743-1744
Cyril V	1748-1751, 1752-1757
Callinicus III	1757
Serapheim II	1757-1761
Joannicius III	1761-1763
Samuel I Chatzeres	1763-1768, 1773-1774
Meletius II	1768-1769
Theodosius II	1769-1773
Sophoronius II	1774-1780
Gabriel IV	1780-1785
Procopius I	1785-1789
Neophytus VII	1789-1794, 1798-1801
Gerasimus III	1794-1797
Gregory V	1797-1798, 1806-1808, 1818-1821
Hanged in retaliation for Greek revolt, 1821
Callinicus IV	1801-1806, 1808-1809
Jeremias IV	1809-1813
Cyril VI	1813-1818
Eugenius II	1821-1822
Anthimus III	1822-1824
Chrysanthos I	1824-1826
Agathangelos I	1826-1830
Constantios I	1830-1834
Constantios II	1834-1835
Gregory VI	1835-1840, 1867-1871
Anthimus IV	1840-1841, 1848-1852
Anthimus V	1841-1842
Germanus IV	1842-1845, 1852-1853
Meletius III	1845
Anthimus VI	1845-1848, 1853-1855, 1871-1873
Cyril VII	1855-1860
Joachim II	1860-1863, 1873-1878
Sophronios III	1863-1866
Joachim III	1878-1884, 1901-1912
Joachim IV	1884-1887
Dionysios V	1887-1891
Neophytos VIII	1891-1894
Anthimus VII	1895-1897
Constantine V	1897-1901
Germanus V	1913-1918
Sedē Vacantē, 1918-1921
Meletius IV Metaxakis	1921-1923
Gregory VII	1923-1924
Constantine VI	1924-1925
Basil III	1925-1929
Photius II	1929-1935
Benjamin I	1936-1946
Maximus V	1946-1948
Athenagoras	1948-1972
Theological Seminary of Halki closed by Turkish Government, 1971
Demetrius	1972-1991
Bartholomew	1991-present

Constantinople now fades from memory. Its name resonates like something from legend or mythology; and many who hear the name may not quite know what it was or where to place it in their conceptual or historical universe. Indeed, it belongs to something that most would think of as oxymoronic or impossible:  the Mediaeval Roman Empire. As Schopenhauer says of what is excellent, Constantinople is "like a meteorite, sprung from an order of things different from that which prevails here" [The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, §59, Dover Publications, 1966, E.F.J. Payne translation, p.324].

To someone who hears only the drumbeat that Rome "Fell" in 476, this introduces a sort of cognitive dissonance. Something isn't quite right there. Something doesn't compute. Something must be rethought. Indeed, Constantinople requires much rethinking. It was the last capital of the Roman Empire, Roma Nova, Νέα Ῥώμη, "New Rome," or hē Kōnstantinoú Polis, Κωνσταντινούπολις, Constantinopolis, the "City of Constantine," for many centuries the largest and richest city in Europe and Christendom, the repository of much of Greek and Roman Classical learning. It was often simply called "Rome," Rhōmē in Greek, or Byzantion, Byzantium, its old name as a Greek colony, or hē Konstantiou, "the, of Constantine," with "City" elided, or just hē Polis, "The City."

When the City Fell to the Turks in 1453, it became much the same thing again, the largest and richest city, in Islām (outside, perhaps, India), a repository of its own wealth, learning, and romance, still echoing in the Maltese Falcon [1930]. Now, as İstanbul, the City is simply a large modern city, the largest in Turkey, but no longer a capital, a fortress, a redoubt, or a beacon of culture or religion. Nevertheless, among the ruins, like those of the great Land Walls, there is one fragile institution that survives from the earliest days:  the Office of Christian Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Cathedral Church of Constantinople was the Church of "Holy Wisdom," Hagia Sophia in Greek, Sancta Sophia in Latin, and Ayasofya as rendered into Turkish (based on the Mediaeval and Modern Greek pronunciation). This was built in its present form by the Emperor Justinian, although subsequently damaged by earthquakes and then restored. At the Fall of Constantiople to the Turks in 1453, the Church was converted into a mosque, with minarets added. Fortunately, the many mosaics of the Church were painted over rather than destroyed.

With the secularization of the Turkish state by Atatürk, the building became a museum, and the mosaics were uncovered. However, even while a small chapel has been added for Islamic worship, Christian worship is still prohibited in the building. Now, of course, the church has been turned back into a mosque, as a sop to Islamist extremists.

While in its day Hagia Sophia was architecturally unique, and remained so for centuries -- also as the largest Church in Christendom -- the Ottomans began to build great mosques in the same style, culminating in the Sultan Ahmad (I), or Blue, Mosque nearby, built adjacent to, and using many of the stones from, the classical Hippodrome. The style of the Church has thus entered the canons of Islamic architecure, even while the form of churches developed separately.

While the early Church Councils conceded to the Papacy the position of primus inter pares, "first among equals," this did not give to the Popes any special authority. Second place in precedence was acknowledged for the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Ecumenical Council II of 381, though this was somewhat resented by the older Patriarchates at Alexandria and Antioch.

The elevated status for Constantinople was because, of course, this had become the seat of the Emperor, beginning with Constantine, and the principal capital of the Roman Empire. Even when there was a Western Emperor, his seat was no longer at Rome, but in Milan and Ravenna. Indeed, more of the Ecumenical Councils were held in Constantinople (II, V, VI, VIII) than elsewhere -- and Council IV was held just across the Bosporus in Chalcedon.

In Constantinople it was unmistakable that the Emperor imposed a unity on the Church that it would not otherwise have, and that would not otherwise be claimed until the Papacy began arrogating powers to itself that otherwise had belonged only to the Emperor or to Church Councils.

I have discussed above how the term "Caesaro-Papism," often used for the role of the Emperor in Constantinople, is applied more appropriately to the Popes themselves, whose claims and accumulation of power were an innovation, while the role of the Emperor had precedents all the way back to Constantine (and earlier, when a Roman Emperor was the Pontifex Maximus). What ends up being distinctive about the Orthodox Churches in communion with Constantinople is that, although Constantinople was responsible for the establishment of several such Churches, e.g. Bulgaria and Russia, the new ones ended up with independent authority, i.e. they were autocephalous, and were in no way subordinate to Constantinople the way the Popes expected national churches to be obedient to them.

The principle is still that Orthodox Churches base their doctrine on the Ecumenical Councils. Orthodox Churches not in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople today reject one of the seven Councils noted in the list of Patriarchs. Thus, the Church of the East rejects Council III and the Monophysite Churches of Egypt and Syria reject Council IV. As shown in the diagram, the Churches loyal to Constantinople in the traditional Patriarchates, generally called "Melkite," Μελχίτης ("Royal" or, really, "Imperial"), are the Antiochian Church of Antioch, the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and the Melkite Church of Alexandria. Otherwise, we see national Churches of Greece, Bulgaria, Russia, etc., that are in agreement with Constantinople without being governed by it. Since the Patriarch of Constantinople, living in Turkey, no longer is responsible for the national Church of a traditionally Christian nation, he has come to be simply the "Ecumenical Patriarch."

A curious institution that is governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, or at least operates under his direct authority, is the "Holy Mountain," Hágion Óros, Mt. Áthōs. This is the most north-eastern of three peninsulas that extend out into the Aegean Sea from the larger peninsula of the Chalcidice. There are still 20 active monasteries on the Mountain, with a number of smaller settlements and institutions.

The road from the mainland ends at Uranopolis (or Ouranoupoli, one now usually sees spellings that reflect modern Greek pronunciation -- I have Latinized many of the names, but the spelling of the monasteries especially reflects this trend). From there one (men only) must take a boat down to Daphne. From Daphne a road, recently built, goes up to Caryes, Καρυές (Karyes, Karyai), the town that is the administrative center of the Mountain, on the land of the Koutloumousiou Monastery.

Although most Greek churches operate under the authority of the autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church, Mt. Áthōs is still under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Over the years, monasteries were founded, not just by Greeks,

Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, 1204-1261
Thomas Morosoni	1204-1211
Sedē Vacantē, 1211-1215
Gervase	1215-1219
Sedē Vacantē, 1219-1221
Matthew	1221-1226
John Halgrin	1226
Simon	1227-1233
Sedē Vacantē, 1233-1234
Nicholas de Castro Arquato	1234-1251
Sedē Vacantē, 1251-1253
Pantaleon Giustiani	1253-1286
City restored to Orthodox Patriarch, 1261; Titular Latin Patriarchs, 1261-1948
Peter Correr	1286-1302
Leonard Faliero	1302-1305?
Nicholas, Archbishop of Thebes	1308-1331?
Cardinalis	1332-1335
Gozio Battaglia	1335-1339
Roland de Ast	1339
Henry de Ast, Bishop of Negroponte	1339-1345
Stephen de Pinu	1346
William	1346-1361, administrator, 1361-1364
St. Peter Thomas, Archbishop of Crete	1364-1366
Paul, Archbishop of Thebes	1366-1370
Hugolin Malabranca	1371-1375?
James d'Itri, Archbishop of Otranto	1376-1378
William, Bishop of Urbino	1379
Paul	1379-?
Angelo Correr	1390-1405
	Pope Gregory XII
Louis, Archbishop of Mitylene	1405-?
Cardinal Antonio Correr	administator, 1408
Alphonese, Archbishop of Seville	1408-?
Francis Lando, Patriarch of Grado	?-1409
John Contarini	1409-?, 1424-?
John de La Rochetaillee	1412-1423
Gregory Mamme	1451-1459
Cardinal Bessarion	1459-1472
Peter Riario	1472-1474
Jerome Lanod, Archbishop of Crete	1474-1493/6
Cardinal John Michael	1497-1503
Cardinal John Borgia	1503-1503
Cardinal Francis de Lorris	1503-1506
Tamás Bakócz	1507-1521
unknown, 1521-1594
Silvio Savelli	1594-1599
Bonifazio Bevilacqua Aldobrandini	1598-1627?
unknown, 1627?-1640
Francesco Maria Macchiavelli	1640-1641
Giovanni Giacomo Panciroli	1641-1643
Giovanni Battista Spada	1643-1675?
unknown, 1675?-1706
Lodovico Pico Della Mirandola	1706-1718
Camillo Cybo	1718-1743
Sedē Vacantē, 1743-1751
Ferdinando Maria de Rossi	1751-1771?
Juan Portugal de la Puebla	1771-1781
unknown, 1781-1823
Giuseppe della Porta Rodiani	1823-1835
Giovanni Soglia Ceroni	1835-1844
Fabio Maria Asquini	1844-1851
Dominicus Lucciardi	1851-1860
Iosephus Melchiades Ferlisi	1860-1865
	Latin Patriarch of Antioch, 1858-1860
Rogerius Aloysius Emygdius Antici Mattei	1866-1878
Iacobus Gallo	1878-1881
Sedē Vacantē, 1881-1887
Iulius Lenti	1887-1895
Ioannes Baptista Casali del Drago	1895-1899
Alexander Sanminiatelli Zabarella	1899-1901
Carlo Nocella	1901-1903, d.1908
	Latin Patriarch of Antioch, 1899-1901
Giuseppe Ceppetelli	1903-1917
Sedē Vacantē, 1917-1923
Michele Zezza di Zapponeta	1923-1927
Antonio Anastasio Rossi	1927-1948
Sedē Vacantē, 1948-1964; abolished 1965

but by Georgians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Russians, and even Italians. The Italians are now gone (there being the Schism and all), but there are also (modern) Romanians present, though they do not have their own monastery. Mt. Áthōs thus unites all the Orthodox Churches who share the theology of Constantinople.

The mysticism of the theology of Mt. Áthōs contrasts with the humanism of Mistra -- this is discussed elsewhere in relation to the Renaissance. The Great Laura Monastery, the first of many in this most sacred place, the Mt. Hiei, , of Orthodox Christianity, was built (961-963) by St. Athanasius during the Macedonian Dynasty. Tradition holds with some earlier foundations, and several small hermitages, as well as individual hermits in caves and elsewhere, certainly had been there for some time; but the Great Laura is the first for which there is contemporary historical documentation.

There are many more Patriarchs of Constantinople than there are Popes. Since the Emperor was present in the City, and religious issues were political issues that concerned the Emperor and the populace, many Patriarchs were deposed in doctrinal, jurisdictional, and purely political disputes, sometimes even to be reinstated.

This problem continued under the Ottomans, when the Sulṭān deposed Patriarchs 105 times, and 6 were even killed. Also, the Sulṭān once (1587) confiscated the Patriarchal seat, at the monastery of St. Mary Pammakaristos. The traditional Cathedral of Constantinople, of course, was the great Church of Santa (Sancta/Hagia) Sophia. With the Ottoman Conquest, this was immediately taken over as a mosque.

The Patriarchate briefly was based at the second church of the City, the Church of the Holy Apostles, which may already have been in disrepair. Afterwards, it was demolished by the Ottomans for the Mosque of the Sulṭān Meḥmed II (Fātih. Jāmi-i). When the Patriarchate settled in the Phanar Quarter, it was forbidden to build a new church, and forbidden to have any church with a dome. The church of St. George has been rebuilt more than once, and is still the seat of the Patriarch.

As in the Francis Ford Coppola quote discussed above, I begin to see popular comparisons of the Othrodox Church with Catholicism and Protestantism. Much Orthodox antipathy seems to be directed at St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), even though Augustine lived long before the Schism between the Churches and so does properly count as a Saint in the Orthodox as well as in the Catholic tradition. Nevertheless, the Orthodox view seems to be that things in the West really began to go wrong starting with him. Augustine is unfavorably compared with his contemporary, St. John I Chrysostom ("Golden Mouth," c.347-407), Patriarch of Constantinople, 398-404.

One issue that definitely engages moderns is their attitude towards sex. Augustine sees Original Sin embodied in sex, and the involuntary sexual response itself represents the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God. Before the Fall, arousal was under voluntary control. This now seems rather bizarre, as it already did to Chrysostom. The Greek Church did not make the strong connection between sex and sin that the Catholic Church did. One consequence of this may have been the allowance for clerical marriage under Constantinople but the eventual requirement of clerical celibacy under Rome.

To be sure, Christianity is conflicted. St. Paul does say "It is better to marry than to burn" [I Corinthians 7:9], where we are given to understand that fornication is punishable by damnation. At the same time, orthodox Christianity did not go as far as Neoplatonism, Manicheanism, or Gnosticism, where matter and the body can be construed as intrinsically evil, requiring celibacy for all those, lay or clerical, seeking Salvation.

For a world-denying religion, Christianity represented a kind of Middle Way between ascetic mortification and hedonistic excess. Just where it comes down in the Middle is the question. It is clear from Genesis that the Fall has something to do with sex, since Adam and Eve become ashamed of their bodies. Whether this is a matter of privacy or of evil is open to interpretation.

After the Essenes, Judaism found nothing wrong about suitably private sexual activity. The Orthodox Church seems more in this vein. Having rebelled, not against God but against Catholicism, Protestantism has gone in many directions, though nearly all Protestant Churches have become accustomed to divorce, despite clear statements by Jesus against it except for adultery [Matthew 5:32]. The Catholic Church had drifted into forbidding divorce for any reason -- but now increasingly provides annulments as the equivalent. Orthodox divorce is easier than in Catholicism, though not as easy as in Protestantism. Orthodox priests can marry, but then they cannot rise further in the hierarchy.

Thus, the Church tends to get governed by priests who have taken monastic vows on top of the priesthood, and remain celibate. This is definitely more in the Christian tradition, where Protestants completely ignore the saying of Jesus: "And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" [Matthew 19:12]. Catholics forgot the "he that is able" part, while Protestants forget the whole thing.

Although the list of Bishops of Byzantium is given from the early days of the Church, this was not a particularly important city at the time, and one wonders about its historicity even more than with the early Bishops given for Rome. Much the same might be said about the early Armenian Church. The establishment of Christianity in Armenia (301) and by Constantine (312) for Rome, and then the founding of Constantinople (324-330), all bring the lists fully into history -- whence to continue until the present day.

The Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople
Hovakim I	1461-1478
Nigolayos I	1478-1489
Garabed I	1489-1509
Mardiros I	1509-1526
Krikor I	1526-1537
Astvadzadur I	1537-1550
Stepanos I	1550-1560
Diradur I	1561-1563, 1596-1599
Hagop I	1563-1573
Hovhannes I	1573-1581
Tovmas I	1581-1587
Sarkis I	1587-1590
Hovhannes II	1590-1591
Azaria I	1591-1592
Sarkis II	1592-1596
Melkisetek I	1599-1600
Hovhannes III	1600-1601, 1621-1623, 1631-1636
Krikor II	1601-1608, 1611-1621, 1623-1626
Sedē Vacantē, 1608-1611
Zakaria I	1636-1639
Tavit I	1639-1641, 1643-1644, 1644-1649, 1650-1651
Giragos I	1641-1642
Hacatur I	1642-1643
Tovmas II	1644, 1657-1659
Yegiazar I	1651-1652
Hovhannes IV	1652-1655
Sedē Vacantē, 1655-1657
Mardiros II	1659-1660
Gazar I	1660-1663
Hovhannes V	1663-1664, 1665-1667
Sarkis III	1664-1665, 1667-1670
Stepanos II	1670-1674
Hovhannes VI	1674-1675
Andreas I	1673-1676
Garabed II	1676-1679, 1680-1681, 1681-1684, 1686-1687, 1688-1689
Sarkis IV	1679-1680
Toros I	1681, 1687-1688
Yeprem I	1684-1686, 1694-1698, 1701-1702
Hacadur II	1688
Sedē Vacantē, 1689-1692
Matteos I	1692-1694
Melkisetek II	1698-1699, 1700-1701
Mihitar I	1699-1700
Avedik I	1702-1703, 1704-1706
Kalust Gaydzag I	1703-1704
Nerses I	1704
Mardiros III	1706
Mikayel I	1706-1707
Sahag I	1707, 1708-1714
Hovhannes VII	1707-1708
Hovhannes VIII	1714-1715
Hovhannes IX	1715-1741
Hagop II	1741-1749, 1752-1764
Brokhoron I	1749
Minas I	1749-1751
Kevork I	1751-1752
Krikor III	1764-1773
Zakaria II	1773-1781, 1782-1799
Hovhannes X	1781-1782
Taniel I	1799-1800
Hovhannes XI	1800-1801, 1802-1813
Krikor IV	1801-1802
Abraham I	1813-1815
Bogos I	1815-1823
Garabet III	1823-1831
Stepanos II	1831-1839, 1840-1841
Hagopos III	1839-1840, 1848-1856
Astvadzadur II	1841-1844
Matteos II	1844-1848
Kevork II	1856-1860
Sarkis V	1860-1861
Bogos II	1863-1869
Ignatios I	1869
Mgrdich, Mkrtich Khrimian	1869-1873
	Patriarch of Armenia, 1892-1907
Nerses II	1874-1884
Harutyun I	1885-1888
Horen I	1888-1894
Sedē Vacantē, 1894-1896
Maghakia Ormanian	1896-1908
Madteos Izmirlian	1908-1909
Yeghische Tourian	1909-1910
Hovhannes Arscharouni	1911-1913
Zaven Der Yeghiayan	1913-1922
Sedē Vacantē, 1922-1927
Mesrob I Naroyan	1927-1943
Sedē Vacantē, 1943-1951
Karekin Khacha- dourian	1951-1961
Sedē Vacantē, 1961-1963
Shenork Kaloustian	1963-1990
Karekin II Kazanjian	1990-1998
Mesrop II Mutafyan	1998-2016
Aram Ateshyan	locum tenens, 2016-2017
Karekin Bekdjian	locum tenens, 2017

Of the 386 works mentioned by Photius, 239 are theological. Nevertheless, only 43% of the text actually focuses on them. The majority of the text (in a book whose modern edition in Greek is 1600 pages long) is thus secular. For example, in addressing A History of Events After Alexander (in ten books) by the Roman historian Arrian of Nicomedia (an early member of the Second Sophistic), we get a long summary of those very events, which are often obscure enough that every description helps. Although much of Arrian survives, and his Anabasis Alexandri is the best account of the campaigns of Alexander, all we have of A History of Events After Alexander is Photius' summary.

Our benchmark is that about half of the works mentioned by Photius, like the Events, are now lost. It is distressing to think of what survived, despite the Dark Ages, and then what later disasters, like the Fourth Crusade, may have cost us. It is hard to imagine an undisturbed Constantinople being subsequently so careless with its literary heritage. At no other Court of the age could visitors have found the nobility quoting Homer. [cf. Photius, The Bibiotheca, A selection translated with notes by N.G. Wilson, Duckworth, London, 1994.] Photius, whose Bibliotheca was only part of his literary output, was a major political figure and himself was responsible for the mission of St. Cyril (Constantine, 827-869)and Methodius (826-885) to convert the Slavs.

When the Crusaders took Constantinople in 1204, a Latin Patriarch was installed. This event, of course, is still remembered with bitterness in Greece and all the Orthodox Churches, since it fatally weakened in the Orthodox world in the face of the threat of the Turks. Even when the City was retaken by the Palaeologi in 1261, the Latin Patriarch fled, and the line continued with a titular Patriarch living in Rome until falling vacant in 1948. The position was than formally abolished, with some other Latin Patriarchates, in 1965, certainly as part of the ecumenical reconciliation of Pope Paul VI with the Patriarch Athenagoras. This confusion of multiple Patriarchs, however, is typical for the other classical Patriarchal Sees. No less than four prelates, for instance, claim the title of Patriarch of Alexandria and of Jerusalem. There are also at least six Patriarchs of Antioch.

After the Turkish conquest, Meḥmed II saw to it that an Armenian Patriarchate was installed in Constantinople. It has survived ever since, although few Armenians remained in Turkey after World War I and its aftermath. The first Patriarch, Hovakim, was the Metropolitan of Bursa, which had been the Ottoman capital prior to Constatinople and Adrianople.

This institution was part of the Ottoman "Millet" (i.e. "nation") system, where the Patriarch consequently had authority over all Armenian Christians in the Ottoman Empire. The "Millet" provided for communal autonomy in areas that were not preempted by the national government or by the involvement of Muslims. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was in turn responsible for the "Millet of Rūm," which more or less meant Greek Christians in the Empire, but strictly speaking included anyone else under the religious authority of the Patriarch.

The Walls of Constantinople, initially completed in 413, despite their preservation, are rarely noted or acknowledged as one of the architectural wonders of the Ancient World. This is probably because of the ideological blind spot that afflicts historians who dislike the world of Late Antiquity and ignore or despise "Byzantine" history.

There came to be strong religious associations with the Walls. They were protected by Holy Icons like the Hodēgētria (the Virgin who "Shows the Way," kept at the Hodegon Monastery) or the Blachernitissa (or Blacherniotissa), the Virgin of the Chruch of Mary at Blachernae, where the Maphorion, the Robe of the Virgin, was kept and where there was a miraculous Spring, quite close to the Wall itself.

The Icon had been brought out to protect the City during sieges (the Maphorion is supposed to have repulsed the Avars in 626). Both Icon and Robe disappeared with the Fall of the City -- although there is no mention of them after the Church burned in 1434. One story, however, is that the last Emperor, Constantine XI, was praying to the Icon the night before the City fell, and as he watched, it was taken up to Heaven. He therefore knew what was going to happen the next day.

Similarly, the Emperor, whose body disappeared when he threw himself into the fight as the Turks breached the Walls and poured into the City, was believed by many to subsequently be asleep under the Golden Gate, though which he would rise and reënter the City. This may be one reason why the Golden Gate has been kept closed up since the Conquest, and the Turkish government has at times displayed some alarm at reports of mummified bodies being transported out of the City.

The See of Athens
Gregory IV	Bishop, 1827-1828
Anthimus VII	1828-1833
Neophytus V	Autocelphus, 1833-1862, Metropolitan, 1850-1862
Michael IV	1862-1862
Theophilus	1862-1873
Anthony	1873-1874
Procopius I	1874-1889
Germanus II	1889-1896
Procopius II	1896-1901
Theocletus I	1902-1917, 1920-1922
Meletius III	1918-1920
Chrysostomos I	1923, Archbishop, 1923-1938
Damaskinos	1938, 1941-1949
Chrysanthus	1938-1941
Spyridon	1949-1956
Dorotheus	1956-1957
Theocletus II	1957-1962
James	1962
Chrysostomos II	1962-1967
Ieronymos I	1967-1973
Seraphim	1974-1998
Christodoulos	1998-2008
Ieronymos II	2008-present

Over the years, the question must have come up many times whether the Patriarch should simply quit what now is so unfriendly a City. Fortunately, he has not, and so a single institution continues in İstanbul that has survived right from the days of Constantine. Now, since confusion would arise by calling the Patriarch's Church "Greek Orthodox," it has become customary to identify him as the "Ecumenical" Patriarch. Before 1833, however, worries about the Church of Constantinople not being the "Greek Orthodox Church" would be anachronistic. Since the language and liturgy of the Church of Constantinople has always been Greek, "Greek Orthodox" in historic terms is always going to mean the Church that used the Greek language. "Greek Orthodox" is still used for other Churches, as of Jerusalem, that have nothing to do with the Greek national Church but that are in doctrinal communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

While most Americans would think of the Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, this is not necessarily the case and gives rise to some confusion. The problem began when Greece revolted against the Turks in 1821. The unfortunate Patriarch Gregory V (1797-1798, 1806-1808, & 1818-1821) was actually hanged because of suspected sympathy for the revolt, or perhaps just to discourage and terrorize local Greeks.

Greek independence was recognized in 1830, and a Greek national Church then broke away from the Patriarchate in 1833. The Patriarch recognized the Greek Church as autocephalous in 1850. The Bishop of Athens became the Primate of Greece; and at that point, the "Greek Orthodox Church" can simply mean the Greek national Church, not the Church of the Patriarch. The Bishop became an Archbishop in 1923, officially the "Archbishop of Athens and All Greece," Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Ἀθηνῶν καὶ πάσης Ἑλλάδος

Further tension between Greece and the Turks occurred in the Balkan Wars and World War I, when Greece was fighting with the Allies. After the War, Greece was one of the Occupying Powers and contributed a member to the High Commissioners in Constantinople (1918-1923). Greece then seized Smyrna (İzmir) and invaded Anatolia. Soundly defeating the Greeks, the Turks directed considerable displeasure at the unfortunate Patriarch and then expelled nearly all ethnic Greeks remaining in Turkey -- as part of an "exchange" with Greece, so that Christians left Turkey and Muslims left Greece -- although many of the former were actually Turkish speaking and the latter Greek speaking. This means that the Patriarch is just about all that is left of the ancient Greek community in İstanbul.

The direct authority of the Arbishop of Athens as the Primate of Greece is actually just for the territory of Greece as it was before the Balkan Wars. The remaining lands, now part of Greece, had been under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople and in principle still are. However, the practical administration of everything, except, I think Mt. Athos, is exercised by the Archbishop.

Patriarchal Index

Philosophy of History

Philosophy of Religion

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Coptic and Melkite
Patriarchs of Alexandria

Patriarchs of Alexandria
St. Mark I the Evangelist	43-61, d.63
Anianus	61-82
Avilius	83-95
Kedron	96-106
Primus	106-118
Justus	118-129
Eumenes	131-141
Mark II	142-152
Celadion	152-166
Agrippinus	167-178
Julian	178-189
Demetrius	189-232
Heraclas	232-248
St. Dionysius	248-264
Maximus	265-282
Theonas	282-300
St. Peter I	300-311
Achillas	312-313
St. Alexander I	313-328
St. Athanasius I	328-373
Frumentius, first Primate of Ethiopia, c.305?
[Pistus]	335-337
[Gregory]	340-346
[George]	357-361
[Lucius]	365, 375-378
Peter II	373-380
Timothy I	380-385
Theophilus I	385-412
leads Destruction of the Serapeum, 391
St. Cyril I	412-444
Suppressed Novitian Sect, 412; expells Jews from Alexandria, 414; murder of Hypatia, 415; Ecumenical Council III, Ephesus I, Nestorianism condemned, 431
St. Dioscorus I	444-451, d. 454
President of "Robber" Council, Ephesus II, 449, Monophysitism affirmed, still recognized by Monophysite Churches; Council IV, Chalcedon, Monophysitism condemned, 451
St. Proterius	452-457
Lynched by Monophysite mob
Timothy/ Timotheos II Eluros/Ailuros, "the Cat"	457-460, 475-477
Coptic Patriarchs or Coptic Popes, of Alexandria
Petros III the Iberian, Monge/Mongos, "Raspy Voice/Stammeer"	477, 482-489
Riots against pagans and pagan teachers, 486
Athanasios II Keletes	489-496
Yoannis I	496-505
Yoannis II	505-516
Dioscoros II	516-517
Timotheos III	517-535
[Gaïanos/Gainas]	535
Theodosios I	535-566
[Elpidios]	?-565
Dorotheos	565-580
[Theodoros]	575-587
[Petros IV]	575-578
Damianos	578-607
Anastasios	607-619
Andronikos	619-665
[Benjamin I]	626-665
[Mina]	634
Agatho	665-681
Yoannis III	681-689
Isaac	689?-692?
Simeon I	692-700
[Theodoros]	c.695
Alexandros II	702-729
Kosma I	729-730
Theodoros I (Theodosios II)	730-742
Mikhael I	743-767
Mina I	767-775
Yoannis IV	776-799
Markos II	799-819
Yakub	819-830
Simeon II	830
Yousab I	831-849
Khail/ Mikhael II	849-851
Kosma II	851-858
Shenouda I	859-880
Khail/ Mikhael III	880-907
Sedē Vacantē, 907-910
Gabriel I	910-921
Kosma III	921-933
Macari I	933?-953?
Theophelios/ Theophanes	953-956
Mina II	956-974
Patriarchate moves to Cairo, 960
Abraham/ Ephrem	975-978
Philotheos	979-1003
Zacharias	1004-1032
Shenouda II	1032-1046
Khristosolos	1047-1077
Kirellos II	1078-1092
Mikhael IV	1092-1102
Macari II	1102-1128
Sedē Vacantē, 1128-1131
Gabriel II	1131-1145
Mikhael IV or V	1145-1146
Yoannis V	1146-1166
Markos III	1166-1189
Yoannis VI	1189-1216
Sedē Vacantē, 1216-1235
Kirellos III	1235-1243
Sedē Vacantē, 1243-1250
Athanasios III	1250-1261
Yoannis VII	1261-1268, 1271-1293
Gabriel III	1268-1271
Theodosios III	1294-1300
Yoannis VIII	1300-1320
Yoannis IX	1320-1327
Benjamin II	1327-1339
Petros V	1340-1348
Marcos IV	1348-1363
Yoannis X	1363-1369
Gabriel IV	1370-1378
Matheos I	1378-1408
Gabriel V	1408/9- 1427/8
"Mikhael IV"?	1428
Yoannis XI	1428-1453
Matheos II	1453-1466
Gabriel VI	1466-1475
Sedē Vacantē, 1475-1477
Mikhail IV (VII)	1477-1478
Sedē Vacantē, 1478-1480
Yoannis XII	1480-1483
Yoannis XIII	1483-1524
Sedē Vacantē, 1524-1526
Gabriel VII	1526-1569
Sedē Vacantē, 1569-1573
Yoannis XIV	1573-1589
Gabriel VIII	1590-1601
Sedē Vacantē, 1601-1610
Marcos V (VI)	1610-1621?
Yoannis XV	1621?-1631?
Matheos III	1631?-1645?
Marcos VI (VII)	1645?-1660
Matheos IV	1660-1676
Yoannis XVI	1676-1718
Petros VI	1718-1726
Yoannis XVII	1727-1745
Markos VIII	1745-1770
Yoannis XVIII	1770-1797
Markos IX	1797-1810
Petros VII	1810-1854
Kirellos IV	1854-1861
Dimitrios II	1862-1870
Sedē Vacantē, 1870-1874
Kirellos V	1874-1928
Yoannis XIX	1929-1942
Sedē Vacantē, 1942-1944
Makari III	1944-1945
Yusab II	1946-1956
First Ethiopian Primate of Ethiopia, 1950; autonomous Patriarchate of Ethiopia, 1959
Sedē Vacantē, 1956-1959
Kirellos VI	1959-1971
Shenouda III	1971-2012
Anba Pachomius	locum tenens, 2012
Theodoros, Tawadros II	2012- present

There is no way of knowing whether St. Mark was the first Patriarch of Alexandria, but there is little doubt that the Christian community in Egypt is very old. Even before Christianity was officially tolerated, Egypt was one of the strongholds of the new religion. There seem to have been affinities between Christianity and traditional Egyptian religiosity. Some of the iconography of traditional Egyptian religion could be adapted to Christianity. Isis suckling Horus now becomes Mary suckling Jesus. Egypt also benefits from the Biblical tradition that Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt with Jesus to avoid Herod's slaughter of the children. Sites of the Family's sojourn are still revered.

The influence of the Egyptian Church on the Church in general then becomes considerable. Monasticism really began in Egypt, apparently with St. Antony (d.356). The most important doctrinal influence, however, came from the Patriarch St. Athanasius, who attended the Council of Nicaea in 325, strongly opposing the doctrine of Arius (Arianism) that Christ was perfect Man but not perfect God. Since Arianism enjoyed considerable Imperial favor until Theodosius I, Athanasius experienced a good deal of trouble. He was exiled to Trier (335-337) and then to Rome (339-346). Constantius II tried to arrest him in 356, but he escaped into the desert until the Emperor died in 361. He was unmolested from 366 to his death in 373. Several opposing Patriarchs will be noted in the list. Athanasian Orthodoxy, that Christ was God of God, was established at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. But even centuries later, we find a Unitarian like Thomas Jefferson complaining that Athanasius was the one who had ruined Christianity, turning it from a moral teaching into magical superstition. However, what could be more Egyptian than the idea that the King is God!

Elected Patriarch in 412, Cyril immediately began sometimes violent actions against anyone whom he regarded as heretics, including the Perfect Orestes. First this was against the Novatians, a heterodox sect that thought that Christians who left Christianity during the persecutions should not be allowed back in. This was ancient history at that point, by a century. But Cyril closed their churches and confiscated their property.

Then in 414, after some disturbances, he turned on Alexandria's Jews, who, of course had been there for centuries. Cyril looted the synagogues and ordered the Jews expelled from the city. Orestes complained that only the Prefect could order anything of the sort; and so Cyril sent a mob of monks against him, one of whom hit Orestes with a rock, resutling in his arrest and execution. But Cyril was nowhere done.

Cyril controlled a kind of gang, the parabalani, παραβολᾶνοι, who ostensively were volunteers who cared for the sick and took charge of the dead -- Anthony Kaldellis calls them "orderlies" [The New Roman Empire, Oxford, 2024, p.170]. But, commanded by Cyril, they were used as a gang of thugs. These were dispatched against the famous pagan philosopher Hypatia, who was tortured and murdered in a way that looked like nothing so much as a human sacrifice.

This was shocking to contemporaries, and the Emperor Theodosius II issued decrees against Cyril and his agents, mitigated, evidently, by bribes. For instance, the Theodosian Code contains a law restricted the enrolment of the parabalani in Alexandria to 500. This does not sound like enough of a measure to curtail their terrorism; but it did quiet Cyril down for most of the rest of his reign. The damage, of course, was done, and could not be undone. Mobs of fanatics knew they could largely get away with anything. There were again riots against pagan teachers in 486.

The next great doctrinal controversy involving Egypt had grave and enduring consequences for the Egyptian Church. At the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 the doctrine was condemned that Christ had only one Nature. This was Monophysitism, from mónē phýsis, "one nature," μόνη φύσις, in Greek.

Melkite, Μελχίτης, or Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria
Timothy III Salophakiolos, "Crazy Hat"	460-475, 477-482 d.482
Peter III	477, 482-489
John I	482 , d. 489
Athanasius II	489-496
John II	496-505
John III	505-516
Dioscorus II	516-517
Timothy IV	517-535
[Gainas]	535, d.?
Theodosius I	535-536, d.566
Paul	537-540, d.?
Zoilus	541-551, d.?
Apollinarius	551-569
John IV	569-579
Sedē Vacantē, 579-581
St. Eulogius I	581-607
St. Theodore	607-609
St. John V	610-619
Sedē Vacantē, 619-621
George I	621-631
Cyrus	631-643
Peter IV	643-651
Sedē Vacantē, 651-727
Theodore II	Coadjutor, c.662
Peter V	Coadjutor, c.680
Peter VI	Coadjutor, c.691
Theophylactus	Coadjutor, c.695
Onopsus	Coadjutor, c.711
Cosmas I	727-768
Politianus	768-813
Eustatius	813-817
Christopher I	817-841
Sophronius I	841-860
Michael I	860-870
Michael II	870-903
Sedē Vacantē, 903-907
Christodoulus	907-932
Said ib Bitriq Eutychius	933-940
Sophronius II	941
Isaac	941-954
Job	954-960
Sedē Vacantē, 960-963
Elias I	963-1000
St. Arsenius	1000-1010
Theophilus II	1010-1020
George II	1021-1052
Leontius	1052-1059
Alexander II	1059-1062
John VI	1062-1100?
Eulogius II	c.1110
Sabbas	c.1117
Cyril II	?
Theodosius II	?
Sophronius III	<1166-1171
Elias II	1171-1175
Eleutherius	1175-1180
Mark III	1180-1209
Nicholas I	1210-1243
Gregory I	1243-1263
Nicholas II	1263-1276
Athanasius III	1276-1316
Gregory II	1316-1354
Gregory III	1354-1366
Niphon	1366-1385
Mark IV	1385-1389
Nicholas III	1389-1398
Gregory IV	1398-1412
Nicholas IV	1412-1417
Athanasius IV	1417-1425
Mark V	1425-1435
Philotheus	1435-1459
Mark VI	1459-1484
Gregory V	1484-1486
Joachim	1486-1567
Sedē Vacantē, 1567-1569
Silvester	1569-1590
Meletius I	1590-1601
Cyril III Lucaris	1601-1620
	Patriarch of Constantinople, 1612, 1620-1623, 1623-1633, 1633-1634, 1634-1635, 1637-1638
Gerasimus I	1620-1636
Metrophanes	1636-1639
Nicephorus	1639-1645
Joannicius	1645-1657
Paisius	1657-1678, d.1681
Parthenius I	1678-1688
Gerasimus II	1688-1710, d.1714
Samuel	1710-1712, 1714-1723
Cosmas II	1712-1714, 1723-1736
Cosmas III	1737-1746
Matthew	1746-1766, d.1775
Cyprian	1766-1783
Gerasimus III	1783-1788
Parthenius II	1788-1805
Theophilus III	1805-1825
Hierotheus I	1825-1845
Artemius	1845-1847, d.1852
Hierotheus II	1847-1858
Callinicus	1858-1861, d.1889
Jacob	1861-1865
Nicanor	1866-1869
Sophronius IV	1870-1899
Photius	1900-1925
Meletius II	1926-1935
Nicholas V	1936-1939
Christopher II	1939-1966, d.1967
Sedē Vacantē, 1966-1968
Nicholas VI	1968-1986
Parthenius III	1987-1996
Peter VII	1997-2004
Theodore II	2004-present

Greek and Latin Orthodoxy would be that Christ had two Natures, human and divine. One Nature, however, was the position of the Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, Διόσκορος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς, who was then deposed.

But that was nowhere near the end of the matter. The Egyptians supported Dioscorus and Monophysitism, and their support soon translated into a national revival and a cultural, at least, revolt against the Imperial (the Roman Catholic) Church.

The Egyptian Church now began using the spoken language of Egypt, later called Coptic, as its liturgical language, writing it in an adaptation of the Greek alphabet. This now preserved complete the latest stage of the Ancient Egyptian language, which in the 19th century became one of the keys to the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics.

After a tug-of-war between the Monophysite Patriarch Timothy II Eluros (457-460, 475-477) and the Chalcedonian Timothy III (460-475, 477-482, d.482), we get rival Patriarchs, a dualism that continues until today -- although at first several Patriarchs seem to be counted in both traditions, with Theodosius I deposed as Chalcedonian Patriarch but continuing as the Monophysite. Afterwards the lines definitively separate.

We thus get a Schism represented by the Monophysite Patriarch, the Coptic Patriarch, often called the Coptic Pope, opposed by the appointee of the Imperial Church, called the "Greek" or "Melkite," Μελχίτης, Patriarch.

"Melkite" means "Royal" (compare Hebrew melekh and Arabic malik), i.e. "Imperial." Since the Melkite Patriarch had little popular support in Egypt, one might expect that the Arab Conquest in 640 would have ended the line; but it didn't. Both Patriarchates continue down to the present. Indeed, there have been no less than four "Patriarchs of Alexandria":

The original Coptic Patriarch, who has resided in Cairo since 960, when the city was founded by the Fatimid Caliphs (969). The Greek or Melchite Patriarch, given at right. The Latin Patriarch. In 1215, 1219, or thereabouts, during the Crusades, as at Constantinople, a Latin Church was created for Alexandria. In recent history, however, the titular Latin Patriarch lived in Rome, ruling through an Apostolic Vicar in Alexandria. The See fell vacant in 1954 and finally was simply abolished in 1964. The Coptic Catholic Patriarch. Despite the existence of a Latin Patriarch of Alexandria, and perhaps because he resided in Rome, in 1741 the Catholic Church organized a Coptic Counter-Church (the Coptic Catholic Church), which is like the Coptic Church in every way except that it accepts Roman doctrine and authority. At first this Church was headed by an "Apostolic Vicar," who, for all I know, may originally have been the representative of the Latin Patriarch. In 1895 the Vicar was raised to the status of a Patriarch. Counter-Churches have been created by Rome for many Eastern Churches. They sometimes differ in curious details from the original Church, for instance that the Coptic Counter-Church uses the Gregorian Calendar rather than the Julian Calendar still used by the Copts. Where the Coptic New Year is usually September 11, as in 2002, the Counter-Church would observe it on August 29. The Coptic Catholic Patriarch has lived in Alexandria, at the Church of the Resurrenction, whose construction was funded by the Austrian Emperor Franz Josef and dedicated in 1902.

The Schism over the Council of Chalcedon seems to have helped the Arab Conquest, since there was little local support for the persecuting Empire. The Patriarch of Alexandria, who would have been Andronikos (with some opposition), is supposed to have said that it was the Will of God that Egypt should fall to the Arabs. At the same time, European polemicists for many centuries would view the Arab Conquest as the punishment of God visited upon the Schismatics for their heterodoxy.

In the long run, as the Copts suffered increasing persecution and the marginalization and erosion of the commmunity, intensifying under the Mamlūks, their status has begun to seem no better, and indeed much worse, than it had been under the rule of Constantinople. Orthodox persecution gave literary life to the Coptic language. The Islamicization of Egypt has erased it as a spoken language.

A noteworthy moment in the history of the Egyptian Church was the career of the Melkite Patriarch Said ib Bitriq, or Eutychius (876-940, Patriarch, 933-940). Eutychius wrote a history of the world in Arabic, the Nazm al-Jawhar, or String of Pearls, beginning, as Mediaeval histories often did, with the Creation. This account is still of considerable interest because it is the first source to relate the story of the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria after the Arab Conquest. However, Eutychius was writing three hundred years after the event and may be suspected of some bias and hosility. Since the story anachronistically includes both the 7th century Arab conqueror of Egypt, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, and the 6th century philosopher John Philoponus (c.490-c.570), we may suspect it of being a fabrication.

After the Conquest, conversion to Islām and use of the Arabic language began to spread in Egypt. The Coptic language survived as a spoken language at least until the 17th century. Now it only survives as the liturgical language of the Church. Coptic Christians, however, have been leaving Egypt, in great part because of attacks from Muslim fanatics that have developed as the result of the recent increase in Islāmic militancy. Not long ago, Copts were 10% of the population of Egypt. Now they may be no more than 6%. A Coptic desk calendar I have for 1997 was printed in Brooklyn. It is largely in English but is partially bilingual in....Arabic.

When I was in Egypt in 1969, my tour group from Beirut was met at the El-Moallaka Church in Old Cairo by the Priest, Shenouda Hanna. I bought a book he had written, Who Are The Copts?, which he autographed. The Coptic Patriarch at the time was Kirellos VI. Now, since 1971, the Patriarch is Shenouda III, and I find myself wondering if this is Shenouda Hanna. There are many Coptic websites about the Patriarch, but I have not been able to find the biographical information that would clarify the issue.

Finding complete lists of these Patriarchs has not been easy. Fortunately, Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies came through, as it often has, even though the Patriarchs are not really "regnal." Gordon has lists of Patriarchs for many other Eastern Churches, but they don't always seem to be clearly identified with their doctrinal and institutional affiliation.

One traditional duty of the Patriarchs of Alexandria was appointing the Archbishop and Primate of Ethiopia, the Abune or Abuna (Arabic for "Our Father"). The first such appointee was Frumentius, a Syrian who had been living at the Ethiopian court for some time and journeyed to Alexandria in order to ask for a Bishop to be appointed. Traditionally, it is supposed to have been St. Athanasius himself who then appointed Frumentius to the post. However, the known dates of Athanasius are a bit late for the likely date of Frumentius's trip. After the advent of Islam, communication between the (now Coptic) Patriarch and Ethiopia was interrupted; but in the 12th century, appointments were resumed. It was always an Egyptian Coptic monk who was appointed; and by the 20th century, Ethiopians were beginning to think that maybe it was time for an Ethiopian to be Primate of Ethiopia. Negotiations over this in 1929 still resulted in an Egyptian monk as Archbishop and Primate, but with four Ethiopians concecrated as Bishops. After World War II, an Ethiopian, Basilos, had already been elected Primate, and in 1950 the Coptic Patriarch recognized him. In 1959 the Coptic Patriarch recognized the Ethiopian Church as an autocephalous Patriarchate, although in communion, of course, with Alexandria.

Coptic Catholic Apostolic Vicars
Athanasios	1741–?
Giusto Marsghi	?–1748
Jacques de Kremsier	1748–1751
Paolo d'Angnone	1751–1757
Giuseppe de Sassello	1757–1761
Roche Abou Kodsi Sabak de Ghirgha	1761–1778, 1781, 1783–1785
Gervais d'Ormeal	1778–1781
Jean Farargi	1781–1783
Bishai Nosser	1785–1787
Michelangelo Pacelli de Tricario	1787–1788
Mathieu Righet	1788–1822
Maximos Jouwed	1822–1831
Théodore Abu Karim	1832–1855
Athanasios Kyriakos Khouzam	1855–1864
Agapios Bishai	1866–1876
Antoun di Marco	1876–1887
Antoun Nabad	1887–1889
Simon Barraia	1889–1892
Antoun Kabes	1892–1895
Coptic Catholic Patriarchs of Alexandria
Kyrillos Makarios	1895-1908
Maximos Sedfaoui	locum tenens, 1908–1927
Markos II Khouzam	1927–1958
Stéphanos I Sidarouss	1958–1986
Stephen II Ghattas	1986–2006
Antonios Naguib	2006–2013
Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak	2013–present

In an ecumenical era, the doctrine of the Coptic Church has been subject to some rethinking. It has recently been brought to my attention that the Coptic, the Syrian Orthodox, and the Armenian Churches have rejected the term "Monophysite" and adopted the term "Miaphysite." The doctrinal difference that goes along with this, as I understand it, is that Jesus was both human and divine, as the Latin and Greek Churches agreed, but that these are united in One Nature. Now, this possibility goes all the way back to the original dispute. In the 5th century, Monophysites could be "Eutychian," that the One Nature of Jesus was entirely divine, or "Hesitant," that the One Nature was both human and divine. The latter could also be called "Severan" Monophysitism, after the deposed Patriarch of Antioch, Severus, who for some years led the Monophysite movement from exile in Egypt.

Now, Jesus being both human divine was precisely what the Latin and Greek Churches meant by "two natures." But Monophysites thought that "two natures" implied Nestorianism. The "Hesitant" or "Severan" formula showed some promise of unifying the doctrine of the Churches, but historically that didn't happen. If the "Miaphysite" formula, although the modern version of this, has a similar promise of ecumenical unification, that's fine -- though I don't know how the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople have responded. Today, the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian Orthodox Churches all like to deny that they were ever Monophysite, meaning Eutychian, and that somehow this was all a misunderstanding of the theology. I think this is more an issue for historians than for interested theologians to decide. Warren Threadgold (A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Standford University Press, 1997) says that while most Monophysites were Hesitant (p.99), Dioscorus himself was indeed Eutychian (p.96). Terminologically, one thing that I have to go on is the explicit statement of Father Shenouda Hanna, in the book cited above:

The Coptic Orthodoxy has clung from the very beginning to the doctrines of monophysitism and monothelitism, that is the one nature and one will of Jesus Christ. [op.cit. p.22]

Since this was published in 1967, my guess would be that it antedates the introduction of the term "Miaphysite." This term itself doesn't help in understanding the doctrine. "Monophysite" combines monos, "one, sole," with physis, while "Miaphysite" combines the independent word for "one" in the feminine gender (to agree with physis), mia -- μία φύσις. Between monos and mia there is a distinction that doesn't make a difference, though certainly such a terminological difference can be used to represent conceptual differences. For example, "monotheism" means belief in one God, while "henotheism," using the independent word for "one" in the masculine gender, henos, has been used to mean belief in many gods, where one in particular is superior to the others (e.g. Zeus in Greek religion).

Thus, "Miaphysite" could be used, by definition, to mean absolutely anything. Now, I can understand the Copts and others being annoyed at terms from Greek and Latin Heresiology being applied to them, so "Miaphysite" accompanies a proprietary claim of self-description -- something very popular in ethnic identity movements. But if they think that "Monophysite" was improperly applied to them just because it always only meant the Eutychian doctrine, this is not true.

A curious presentation of the controversy is found in the recent Theodora, Actress, Empress, Saint, by David Potter [Oxford, 2015]. Potter says:

...in the decades after Chalcedon, an increasingly bitter divide split the Church between, on one hand, the mostly Syrian and Egyptian theologians who maintained the single divine nature of Christ -- hence their identification as "Miaphysites" or "Monophysites," in much modern scholarship -- and supporters of the Council's decision, who were largely found in Anatolia, Palestine, and the empire's western provinces. [pp.19-20]

Here Potter implies that all dissenters to Chalcedon believed in "the single divine nature of Christ" and that terms like "Miaphysite" and "Monophysite" are modern and interchangeable. This seems to be wrong in several ways, since the Hesitant Monophysites thought that the one nature was both divine and human, while "Miaphysite" has been introduced precisely to deny the Eutychian form of monism.

In a footnote to this passage Potter gives us a bit more:

To hit on a general term to describe the theological opponents of Chalcedon is difficult, but to use the term "Monophysite" at this period is problematic as there was not a single coherent positive theology, hence my choice of the term "anti-Chalcedonian," which, while not ideal, comes closest to accuracy. [p.229 1:21]

This is equally odd. Potter himself has just given what looks like a sufficient "single coherent positive theology,"

On 15 February 2015, 20 Egyptian Coptic Christian workers, and one Ghanan worker, were kidnapped and beheaded in Libya by the forces of the "Islamic State," ISIS. The Coptic Patriarch Tawadros (Theodoros) II immediately delared all 21 to be Saints and Martyrs. In 2023, Pope Francis ruled that the 21 would also be recognized by the Catholic Church as Martyrs. They are commemorated on February 15 in both churches.

namely "the single divine nature of Christ," to warrant the use of the term that actually was used at the time, namely "Monophysite." He discusses none of the controversy that has motivated the introduction of "Miaphysite," and so he really leaves any details of Monophysite theology uninvestigated. If other scholars avoid either "Miaphysite" or "Monophysite" just to avoid the arguments, Potter might at least say so.

Otherwise, spurning both "Miaphysite" or "Monophysite" is unmotivated; and "anti-Chalcedonian" has the drawback of encompasing Nestorians (who ceased being part of the Catholic Church after the Third Council) as well as Monophysites. Potter refers to the Eutychian doctrine in the text, but only describes it as "so extreme" that the (Monophysite) Second Council of Ephesus condemned it [p.168]. We get no details about what it actually is, or how other Monophysite theology, i.e. the Hesitant, differed from it. This does not seem like proper attention to the matter in a scholarly book about the era and its religious disputes.

See the similarly awkward treatment with John Haldon's The Empire That Would Not Die, where "Miaphysite" is used uncritically, without explanation or discussion -- the sort of thing that should always make us suspicious about the motives and judgment of the author.

The House of Muḥammad ʾAlī in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD

Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria

Patriarchal Index

Philosophy of History

Philosophy of Religion

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2023, 2024 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Greek Orthodox and Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch

When the monks finish, they indicate that they are ready to talk. In an adjacent room, we discuss the Syrian [sic] Orthodox rite, so distinctive and affecting...

"Do you think," I asked the monk, "that these savages can win and that this land might become not only Judenfrei but also cleansed of the Christians who are the last in the world still speaking the language of Jesus?"

He doesn't hestitate: "Yes, barring a miracle, yes."

Bernard-Henri Lévy, "At a Monastery in Sight of Islamic State," The Wall Street Journal, October 9, 2015, A11; four monks remaining at the 4th century Mar Mattai Monastery, near Mosul, Iraq

Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch
St. Peter the Apostle	37/45-53
Euodius	c.53-c.68
St. Ignatius	c.68-107
Hero I	107-c.127
Cornelius	c.127-c.154
Eros/Heros II	c.154-c.169
Theophilus	c.169-182
Maximus I/Maximianus	182-191
Serapion	191-211/212
Ascelpiades/ Aslipiades	211/212- 218/220
Philetus	220-231
Zebinnus/ Zebinus/ Zenobius	231-237
St. Babylas	237-253
Fabius	253-256
Demetrius/ Demetrian	256-260
Amphilochius?	c.263
Paul of Samosata	260/267- 270/272
Domnus I/Dmonus	268-273
Timaeus	273-282
Cyril	283-303
Tyrannos/ Tyrannion	304-314
Vitalis/Vitalius	314-320
St. Philogonus/ Philogonius	320-323
Paulinus of Tyre	323-324
St. Eustathius	324-337
Paulinus?	c.332
Eulalius	5 months? 331-333
Euphronius	333-334
Philaclus/ Placentius	334-342
Stephanus I	342-344
Leontius	344-357
Eudoxius	358-359
Annias/ Ammianus	c.357
Euzoius/ Eudozius/ Eudoxius	360
	Patriarch of Constantinople, 360-370
St. Meletius	361-381
Meletian Schism, 361-401; 381, President of Council II, Constantinople I
Dorotheus?	rival, c.370
Paulinus	Papal rival, c.371
Vitalius?	rival, c.376
Flavian I	381-404
Porphyrus/ Porphyrius	404-412
Alexander	412-417
Theodotus	417-428
John I	428-442
Domnus II	442-449
PATRIARCHS OF ANTIOCH, 451
Maximus II	449-455
Basil	456-458
Acacius	458-461
Martyrius	461-465
Peter the Fuller	465-466, 476-488
Julian	466-476
John II	488-490
Stephanus II	490-495
Stephen III?	c.493
Callandion	495-496
John Codonatus?	c.495
Palladius	496-498
Flavian II	498-512
Severus of Antioch	512-518, d.538/546
deposed in schism, exiled in Egypt, recognized by Syrian Church
Greek Orthodox/Melkite Patriarchs of Antioch
Paul I/II	518-521
Euphrosius/ Euphrasius	521-526/528
Ephrem/ Ephraim of Amid	526/528-546
Domnus III	546-561
Anastasius the Sinaite	561-571, 593-599
Gregory I	571-594
Anastasius II	599-610
Gregory II	610-620
Anastasius III	620-628
Macedonius	628-640
Arab Conquest
George I	640-656
Macarius	656-681
Theophanes	681-687
Sebastian	687-690
George II	690-695
Alexander	695-702
Sedē Vacantē, 702-742
Stephen IV	742-744
Theophylact	744-751
Theodore	751-797
John IV	797-810
Job	810-826
Nicholas	826-834
Simeon	834-840
Elias	840-852
Theodosius I	852-860
Nicholas II	860-879
Michael	879-890
Zacharias	890-902
George III	902-917
Job II	917-939
Eustratius	939-960
Christopher	960-966
Theodorus II	966-977
Antioch recovered by Romania, 969
Agapius	977-995
John IV	995-1000
Nicholas III	1000-1003
Elias II	1003-1010
George Lascaris	1010-1015
Macarius the Virtuous	1015-1023
Eleutherius	1023-1028
Peter III	1028-1051
John VI/ Dionysus	1051-1062
Aemilianus	1062-1075
corresponds with Michael Psellus; Antioch falls to Turks, after 1071
Theodosius II	1075-1084
Nicephorus	1084-1090
John VII	1090-1155
Antioch taken by Crusaders, 1098
John IX	1155-1159
Euthymius	1159-1164
Macarius	1164-1166
Athanasius I	1166-1180
Theodosius III	1180-1182
Elias III	1182-1184
Christopher II	1184-1185
Patriarchate was in exile at Constantinople
Theodore IV/Balsamon	1185-1199
Joachim	1199-1219
Dorotheus	1219-1245
Simeon II	1245-1268
Euthymius II	1268-1269
Antioch falls to Mamlūks, 1268; Patriarchate returned to Antioch
Theodosius IV	1269-1276
Theodosius V	1276-1285
Arsenius	1285-1293
Dionysius	1293-1308
Mark	1308-1342
Patriarchate transferred to Damascus, 1342
Ignatius II	1342-1386
Pachomius	1386-1393
Nilus	1393-1401
Michael III	1401-1410
Pachomius II	1410-1411
Joachim II	1411-1426
Mark III	1426-1436
Dorotheus II	1436-1454
Michael IV	1454-1476
Mark IV	1476
Joachim III	1476-1483
Gregory III	1483-1497
Dorotheus III	1497-1523
Michael V	1523-1541
Dorotheus IV	1541-1543
Joachim IV Ibn Juma	1543-1576
Michael VI Sabbagh	1577-1581
Joachim V	1581-1592
Joachim VI	1593-1604
Dorotheus V	1604-1611
Athanasius III Dabbas	1611-1619
Ignatius III Attiyah	1619-1631
Euthymius III	1635-1636
Euthymius IV	1636-1648
Michael III Zaim	1648-1672
Neophytos	1674-1684
Athanasius IV Dabbas	1686-1694
Cyril III Zaim	1694-1720
Athanasius IV Dabbas	1720-1724
Separation of the Melkites, Greek Patriarchs in Damascus
Sylvester	1724-1766
Philemon	1766-1767
Daniel	1767-1791
Euthymius	1792-1813
Seraphim	1813-1823
Methodius	1843-1859
Hierotheos	1850-1885
Gerasimos	1885-1891
Spyridon	1892-1898
Restoration of Arab Patriarchs
Meletius II Doumani	1899-1906
Gregory IV Haddad	1906-1928
Alexander III Tahan	1928-1958
Theodosius VI Abourjaily	1958-1970
Elias IV Muawad	1970-1979
Ignatius IV Hazim	1979-2012
John X Yazigi	2012-present

The list of the bishops of Antioch down to Cyril is given by Eusebius, the 4th century historian of the Church [The History of the Church, Penguin, 1965]. The rest of the list is from different websites. As with the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, the main list is commonly identified as "Greek Orthodox," but historically means the Melkite, i.e. Imperial, Church, which was in opposition to the Monophysite Patriarchs who rejected the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Today this line is self-identified as the "Antiochian Orthodox" Church, and the term "Melkite" is no longer used for it. The "Separation of the Melkites" in 1724 was a schism in the Church where a branch came into existence that entered into communion with Rome and is now called the "Melkite Greek Catholic" Church. The Greek Church was literally headed by Greeks until the "Restoration of the Arab Patriarchs" in 1899, when we get Arab, i.e. Syrian, instead of Greek Patriarchs. Antioch today is part of Turkey, separated from Syria by the French in 1939. The "Antiochian" Patriarch resides in Damascus.

Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch
Sergius of Tella	544-546
Sedē Vacantē, 546-550
Paul II the Black of Alexandria	550-575
Sedē Vacantē, 575-581
Peter III of Raqqa	581-591
Julian I	591-595
Athanasius I Gammolo	595-631
John II of the Sedre	631-648
Theodore	649-667
Severius II bar Masqeh	667-681
Athanasius II	683-686
Julian II	686-708
Elias I	709-723
Athanasius III	724-740
Iwanis I	740-754
Euwanis I	754-?
Athanasius al-Sandali	?-758
George I	758-790
Joseph	790-792
Quryaqos of Takrit	793-817
Dionysius I of Tellmahreh	817-845
John III	846-873
Ignatius II	878-883
Theodosius Romanos of Takrit	887-896
Dionysius II	897-909
John IV Qurzahli	910-922
Baselius I	923-935
John V	936-953
Iwanis II	954-957
Dionysius III	958-961
Abraham I	962-963
John VI Sarigta	965-985
Athanasius IV of Salah	986-1002
John VII bar Abdun	1004-1033
Dionysius IV Yahya	1034-1044
Sedē Vacantē, 1044-1049
John VIII	1049-1057
Athanasius V	1058-1063
John IX bar Shushan	1063-1073
Baselius II	1074-1075
John Abdun	1075-1077
Dionysius V Lazaros	1077-1078
Iwanis III	1080-1082
Dionysius VI	1088-1090
Athanasius VI bar Khamoro	1091-1129
John X bar Mawdyono	1129-1137
Athanasius VII bar Qutreh	1138-1166
Michael I the Great	1166-1199
Athanasius VIII	1200-1207
John XI	1208-1220
Ignatius III David	1222-1252
John XII bar Madani	1252-1263
Ignatius IV Yeshu	1264-1282
Philoxenos I Nemrud	1283-1292
Michael II	1292-1312
Michael III Yeshu	1312-1349
Baselius III Gabriel	1349-1387
Philoxenos II the Writer	1387-1421
Baselius IV Shemun	1421-1444
Ignatius Behnam al-Hadli	1445-1454
Ignatius Khalaf	1455-1483
Ignatius John XIII	1483-1493
Ignatius Nuh of Lebanon	1493-1509
Ignatius Yeshu I	1509-1512
Ignatius Jacob I	1512-1517
Ignatius David I	1517-1520
Ignatius Abd-Allah I	1520-1557
Ignatius Nemet Allah I	1557-1576
Ignatius David II Shah	1576-1591
Ignatius Pilate I	1591-1597
Ignatius Hadayat Allah	1597-1639
Ignatius Simon I	1640-1659
Ignatius Yeshu II Qamsheh	1659-1662
Ignatius Abdul Masih I	1662-1686
Ignatius Andrew Akhidjan	Catholic counter- Patriarch, 1662–1677
Ignatius Peter Sahbadin	Catholic counter- Patriarch, 1677–1702
Ignatius George II	1687-1708
Ignatius Isaac Azar	1709-1722
Ignatius Shukr Allah II	1722-1745
Ignatius George III	1745-1768
Ignatius George IV	1768-1781
Schism with Syrian Catholics, 1782
Ignatius Matthew	1782-1817
Ignatius Yunan	1817-1818
Ignatius George V	1819-1837
Ignatius Elias II	1838-1847
Ignatius Jacob II	1847-1871
Ignatius Peter IV	1872-1894
Ignatius Abdul Masih II	1895-1905
Ignatius Abd Allah II	1906-1915
Ignatius Elias III	1917-1932
Ignatius Afram I Barsoum	1933-1957
Ignatius Jacob III	1957-1980
Ignatius Zakka Iwas	1980-2014
Ignatius Aphrem II	2014-present