• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Research Question:

King of the Americas

Banned
K
Joined
Nov 15, 2001
Messages
6,513
How many Popes have there been?

I am on the Vatican site, and can't manage to locate this number...

Do any of you have this number on cuff?
 
King of the Americas said:
How many Popes have there been?
Click to expand...

The official number is 265. Though some Doubting Thomas might express concern about the veracity of the five 1st century popes.

Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia.

[Edited to add: looking through the list I noticed that it skips over minor details like the Great Schism when there were at times three popes reigning at the same time. Also, all Medieval "antipopes" are excluded. So, the true figure should be somewhat larger, my guess would be around 280 but I don't have a list of rival claimants of the title.]
 
Dancing David said:
As the above poster mentioned there were also the Popes of Avignon! So the numbers may be hard to determine.
Click to expand...

For most of the time Popes of Avignon were the only popes, and there weren't any popes in Rome.

The troubles started when cardinals in Rome and in Avignon both elected a new pope after Gregory XI died in 1378. The official list seems to follow the Avignon line since, for example, John XXIII who ruled in Rome is not in the list.

There were also two popes for a long period between reigns of Holy Roman emperors Heinrich IV and Friedrich II. It was customary for the pope to fight against with the emperor, and the emperor got into habit of nominating a new pope (called "antipope") and the pope nominating a new emperor ("antiemperor").
 
My pursuit...

...was the titled number of this, Pope, so that I could properly address a correspondence to the 'next Pope'.

However, I find the wealth of information I recieve here overwhelming.

I LOVE it!

Thanks guys.
 
The preface to the list of popes appearing in the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995) says:
The following list of popes - 262 in all - is based on the annual Vatican directory, known as the Annuario Pontificio, and on J. N. D. Kelly's The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
Predictably, this source does not recognize more than one legitimate pope at any given point in time. It also enumerates the individuals rather than the papacies - at least one pope served more than once. The aggregate number of popes will obviously depend on whether separate papacies are counted separately. By way of analogy, Grover Cleveland, who served nonconsecutive terms as President of the United States, is usually considered to be both the 22nd and the 24th President. However, my source above does not observe this practice.

I also note that this source drops at least one pope who made the older online Catholic Encyclopedia list: Stephen II. The older encyclopedia has this to say about him:
As he died before his consecration, earlier writers do not appear to have included him in the list of the popes; but, in accordance with the long standing practice of the Roman Church, he is now generally counted among them. This divergent practice has introduced confusion into the way of counting the Popes Stephen.
Click to expand...
In contrast, the more recent encyclopedia says:
An elderly Roman priest who would have been Stephen II had been elected pope on Mar. 22 or 23, 752, but died before being consecrated. In those years consecration rather than valid election was the essential requirement.
Click to expand...
At any rate, I don't think popes go by titled number the way you're describing it. Like kings and queens (e.g. Louis XIV, Elizabeth II), they go by their papal names plus a roman numeral reflecting how many popes before them have also carried the same name (if any).
 
Re: Well...

King of the Americas said:
...not knowing his name, how WOULD one go about addressing the 'next' Pope, if not by this numbering method?
Click to expand...
I guess that depends on what sort of thing you had in mind. There's no one to address in that capacity for the time being. If you're really planning to address correspondence to the next pope, wouldn't you just wait until after his election?

If you simply want to refer to that person in writing addressed to some other audience, what's wrong with "the next pope" or "the successor to Pope John Paul II"?

By the way, the diplomatic etiquette manuals I've found suggest that papal correspondence should be addressed to "His Holiness, the Pope" or "His Holiness, Pope Ringo IV" (or whatever), and the commonly accepted letter greeting in diplomatic correspondence to the pope is "Your Holiness".
 
I am aware...

of the "Holiness" manner in which you suggest. However, I found your "...to the next Pope..." a bit too 'plain'.

I thought that would have the outer address be:

His Holiness,
The Pope
Apostolic Palace,
00120 Vatican City

And then have the inner correspondence sealed under wax and addressed to Pope CCLXVI...in an attempt to address it to the 'next Pope'.
 
I'm intrigued. Not to delve into your private potential correspondence, but what sort of thing would you have to say to someone in the future that couldn't be said better with the benefit of an additional few months/years of hindsight (unless you're not planning to outlive the current pope, which would be extremely surprising).
 
:)

By all means...

You are gonna think this is "woo woo", but the correspondence will contain only this:

"Your Holiness:

You are not the Reformer."

And I will sign it:

"His Majesty,

(my signature)
Albert James Knabe
King of the Americas"

---

This is my attempt to keep the anti-christ as bay:o

I know, I know...horse shi'ite preditions of doomsday seekers, woo woo, the sky is falling crap, but...

I am gonna do it anyway.

Because I believe that there are a LOT of lapsed Catholics looking for a church to believe in, again.

If this 'next Pope' claims openly to be willing to make broad changes in church operation, MANY peope could very well be put under a spell of mis-information all over again. Once again, puting Religion at the forefront of Political Power...

Go ahead, throw your stones now.:wink:
 
further explaination:

A Catholic Church, headed by a BIG Reformationist who claims he will sweep the entire church clean (given the current state of affairs in the church), would ganer much favor among Christians these days, and would once again unify that house...

Such a unification would make a global political power, even moreso.
 
Oh come on!

I thought this was worthy of some kind of discussion...

What could the 'next Pope' become, given the current state of affairs in the Christian community?

A Reformer Pope could very well become quite powerful...
 
posted by ceo_esq
Predictably, this source does not recognize more than one legitimate pope at any given point in time. It also enumerates the individuals rather than the papacies - at least one pope served more than once. The aggregate number of popes will obviously depend on whether separate papacies are counted separately. By way of analogy, Grover Cleveland, who served nonconsecutive terms as President of the United States, is usually considered to be both the 22nd and the 24th President. However, my source above does not observe this practice.
Click to expand...

I am many years away from the Catholic School and Jesuit teachers of my youth, but I thought once you were Pope you stayed there until you died. So is this a recent thing in the Catholic Church or an error?
 
Re: Oh come on!

King of the Americas said:
I thought this was worthy of some kind of discussion...

What could the 'next Pope' become, given the current state of affairs in the Christian community?

A Reformer Pope could very well become quite powerful...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the next pope will be member of the Opus Dei. It will take the RCC backwards :wink8:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom