Questions About Papal Infallibility

[The Remonstrant]

[…] The history of the church is long and messy.

[simplicio]

Yes.



One was real the other were fakes.



1st Vatican Council.

Source: Decrees of the First Vatican Council

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

© Copyright Original Source

As stated, its only when a pope speaks ex cathedra that his utterances are considered infallible (read - irreformable), and binding on all believers as a matter of faith. This has happened only two times in history though.

I am not sure that the word "retroactive" is accurate, it implies that the doctrine is applied to previous cases where it did not exist. Catholics hold that the popes have had the same function throughout history.

I have a question for the Protestants: if someone asks how to get to heaven, would you consider your answer to be fallible or infallible? I ask because usually this discussion revolves around what things are infallible and what fallible/infallible actually means, as well as the source of any infallibility.

And another question, when was the trinity actually defined? How do we date the "invention" of the trinity?

[simplicio]

What bugs me about this is the general post facto nature of these sorts of declarations, by the winning side. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "anti-popes" which is essentially a whitewash of the papal list.

The winning side got to write the Athanasian Creed, the Arians didn't get their formulation accepted. The winning side rejected the gnostic writings in the early centuries. The winning side condemned the heresies of Arianism, Monothelites, Monophysites, Nestorians, Pelagians.

Would you prefer that the losing side gets to define Christianity?

[Teallaura]

Was there some part of 'not debating' that you didn't get?

Anyway, I got what I needed. Thanks everyone - y'all can take it from here.

[simplicio]

apologies.

[One Bad Pig]

The winning side got to write the Athanasian Creed, the Arians didn't get their formulation accepted. The winning side rejected the gnostic writings in the early centuries. The winning side condemned the heresies of Arianism, Monothelites, Monophysites, Nestorians, Pelagians.

Would you prefer that the losing side gets to define Christianity?

The Arians were on the winning side of several councils which gave the alternative creeds which were more acceptable to them. The so-called Athanasian Creed wasn't written by Athanasius, and is AFAIR Western (and non-conciliar) in origin. This is pretty much beside the point, however, since the 'anti-popes' weren't generally labeled as heretical, merely unworthy of the chair and/or schismatic. Further, the emphasis of what bugs me is not "winning side" but "post facto nature." All those other 'winning sides' of which you speak held their positions prior to winning.

[Rushing Jaws]

Not interested in a debate - just looking for information.

Play nice!


Okay, my understanding is that the formal doctrine of papal infallibility is a relative late comer and that it concerns matters of doctrine only (the pope's doctrine is infallible but his church history can be way off). I have the following questions about it:
1) Is it retroactive?
2) If so, what about times when there were more than one claimant to the papacy?
3) If not, why not? Why are only modern popes infallible?
4) Where does it come from officially (what document or documents)?

Thank you!

Bearing in mind what you said:

1. This is like asking whether physics is retroactive. Sub-atomic physics does not alter the particles, and actions, that it describes; it is a very recent development in the sciences, which describes what was previously not understood more clearly. It does not change what it describes.

Papal infallibility does not retcon old facts of theology - it is a comparatively new formulation, that describes old facts with greater precision than hitherto, and with magisterial authority. Past definitions of doctrine, AKA dogmas, are infallibly true, whether enunciated by the Pope alone, by the Pope with the bishops of the Catholic world, or by Pope and bishops in an Ecumenical Council.

The dogma is a “latecomer”, but only in being dogmatised. All Catholic teaching outside the Bible could be called a latecomer, the Christological dogmas no less truly than the dogmas defined by Vatican I. St Paul’s teaching is a “latecomer”, compared to that of Christ. That a dogma is late in being discerned to be true, and to be a dogma, and to be definable, does not in the slightest affect its truth, its authority, its claim to be believed, or its character as truth revealed by God.

A dogmatic definition works like a microscope: it takes what was in any case part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, and magnifies it to make it more clearly seen than it was before, so that the Church can, by seeing it more clearly, see Christ more clearly. It is not an invention of what did not exist before. The difference in the Faith of Catholics before the definition of dogma X, and afterwards, is not that something has been tacked on from outside the Faith, but, that something that was in the Faith but not clearly seen to be in it, is at least seen clearly to be part of it. There may be many dogmas yet to be defined, that no-one now living is aware of. If defined, they will be part of the Divinely Revealed Apostolic Deposit of the Faith, and will be part of it now. The Church requires the acceptance of all that she teaches, whether made explicit already, or yet to be made explicit. The Faith is the same for all times and places - what is not the same, is the clarity of sight it is seen with.

2. In 1165, the anti-pope Lucius III beatified Charlemagne. Although this action had no authority, the Church has ratified it, and so, retro-actively made good its lack of legitimacy. It is legitimate because the legitimate and competent authoritied in the CC have legitimised it - its legitimacy does not derive from the action of the anti-pope.

There have been 40 or so anti-popes since St Hippolytus of Rome, up to Pius XIII. Very few of them have any claim to be legitimate Popes. The Great Schism of the West from 1378 to 1417 is exceptional. To cut a long story short, the competing lines of Popes are regarded as “Popes in their obediences”; by a legal fiction, the acts of the antipopes are regarded as legitimate Papal acts, as though they had been performed by the rightful, legitimate Pope, unless there is some reason to treat them as invalid actions.

3. All Popes are infallible, past and present, when they choose to exercise the infallibility of the authority to teach that is vested in their office. For:

1. Not all acts of the man who is Pope are performed in his capacity as Pope
2. Not all acts he performs as Pope are acts of teaching.
3. Not all teaching acts he performs as Pope are exercises of the infallibility vested in his office.
4. Those acts of teaching by the Pope are infallible, that are:

a. taught in discharge of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians;
b. definitions of doctrine;
c. regarding faith or morals;
d. to be held by the universal Church.

And “these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable”. That is, they do not have to be confirmed by being accepted by the Church; or, in technical language, they do not need to be received by the Church, to have force as infallible.

All Papal teaching - all the Church’s teaching - is authoritative: it comes to Catholics with a claim to our interior assent, our obedience, and our submission. Regardless of whether it is infallible or not. To say “Teaching X is not taught infallibly, so I am entitled to deny it”, is a widespread but mistaken attitude. The authentic teaching of the Church, is that which she recognises as her own teaching, whether infallible or not - it is distinguished from the teaching of theologians and others, however pious and orthodox and edifying, that is not recognised by the Church as her own, but is not opposed to her teaching.

If these points are borne in mind, a world of confusion will be avoided.

4. The two principal sources for the dogma of Papal infallibility are:

a. The Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Pope Pius IX in 1870, chapter 4, near the end - the definition runs as follows:

“And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

That is an infallibly true definition of doctrine, and it is infallibly true regardless of the reasoning for it, and regardless of the characteristics, quirks or failings of the Pope defining it. Those, however real, are not the foundation of the dogma, so they cannot be reasons to believe or to reject it. The human agency of the human teacher sinks down, as it were, behind the Authority of the Divine Teacher and Eternal Shepherd of the Church Who teaches through him. Dogmas are as undoubtedly certain as though they proceeded from the lips of Christ.

b. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, in 1964, paragraph 25.

Paragraph 25 runs as follows:

”25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)


And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)


But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html


The same authentic doctrine of V2 is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 891.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

Sorry about the length of this. All of that is meant only as information - not as apologetic for this dogma. It is very difficult to give clear info on this very controversial subject, without touching on a variety of other subjects.

[Teallaura]

Bearing in mind what you said:

1. This is like asking whether physics is retroactive. Sub-atomic physics does not alter the particles, and actions, that it describes; it is a very recent development in the sciences, which describes what was previously not understood more clearly. It does not change what it describes.

Papal infallibility does not retcon old facts of theology - it is a comparatively new formulation, that describes old facts with greater precision than hitherto, and with magisterial authority. Past definitions of doctrine, AKA dogmas, are infallibly true, whether enunciated by the Pope alone, by the Pope with the bishops of the Catholic world, or by Pope and bishops in an Ecumenical Council.

The dogma is a “latecomer”, but only in being dogmatised. All Catholic teaching outside the Bible could be called a latecomer, the Christological dogmas no less truly than the dogmas defined by Vatican I. St Paul’s teaching is a “latecomer”, compared to that of Christ. That a dogma is late in being discerned to be true, and to be a dogma, and to be definable, does not in the slightest affect its truth, its authority, its claim to be believed, or its character as truth revealed by God.

A dogmatic definition works like a microscope: it takes what was in any case part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, and magnifies it to make it more clearly seen than it was before, so that the Church can, by seeing it more clearly, see Christ more clearly. It is not an invention of what did not exist before. The difference in the Faith of Catholics before the definition of dogma X, and afterwards, is not that something has been tacked on from outside the Faith, but, that something that was in the Faith but not clearly seen to be in it, is at least seen clearly to be part of it. There may be many dogmas yet to be defined, that no-one now living is aware of. If defined, they will be part of the Divinely Revealed Apostolic Deposit of the Faith, and will be part of it now. The Church requires the acceptance of all that she teaches, whether made explicit already, or yet to be made explicit. The Faith is the same for all times and places - what is not the same, is the clarity of sight it is seen with.

2. In 1165, the anti-pope Lucius III beatified Charlemagne. Although this action had no authority, the Church has ratified it, and so, retro-actively made good its lack of legitimacy. It is legitimate because the legitimate and competent authoritied in the CC have legitimised it - its legitimacy does not derive from the action of the anti-pope.

There have been 40 or so anti-popes since St Hippolytus of Rome, up to Pius XIII. Very few of them have any claim to be legitimate Popes. The Great Schism of the West from 1378 to 1417 is exceptional. To cut a long story short, the competing lines of Popes are regarded as “Popes in their obediences”; by a legal fiction, the acts of the antipopes are regarded as legitimate Papal acts, as though they had been performed by the rightful, legitimate Pope, unless there is some reason to treat them as invalid actions.

3. All Popes are infallible, past and present, when they choose to exercise the infallibility of the authority to teach that is vested in their office. For:

1. Not all acts of the man who is Pope are performed in his capacity as Pope
2. Not all acts he performs as Pope are acts of teaching.
3. Not all teaching acts he performs as Pope are exercises of the infallibility vested in his office.
4. Those acts of teaching by the Pope are infallible, that are:

a. taught in discharge of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians;
b. definitions of doctrine;
c. regarding faith or morals;
d. to be held by the universal Church.

And “these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable”. That is, they do not have to be confirmed by being accepted by the Church; or, in technical language, they do not need to be received by the Church, to have force as infallible.

All Papal teaching - all the Church’s teaching - is authoritative: it comes to Catholics with a claim to our interior assent, our obedience, and our submission. Regardless of whether it is infallible or not. To say “Teaching X is not taught infallibly, so I am entitled to deny it”, is a widespread but mistaken attitude. The authentic teaching of the Church, is that which she recognises as her own teaching, whether infallible or not - it is distinguished from the teaching of theologians and others, however pious and orthodox and edifying, that is not recognised by the Church as her own, but is not opposed to her teaching.

If these points are borne in mind, a world of confusion will be avoided.

4. The two principal sources for the dogma of Papal infallibility are:

a. The Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Pope Pius IX in 1870, chapter 4, near the end - the definition runs as follows:

“And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

That is an infallibly true definition of doctrine, and it is infallibly true regardless of the reasoning for it, and regardless of the characteristics, quirks or failings of the Pope defining it. Those, however real, are not the foundation of the dogma, so they cannot be reasons to believe or to reject it. The human agency of the human teacher sinks down, as it were, behind the Authority of the Divine Teacher and Eternal Shepherd of the Church Who teaches through him. Dogmas are as undoubtedly certain as though they proceeded from the lips of Christ.

b. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, in 1964, paragraph 25.

Paragraph 25 runs as follows:

”25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)


And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)


But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html


The same authentic doctrine of V2 is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 891.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

Sorry about the length of this. All of that is meant only as information - not as apologetic for this dogma. It is very difficult to give clear info on this very controversial subject, without touching on a variety of other subjects.

Thanks, RJ - I appreciate the effort!

[Rushing Jaws]

....I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "anti-popes" which is essentially a whitewash of the papal list.

Not really. There are anti-popes at present, but there is no doubt as to who is legitimate Pope. There is some question as to whether Leo VIII was a legitimate Pope, but anti-popes like Lucius III and his successors were set up by Frederick Barbarossa in opposition to the already-existing Pope, Alexander III (1159-81), and had no authority outside Germany.

The anti-pope Benedict XIII (1394-1423) had a couple of successors until after 1430, after which his line ended. The Great Schism, during which he was elected in opposition to the Roman Pope, ended in 1417 when all the Catholic world, except for him and his followers in Spain, recognised Martin V (1417-31) as Pope. That the Roman Popes regarded Benedict XIII as illegitimate, is shown by the fact that his name and number were assumed by the Roman Pope Benedict XIII about 300 years later.

By contrast, the anti-pope Alexander V was recognised as having been a Pope in some sense, however qualified, when Cardinal Borgia became Pope in 1492 as Alexander VI.

The status as anti-pope of most of the 40 or so anti-popes is not in doubt.

So it is not quite right to speak of a “whitewash of the Papal list”. There have certainly been revisions to it:

The non-existent Donus II no longer appears on it
Stephen II, who died 2 days after his election in 752, now appears in [brackets].
The uncertainty over the identity of the Felix listed as an anti-pope in 355 has now been sorted out.
There is a possibility that the anti-pope Dioscorus in 530 can be regarded as a legitimate Pope.
OTOH, the pontificate of St Martin I (649- exiled 653 - died 655) still overlaps with that of his de facto successor St Eugenius I (654-657). That is nothing new.

There are historical and canonical obscurities in the list, as there were before, but no whitewash. The list in the Annuario Pontificio lists all the Popes and all the anti-popes except those since 1950. The anti-popes are named in [brackets], and there are notes on matters of note. There is always danger that one is biased, but even so, I don’t think it can be fairly claimed that the list in the AP is dishonest, ignorant, or hiding anything.

[One Bad Pig]

Not really. There are anti-popes at present, but there is no doubt as to who is legitimate Pope. There is some question as to whether Leo VIII was a legitimate Pope, but anti-popes like Lucius III and his successors were set up by Frederick Barbarossa in opposition to the already-existing Pope, Alexander III (1159-81), and had no authority outside Germany.

The anti-pope Benedict XIII (1394-1423) had a couple of successors until after 1430, after which his line ended. The Great Schism, during which he was elected in opposition to the Roman Pope, ended in 1417 when all the Catholic world, except for him and his followers in Spain, recognised Martin V (1417-31) as Pope. That the Roman Popes regarded Benedict XIII as illegitimate, is shown by the fact that his name and number were assumed by the Roman Pope Benedict XIII about 300 years later.

By contrast, the anti-pope Alexander V was recognised as having been a Pope in some sense, however qualified, when Cardinal Borgia became Pope in 1492 as Alexander VI.

The status as anti-pope of most of the 40 or so anti-popes is not in doubt.

So it is not quite right to speak of a “whitewash of the Papal list”. There have certainly been revisions to it:

The non-existent Donus II no longer appears on it
Stephen II, who died 2 days after his election in 752, now appears in [brackets].
The uncertainty over the identity of the Felix listed as an anti-pope in 355 has now been sorted out.
There is a possibility that the anti-pope Dioscorus in 530 can be regarded as a legitimate Pope.
OTOH, the pontificate of St Martin I (649- exiled 653 - died 655) still overlaps with that of his de facto successor St Eugenius I (654-657). That is nothing new.

There are historical and canonical obscurities in the list, as there were before, but no whitewash. The list in the Annuario Pontificio lists all the Popes and all the anti-popes except those since 1950. The anti-popes are named in [brackets], and there are notes on matters of note. There is always danger that one is biased, but even so, I don’t think it can be fairly claimed that the list in the AP is dishonest, ignorant, or hiding anything.

I don't mean "whitewash" as in "dishonest, ignorant, or hiding anything." It's more "we've decided after the fact that this guy wasn't worthy of being pope, so we'll call him an anti-pope."