Western Schism

Part of the crisis of the late Middle Ages
A 14th-century miniature symbolizing the schism A 14th-century miniature symbolizing the schism
Date	20 September 1378 – 11 November 1417 (39 years, 1 month, 3 weeks and 1 day)
Location	Europe
Type	Christian schism
Cause	Election of two popes by the College of Cardinals in 1378 Election of a third pope by the Council of Pisa in 1409
Motive	International rivalries in Catholic Europe
Outcome	Reunification of the Catholic Church after the Council of Constance

The Western Schism, also known as the Great Divide, the Great Occidental Schism, the Schism of 1378, or the Great Western Schism (Latin: Magnum schisma occidentale, Ecclesiae occidentalis schisma), was a split within the Catholic Church lasting from 20 September 1378 to 11 November 1417, in which bishops residing in Rome and Avignon simultaneously claimed to be the true pope, and were eventually joined by a line of Pisan claimants in 1409. The event was driven by international rivalries, personalities and political allegiances, with the Avignon Papacy in particular being closely tied to the French monarchy.

The papacy had resided in Avignon since 1309, but Pope Gregory XI returned to Rome in 1377. The Catholic Church split in September 1378, when, following Gregory XI's death and Urban VI's subsequent election, a group of French cardinals declared his election invalid due to intimidation and violence and, in the presence of three Italian cardinals, elected Clement VII, who claimed to be the true pope. As Roman claimant, Urban VI was succeeded by Boniface IX, Innocent VII and Gregory XII. Clement VII was succeeded as Avignon claimant by Benedict XIII.

Following several attempts at reconciliation, the Council of Pisa (1409) declared that both Gregory XII and Benedict XIII were heretical and schismatic, and elected another pope, Alexander V.

The schism was finally resolved when Alexander V's successor as Pisan claimant, Antipope John XXIII, called the Council of Constance (1414–1418). The Council arranged for the renunciation of both Roman pope Gregory XII and Pisan antipope John XXIII. The Avignonian antipope Benedict XIII was excommunicated, while Pope Martin V was elected and reigned from Rome.

The split is sometimes referred to as the 'Great Schism', although this term is usually reserved for the East–West Schism of 1054 between the churches remaining in communion with the See of Rome and those remaining with the See of Constantinople.

History

Under pressure from King Philip IV of France, the papacy had, since 1309, resided in Avignon, a papal enclave surrounded by France. Initiated by Pope Clement V, the Avignon Papacy had developed a reputation for corruption that estranged much of Western Christendom. This reputation was attributed to perceptions of strong French influence, the papal curia's efforts to extend its powers of patronage, and attempts to increase its revenues. The last Avignon pope, Gregory XI, at the entreaty of relatives, friends, and his retinue, decided to return to Rome on 17 January 1377. Gregory, however, announced his intention to reverse his decision and return to Avignon just after the Easter celebrations of 1378.

Before he could return to Avignon, Gregory XI died in the Apostolic Palace on 27 March 1378. The Romans put into operation a plan to use intimidation and violence (impressio et metus) to ensure the election of a Roman pope. The pope and his curia had returned to Rome after seventy years in Avignon, and the Romans were prepared to do everything in their power to keep them there. On 8 April 1378, the cardinals elected Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari, as Pope Urban VI.

Two popes

The majority of the cardinals who had elected Urban VI quickly regretted their decision and removed themselves to Anagni. Meeting at Fondi, thirteen cardinals elected Count Robert of Geneva as Pope Clement VII on 20 September 1378. The dissident cardinals argued that the election of Urban VI was invalid because it had been out of fear of the rioting Roman crowds. Unable to maintain himself in Anagni, and following the defeat of his forces at the Battle of Marino, Clement VII fled to Naples, which was ruled by one of his supporters, Queen Joanna I of Naples. Despite being met regally by Joanna, Clement was met with the populace chanting Viva Papa Urbano (Long Live Pope Urban) and Muoia l'Anticristo (Death to the Antichrist), which convinced him to leave. He took a ship to Avignon and reestablished the papal court there. King Charles V of France, who seems to have been irked beforehand by the choice of the Roman pontiff, soon became his greatest protector. Besides France, Clement eventually succeeded in winning to his cause Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Scotland, and most of Italy besides Naples and Savoy. Years later, Owain Glyndŵr's rebellion in Wales also recognized the Avignonian antipope Benedict XIII. King John I of Portugal, the founder of the House of Aviz, who took the throne with English support signed the Treaty of Windsor in 1386 and firmly sided with Urban VI. Unlike their relatives, the Angevin kings of Hungary (Louis I and Mary) supported Rome. Joanna I of Naples, who sided with Clement VII was deposed and replaced by Charles III in 1381. Charles III would later take the throne of Hungary from Mary and her husband Sigismund; for this she was excommunicated by Urban VI.

Consequences

In the intense partisanship that was characteristic of the Middle Ages, the schism engendered a fanatical hatred noted by Johan Huizinga:

when the town of Bruges went over to the "obedience" of Avignon, a great number of people left to follow their trade in a city of Urbanist allegiance.... In the 1382, the oriflamme, which might only be unfurled in a holy cause, was taken up against the Flemings, because they were Urbanists, that is, infidels.

Sustained by such national and factional rivalries, the schism continued after the deaths of both Urban VI in 1389 and Clement VII in 1394. Boniface IX was crowned in Rome in 1389, and Benedict XIII, who was elected against the wishes of King Charles VI of France, reigned in Avignon from 1394. When Pope Boniface died in 1404, the eight cardinals of the Roman conclave offered to refrain from electing a new pope if Benedict would resign; but when Benedict's legates refused on his behalf, the Roman party then proceeded to elect Pope Innocent VII. Discussions continued instead with Innocent, but quickly stalled and by February 1405, and Benedict's envoys had returned to Avignon. Benedict quickly excommunicated Innocent and with an army started marching towards Rome, in May 1405. He occupied Genoa for a year and awaited French military support, which never came. Innocent died 6 November 1406, and the Roman cardinals elected Angelo Correr as Gregory XII.

The suggestion for a church council to resolve the Schism, first made in 1378, was not adopted initially, because canon law required that a pope call a council. Eventually theologians like Pierre d'Ailly and Jean Gerson adopted arguments that permitted the Church to call a council to resolve this issue, while Francesco Zabarella argued that a council could only be convoked by an emperor.

Three popes

Benedict and Gregory agreed to abdicate their respective papacies in December 1406. However, Benedict stated that he wanted to negotiate a solution first. Gregory sent an ambassador to the St. Victor abbey in Marseille, where Benedict was staying. On the other hand, Gregory preferred Savona, and Benedict concurred. They balked at the last moment, and both groups of cardinals abandoned their preferred leaders. The Council of Pisa met in 1409 under the auspices of the cardinals to try solving the dispute. At the fifteenth session, on 5 June 1409, the Council of Pisa attempted to depose both the Roman pope and Avignon antipope as schismatical, heretical, perjured and scandalous, but proceeded to inflame the problem even further by electing Peter Philargi, the cardinal Archbishop of Milan, as Alexander V. He reigned briefly in Pisa from June 26, 1409, to his death in 1410, when he was succeeded by Baldassare Cossa as John XXIII, who achieved limited support.

Council of Constance

In 1414, the Council of Constance was convened by the Pisan pope John XXIII to resolve the schism once and for all. The council was also endorsed by the Roman pope Gregory XII, giving it greater legitimacy. On 6 April 1415, the council issued Haec sancta, stating that the council is the Church's highest governing body and has the authority to remove popes. Haec sancta is today considered invalid by the Catholic Church, on the basis that Gregory XII was the legitimate pope at the time and the decree was passed by the council in a session before his confirmation; further, since it was not used to remove him, it was not actually used to remove the pope.

The council, advised by the theologian Jean Gerson, secured the resignation of Gregory XII and the detention and removal of John XXIII. The Avignon antipope Benedict XIII, who refused to step down, was excommunicated on 27 July 1417, having lost all his supporters in the process. The Council elected Pope Martin V in 1417, essentially ending the schism.

The Avignonian Antipope Benedict XIII, recognized by King Martin of Aragon in 1397, chose to ignore pleas for his resignation. Benedict died 23 May 1423: to succeed him three cardinals elected Gil Sanchez Munoz y Carbon as Clement VIII. Clement VIII resigned in 1429 and recognized Martin V.

Aftermath

Conciliarism gained impetus due to the Schism. This new reformist movement held that a general council is superior to the pope on the strength of its capability to resolve ecclesiastical issues. Theorists such as Jean Gerson explained that the priests and the church itself are the sources of the papal power and, thus, the church should be able to correct, punish, and, if necessary, depose a pope.

On 18 January 1460, Pope Pius II issued the bull Execrabilis which forbade any attempt to appeal papal judgements by general councils.

There was also a marked decline in discipline within the church. Scholars note that the Western Schism effectively eroded the church's authority and its capacity to proclaim the gospel. This dissension and loss of unity ultimately culminated in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.

Official list of popes

For the next five centuries, the Catholic Church recognized the Roman popes as the legitimate line from 1378 to 1409, followed by the Pisan popes from 1409 to 1415. All Avignon popes after 1378 are considered to be antipopes. This recognition is reflected in the numbering of popes Alexander VI, VII, and VIII, who numbered themselves consecutively after their Pisan namesake Alexander V.

The recognition of the Pisan popes made the continued legitimacy of the Roman pope Gregory XII doubtful for 1409–1415. The editions of the Annuario Pontificio through 1946 list the Pisan popes as true popes from 1409 to 1415, and acknowledged that Gregory XII's reign ended in either 1409 or 1415, but editions from the year 1947 began to list the Roman claimants as valid and to describe the Avignonese and Pisan claimants as antipopes.

The Western Schism was, in practice, reinterpreted in 1958 when Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli chose to reuse the ordinal XXIII upon his election as Pope John XXIII, citing "twenty-two [sic] Johns of indisputable legitimacy". (There had actually been twenty undisputed Johns due to antipopes and numbering errors.) Although Roncalli's declaration of assuming the name specified that his decision was made "apart from disputes about legitimacy", this passage was subsequently excised from the version appearing in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and the Pisan popes Alexander V and John XXIII have since been classified as antipopes by the Roman Curia. The reinterpretation is reflected in modern editions of the Annuario Pontificio, which extend Gregory XII's reign to 1415. The line of Roman popes is now retroactively recognized by the Catholic Church as the sole legitimate line during the Western Schism. However, Popes Alexander VI through VIII have not been renumbered, leaving a gap in the numbering sequence.

According to John F. Broderick (1987):

Doubt still shrouds the validity of the three rival lines of pontiffs during the four decades subsequent to the still disputed papal election of 1378. This makes suspect the credentials of the cardinals created by the Roman, Avignon, and Pisan claimants to the Apostolic See. Unity was finally restored without a definitive solution to the question; for the Council of Constance succeeded in terminating the Western Schism, not by declaring which of the three claimants was the rightful one, but by eliminating all of them by forcing their abdication or deposition, and then setting up a novel arrangement for choosing a new pope acceptable to all sides. To this day the Church has never made any official, authoritative pronouncement about the papal lines of succession for this confusing period; nor has Martin V or any of his successors. Modern scholars are not agreed in their solutions, although they tend to favor the Roman line.

Papal recognition

Papacy	File:BlasonComtatVenaissin.svg Avignon popes	File:Coat of arms of the Holy See (Renaissance shape).svg Roman popes	File:C o a Johannes XXIII (antipapa).svg Pisan popes (from 1409)
Supporters:	House of Valois Kingdom of France (until 1409) Kingdom of Navarre Kingdom of Naples (until 1382, continued to fight Hungary) Kingdom of Portugal (until 1385) Burgundian State Crown of Aragon Crown of Castile Kingdom of Scotland Kingdom of Sicily County of Savoy Duchy of Brittany Kingdom of Cyprus Crown of Bohemia Knights of Rhodes Welsh rebels (fought against England) County of Foix County of Armagnac Kingdom of Tyrconnell Mayo Burkes small number of estates of the Holy Roman Empire	Italian city-states (Central-Northern Italy) Papal States Republic of Venice Republic of Genoa Republic of Florence Holy Roman Empire (majority and the Emperor, only a small number of estates aligned with Avignon) Kingdom of England Ireland under English rule Gaelic kingdoms of Ireland Kingdom of Naples (since 1382) Kingdom of Portugal (aligned with Rome in 1385) Kingdom of Hungary (until 1385) Kingdom of Hungary (since 1385) Crown of Poland Grand Duchy of Lithuania County of Flanders Kingdom of Denmark Kingdom of Norway Kingdom of Sweden Teutonic Order Duchy of Aquitaine Ghent rebels (fought against France)	Kingdom of France (from 1409) Kingdom of England Ireland under English rule Crown of Poland (changed two times to Roman pope Gregory XII in 1410 and 1414) Grand Duchy of Lithuania Kingdom of Hungary (changed to Roman pope Gregory XII in 1414) Kingdom of Portugal (began supporting Pisa in 1409) Kingdom of Denmark Kingdom of Norway Kingdom of Sweden some imperial states of Holy Roman Empire Teutonic Order (from 1409–1415 was in alliance with Pisa)

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

This schism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries differs in all points from the Eastern Schism. The latter was a real revolt against the supreme authority of the Church, fomented by the ambition of the patriarchs of Constantinople, favoured by the Greek emperors, supported by the Byzantine clergy and people, and lasting nine centuries. The Western Schism was only a temporary misunderstanding, even though it compelled the Church for forty years to seek its true head; it was fed by politics and passions, and was terminated by the assembling of the councils of Pisa and Constance. This religious division, infinitely less serious than the other, will be examined in its origin, its developments, the means employed to end it, and its ending in 1417 by the election of an undisputed pope. From a legal and apologetic standpoint what did the early doctors think of it? What is the reasoned opinion of modern theologians and canonists? Was the real pope to be found at Avignon or at Rome?

(1) Pope Gregory XI had left Avignon to return to Italy and had re-established the pontifical see in the Eternal City, where he died on 27 March, 1378. At once attention was directed to the choice of his successor. The question was most serious. Cardinals, priests, nobles, and the Romans in general were interested in it, because on the election to be made by the conclave depended the residence of the future pope at Avignon or at Rome. Since the beginning of the century the pontiffs had fixed their abode beyond the Alps; the Romans, whose interests and claims had been so long slighted, wanted a Roman or at least an Italian pope. The name of Bartolommeo Prignano, Archbishop of Bari, was mentioned from the first. This prelate had been Vice-Chancellor of the Roman Church, and was regarded as the enemy of vice, simony, and display. His morals were exemplary and his integrity rigid. He was regarded by all as eligible. The sixteen cardinals present at Rome met in conclave on 7 April, and on the following day chose Prignano. During the election disturbance reigned in the city. The people of Rome and the vicinity, turbulent and easily roused, had, under the sway of circumstances, loudly declared their preferences and antipathies, and endeavoured to influence the decision of the cardinals. Were these facts, regrettable in themselves, sufficient to rob the members of the conclave of the necessary freedom of mind and to prevent the election from being valid? This is the question which has been asked since the end of the fourteenth century. On its solution depends our opinion of the legitimacy of the popes of Rome and Avignon. It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. On the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

Thus far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future. Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. Their dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete.

Clement VII was related to or allied with the principal royal families of Europe; he was influential, intellectual, and skilful in politics. Christendom was quickly divided into two almost equal parties. Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope? The saints themselves were divided: St Catherine of Siena, St. Catherine of Sweden, Bl. Peter of Aragon, Bl. Ursulina of Parma, Philippe d'Alencon, and Gerard de Groote were in the camp of Urban; St. Vincent Ferrer, Bl. Peter of Luxemburg, and St. Colette belonged to the party of Clement. The century's most famous doctors of law were consulted and most of them decided for Rome. Theologians were divided. Germans like Henry of Hesse or Langstein (Epistola concilii pacis) and Conrad of Glenhausen (Ep. brevis; Ep. Concordioe) inclined towards Urban; Pierre d'Ailly, his friend Philippe de Maizieres, his pupils Jean Gerson and Nicholas of Clemanges, and with them the whole School of Paris, defended the interests of Clement. The conflict of rival passions and the novelty of the situation rendered understanding difficult and unanimity impossible. As a general thing scholars adopted the opinion of their country. The powers also took sides. The greater number of the Italian and German states, England, and Flanders supported the pope of Rome. On the other hand France, Spain, Scotland, and all the nations in the orbit of France were for the pope of Avignon. Nevertheless Charles V had first suggested officially to the cardinals of Anagni the assembling of a general council, but he was not heard. Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon. "There are two masters in the vessel who are fencing with and contradicting each other", said Jean Petit at the Council of Paris (1406). Several ecclesiastical assemblies met in France and elsewhere without definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. The council which assembled a Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West.

(2) From this brief summary it will be readily concluded that this schism did not at all resemble that of the East, that it was something unique, and that it has remained so in history. It was not a schism properly so called, being in reality a deplorable misunderstanding concerning a question of fact, an historical complication which lasted forty years. In the West there was no revolt against papal authority in general, no scorn of the sovereign power of which St. Peter was the representative. Faith in the necessary unity never wavered a particle; no one wished voluntarily to separate from the head of the Church. Now this intention alone is the characteristic mark of the schismatic spirit (Summa, II-II, Q. xxxix, a. 1). On the contrary everyone desired that unity, materially overshadowed and temporarily compromised, should speedily shine forth with new splendour. The theologians, canonists, princes, and faithful of the fourteenth century felt so intensely and maintained so vigorously that this character of unity was essential to the true Church of Jesus Christ, that at Constance solicitude for unity took precedence of that for reform. The benefit of unity had never been adequately appreciated till it had been lost, till the Church had become bicephalous of tricephalous, and there seemed to be no head precisely because there were too many. Indeed the first mark of the true Church consists above all in unity under one head, the Divinely appointed guardian of the unity of faith and of worship. Now in practice there was then no wilful error regarding the necessity of this character of the true Church, much less was there any culpable revolt against the known head. There was simply ignorance, and among the greater number invincible ignorance regarding the person of the true pope, regarding him who was at that time the visible depositary of the promises of the invisible Head. How indeed was this ignorance to be dispelled? The only witnesses of the facts, the authors of the double election, were the same persons. The cardinals of 1378 held successive opinions. They had in turn testified for Urban, the first pope elected, on 8 April, and for Clement of Avignon on 20 September. Who were to be believed? The members of the Sacred College, choosing and writing in April, or the same cardinals speaking and acting contradictorily in September? Fondi was the starting point of the division; there likewise must be sought the serious errors and formidable responsibilities.

Bishops, princes, theologians, and canonists were in a state of perplexity from which they could not emerge in consequence of the conflicting, not disinterested, and perhaps insincere testimony of the cardinals. Thenceforth how were the faithful to dispel uncertainty and form a morally sure opinion? They relied on their natural leaders, and these, not knowing exactly what to hold, followed their interests or passions and attached themselves to probabilities. It was a terrible and distressing problem which lasted forty years and tormented two generations of Christians; a schism in the course of which there was no schismatic intention, unless exception perhaps be made of some exalted persons who should have considered the interests of the Church before all else. Exception should also be made of some doctors of the period whose extraordinary opinions show what was the general disorder of minds during the schism (N. Valois, I, 351; IV, 501). Apart from these exceptions no one had the intention of dividing the seamless robe, no one formally desired schism; those concerned were ignorant or misled, but not culpable. In behalf of the great majority of clergy and people must be pleaded the good faith which excludes all errors and the wellnigh impossibility for the simple faithful to reach the truth. This is the conclusion reached by a study of the facts and contemporary documents. This King Charles V, the Count of Flanders, the Duke of Brittany, and Jean Gerson, the great chancellor of the university, vie with one another in declaring. D'Ailly, then Bishop of Cambrai, in his diocesan synods echoed the same moderate and conciliatory sentiments. In 1409 he said to the Genoese: "I know no schismatics save those who stubbornly refuse to learn the truth, or who after discovering it refuse to submit to it, or who still formally declare that they do not want to follow the movement for union". Schism and heresy as sins and vices, he adds in 1412, can only result from stubborn opposition either to the unity of the Church, or to an article of faith. This is the pure doctrine of the Angelic Doctor (cf. Tshackert, "Peter von Ailli", appendix 32, 33).

(3) Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope. What does it matter, in this objective relation, that it is not manifest to all and is not recognized by all till long after? A treasure is bequeathed to me, but I do not know whether it is in the chest A or in the casket B. Am I any less the possessor of this treasure?" After the theologian let us hear the canonist. The following are the words of Bouix, so competent in all these questions. Speaking of the events of this sad period he says: "This dissension was called schism, but incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called" (De Papa, I, 461).

(4) To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenrother, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Bruck, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". Does not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? A final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate. We have already quoted much, having had to rely on ancient and contemporary testimonies, on those of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as on those of the nineteenth and even the twentieth, but we shall transcribe two texts borrowed from writers who with regard to the Church are at opposite poles. The first is Gregorovius, whom no one will suspect of exaggerated respect for the papacy. Concerning the schismatic divisions of the period he writes: "A temporal kingdom would have succumbed thereto; but the organization of the spiritual kingdom was so wonderful, the ideal of the papacy so indestructible, that this, the most serious of schisms, served only to demonstrate its indivisibility" (Gesch. der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, VI, 620). From a widely different standpoint de Maistre holds the same view: "This scourge of contemporaries is for us an historical treasure. It serves to prove how immovable is the throne of St. Peter. What human organization would have withstood this trial?" (Du Pape, IV, conclusion).

Bibliography

• Atwood, Craig D. (2001). Always Reforming: A History of Christianity Since 1300. Mercer University Press.
• Bellitto, Christopher M. (2002). The General Councils. Paulist Press.
• Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Renate (2009). "The Conceptualization and Imagery of the Great Schism". In Rollo-Koster, Joëlle; Izbicki, Thomas M. (eds.). A Companion to the Great Western Schism (1378–1417). Brill. pp. 123–158.
• Broderick, John F. (1987). "The Sacred College of Cardinals: Size and Geographical Composition (1099–1986)". Archivum Historiae Pontificiae. 25. Gregorian Biblical Press: 7–71.
• Cable, Martin J. (2015). "Cum essem in Constantie...": Raffaele Fulgosio and the Council of Constance, 1414-1415. Brill.
• Coriden, James (2004). An Introduction to Canon Law. Paulist Press. ISBN 0809142562.
• Creighton, Mandell (2012). The Great Schism. The Council of Constance, 1378–1418. Houghton, Mifflin & Company.
• Fleck, Cathleen A. (2009). "Seeking Legitimacy:Art and Manuscripts for the Popes in Avignon from 1378 to 1417". In Rollo-Koster, Joëlle; Izbicki, Thomas M. (eds.). A Companion to the Great Western Schism (1378–1417). Brill. pp. 239–302.
• Fleck, Cathleen A. (2016). The Clement Bible at the Medieval Courts of Naples and Avignon: "A Story of Papal Power, Royal Prestige, and Patronage. Routledge.266
• Gregorovius, Ferdinand (1906). Hamilton, Annie (ed.). History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages. Vol. VI, Part II. George Bell.
• González, Justo (2010). The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. New York: HarperCollins. pp. 408–409. ISBN 9780061855887.
• Huizinga, Johan (1924). The Waning of the Middle Ages: A Study of the Forms of Life, Thought and Art in France and the Netherlands in the XIVth and XVth Centuries. Edward Arnold & Co.
• Hunyadi, Zsolt (2017). "The Western Schism and Hungary: from Louis I to Sigismund of Luxembourg". Chronica: Annual of the Institute of History, University of Szeged Hungary. 13: 44–53. ISSN 1588-2039.
• "I Choose John..." Time. Vol. LXXII No.19. 1958. p. 91.
• Keen, Maurice, ed. (2010). Medieval Warfare: A History. Oxford University Press.
• Kelly, J.N.D. (1986). Oxford Dictionary of the Popes. Oxford University Press.
• Kneupper, Frances Courtney (2016). The Empire At The End Of Time. Oxford University Press.
• Linder, Robert D. (2008). The Reformation Era. Greenwood Press.
• Logan, F. Donald (2002). A History of the Church in the Middle Ages. Routledge.
• McGuire, Brian Patrick (2006). A Companion to Jean Gerson. Brill.
• Oakley, Francis (2003). The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300-1870. Oxford University Press.
• Oakley, Francis (2008). "The Conciliar Heritage and the Politics of Oblivion". In Christianson, Gerald; Izbicki, Thomas M; Bellitto, Christopher M. (eds.). The Church, the Councils, and Reform: The Legacy of the Fifteenth Century. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press. p. 89. ISBN 978-0813215273.
• O'Brien, Emily (2015). The 'Commentaries' of Pope Pius II (1458-1464) and the Crisis of the Fifteenth-Century Papacy. University of Toronto Press.
• O'Callaghan, Joseph F. (1975). A History of Medieval Spain. Cornell University Press.
• Orji, Cyril (2021). An Introduction to Religious and Theological Studies (2nd ed.). Cascade Books.
• Riccoboni, Sister Bartolomea (2000). Bornstein, Daniel (ed.). Life and Death in a Venetian Convent: The Chronicle and Necrology of Corpus. The University of Chicago Press.
• Richardson, Carol M. (2009). Reclaiming Rome: Cardinals in the Fifteenth Century. Brill.
• Rollo-Koster, Joëlle (2009). "Civil Violence and the Initiation of the Schism". In Rollo-Koster, Joëlle; Izbicki, Thomas M. (eds.). A Companion to the Great Western Schism (1378–1417). Brill. pp. 9–66.
• Rollo-Koster, Joëlle (2022). The Great Western Schism, 1378–1417: Performing Legitimacy, Performing Unity. Cambridge University Press.
• Rosenwein, Barbara H. (2018). A Short History of the Middle Ages. Vol. II: From c.900 to c.1500. University of Toronto Press.
• Scott, Karen (1993). "Io Catarina: Ecclesiastical Politics and Oral Culture in the Letters of Catherine of Siena". In Cherewatuk, Karen; Wiethaus, Ulrike (eds.). Dear Sister: Medieval Women and the Epistolary Genre. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Stump, Philip H. (2009). "The Council of Constance (1414-1418) and the End of the Schism". In Rollo-Koster, Joëlle; Izbicki, Thomas M. (eds.). A Companion to the Great Western Schism (1378–1417). Brill. pp. 395–442.
• Swanson, Robert (2021). "The church and religious life: The papacy". In Lazzarini, Isabella (ed.). The Later Middle Ages. Oxford University Press. pp. 79–108.
• Trexler, R.C. (1974). The Spiritual Power: Republican Florence under Interdict. Brill.
• Villalon, L. J. Andrew (2014). "10. War and the Great Schism: Military Factors Determining Allegiances in Iberia". Journal of Medieval Military History. XII: 217–239. ISBN 9781843839361. ISSN 1477-545X.
• Walsh, Michael J. (2011). The Cardinals: Thirteen Centuries of the Men Behind the Papal Throne. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 9780802829412.
• Lindberg, Carter. The European Reformations. Available from: Yuzu, (3rd Edition). Wiley Global Research (STMS), 2020.

External links

• The Age of the Great Western Schism
• Catholic Encyclopedia article