Where Was Unity in the Catholic Church During the Fourteenth Century with Three Popes at Once?

Brief Catholic Answer

• The Catholic Church faced a significant crisis in the fourteenth century, known as the Western Schism, when rival claimants to the papacy emerged.
• Despite appearances, only one true pope existed at any time, as the Church holds that Christ established a single successor to St. Peter.
• The schism began in 1378 when Urban VI was lawfully elected, but some cardinals, dissenting, elected an antipope, Clement VII.
• Later, a third claimant, Alexander V, emerged, complicating the situation with three lines of papal claimants.
• The Church resolved the schism through the Council of Constance, which led to the election of Pope Martin V in 1417.
• Throughout the crisis, the Church’s essential unity under Christ’s guidance remained intact, despite human errors in identifying the true pope.

Detailed Catholic Answer

Historical Context of the Western Schism

The fourteenth century was a turbulent period for the Catholic Church, marked by political and ecclesiastical challenges that culminated in the Western Schism (1378–1417). This crisis arose after the death of Pope Gregory XI, who had returned the papacy to Rome from Avignon, where it had resided for nearly seventy years. The election of Pope Urban VI in 1378 was intended to stabilize the Church, but his confrontational approach alienated many cardinals, particularly those from France. Some cardinals, claiming the election was invalid due to pressure Ascertain that Urban VI’s election was lawful and conducted under proper canonical procedures, as required by Church law. The dissenting cardinals, however, declared the election coerced and proceeded to elect a rival pope, Clement VII, who set up a competing papacy in Avignon. This division split Christendom, with different regions and rulers aligning with either Rome or Avignon. The Church teaches that only one pope can hold the keys of Peter at a time (Mt 16:18–19), so only one claimant was legitimate. Urban VI’s election, despite disputes, followed established norms, making him the true pope. The schism was not a matter of doctrine but of governance, and the faithful’s confusion did not break the Church’s unity.

The Role of Antipopes

An antipope is a person who claims the papacy without canonical legitimacy. Clement VII, elected by dissenting cardinals, lacked the authority to assume the papal office, as the original election of Urban VI was valid. The situation grew more complex when a group of cardinals, seeking to resolve the schism, convened the Council of Pisa in 1409 and elected Alexander V, creating a third line of claimants. This act exceeded the cardinals’ authority, as only a pope or a legitimately convened council could depose a pope. Alexander V and his successor, John XXIII (not to be confused with the twentieth-century pope), were also antipopes. The Church’s teaching on the papacy, rooted in Christ’s promise to Peter (Mt 16:18), ensures that only one successor holds legitimate authority. The existence of antipopes, while causing confusion, did not alter the Church’s essential unity. Historical records, including papal registries, confirm Urban VI’s line as the legitimate one. The faithful who followed antipopes in good faith were not considered schismatic, as their error was not in doctrine. The Church’s resilience during this period reflects divine protection (Mt 28:20).

The Escalation to Three Claimants

The introduction of a third papal claimant at the Council of Pisa in 1409 deepened the crisis. The council, though attended by many bishops, lacked papal authorization, rendering its decisions non-binding. The deposition of the existing claimants—Gregory XII (Urban VI’s legitimate successor) and Benedict XIII (Clement VII’s successor)—and the election of Alexander V were invalid. This created three competing obediences: Rome, Avignon, and Pisa. Each claimant had supporters among European rulers, clergy, and laity, often influenced by political alliances. For example, France supported Avignon, while England backed Rome. The Church’s unity, however, is not merely organizational but spiritual, grounded in shared faith and sacraments (CCC 815). The confusion over papal legitimacy did not fracture this unity, as all parties professed the same creed. The situation underscored the need for a mechanism to resolve such disputes. The eventual resolution demonstrated the Church’s ability to correct internal divisions.

The Council of Constance and Resolution

The Council of Constance (1414–1418) was convened to end the schism and restore unity. Initially lacking papal authority, it gained legitimacy when Pope Gregory XII, the true pope, formally convoked it before resigning. This act was significant, as it allowed the council to proceed with canonical authority. The council deposed the antipopes Benedict XIII and John XXIII, though Benedict XIII refused to accept the decision and maintained a small following. In 1417, the council elected Pope Martin V, who was universally recognized, effectively ending the schism. The council also addressed other issues, such as the Hussite heresy, showing the Church’s capacity to govern itself under divine guidance (Jn 16:13). The resolution preserved the true papal succession, which the Church holds as unbroken since St. Peter. Historical documents, including conciliar decrees, confirm Martin V’s election as valid. The faithful’s acceptance of Martin V restored visible unity. The schism’s end reaffirmed the Church’s indefectibility (CCC 889).

The Nature of Catholic Unity

Catholic unity is rooted in the Church’s nature as the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12–13), united by faith, sacraments, and governance under the pope (CCC 815). The Western Schism tested this unity but did not destroy it. Disagreements over papal legitimacy were administrative, not doctrinal, and thus did not constitute a schism in the formal sense, which involves rejection of papal authority (CCC 2089). The faithful who followed antipopes in good faith remained within the Church, as their error was not obstinate. The Church’s teaching on unity emphasizes communion with the successor of Peter, but temporary confusion over who held that office did not negate the Church’s spiritual bond. The schism exposed weaknesses in ecclesiastical governance, prompting later reforms, such as clearer procedures for papal elections. The Church’s survival of this crisis reflects Christ’s promise to preserve it (Mt 16:18). Historical accounts, such as those by chroniclers like Froissart, illustrate the complexity of loyalties but affirm the Church’s enduring unity. The resolution at Constance strengthened the Church’s visible communion. The Western Schism, while severe, did not alter the Church’s divine constitution.

Political Influences on the Schism

The Western Schism was heavily influenced by political dynamics, particularly the rivalry between France and England during the Hundred Years’ War. France’s support for the Avignon papacy aligned with its desire to weaken Italian influence in the Church. England, conversely, backed Rome to counter France. Other regions, such as Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, chose sides based on alliances or local interests. This politicization exacerbated the schism, as secular rulers pressured bishops and clergy to align with their preferred claimant. The Church’s teaching, however, holds that its mission transcends temporal powers (Jn 18:36). The involvement of secular authorities in ecclesiastical disputes highlighted the need for the Church to safeguard its independence. The schism’s resolution at Constance reasserted papal authority over political influences. Historical records, such as diplomatic correspondences, reveal the extent of secular involvement. The Church’s ability to overcome these pressures underscores its divine guidance.

The Role of the Cardinals

The College of Cardinals played a central role in both causing and resolving the schism. The dissenting cardinals who elected Clement VII acted beyond their authority, as only a pope or a legitimate council can judge a papal election’s validity. Their claim that Urban VI’s election was coerced lacked sufficient evidence, as canonical procedures were followed. The cardinals at Pisa further complicated matters by electing Alexander V without proper jurisdiction. The Church’s teaching on the cardinals’ role is clear: they elect the pope but cannot depose one without papal or conciliar authority (CCC 882). The eventual cooperation of cardinals at Constance, under Gregory XII’s convocation, facilitated the schism’s end. Historical accounts, such as those in the Acta Concilii Constanciensis, document the cardinals’ actions. The schism exposed the need for clearer canonical norms, later refined in Church law. The cardinals’ errors, while grave, did not break the Church’s unity. Their role in electing Martin V restored order.

Theological Implications

The Western Schism raised theological questions about the papacy and Church governance. The Church teaches that the pope is the visible source of unity, appointed by Christ through the apostles (Mt 16:18–19). The existence of rival claimants tested this belief but did not undermine it, as only one pope was legitimate. The schism prompted debates about conciliarism, the idea that a general council could supersede papal authority. The Council of Constance rejected extreme conciliarism, affirming the pope’s primacy (CCC 880). The schism also highlighted the distinction between administrative errors and doctrinal fidelity. The faithful’s confusion over the true pope was not a rejection of the papacy itself. Theological writings from the period, such as those by Jean Gerson, reflect efforts to balance papal and conciliar roles. The Church’s resolution of the schism reinforced its teaching on papal succession. The crisis ultimately strengthened the Church’s understanding of its governance.

Impact on the Faithful

The Western Schism caused significant confusion among the faithful, who often followed the pope recognized by their local bishops or rulers. The Church teaches that those who adhered to antipopes in good faith remained in communion, as their error was not deliberate (CCC 818). The schism did not disrupt the administration of sacraments or the Church’s spiritual life, as clergy under each claimant continued their ministry. Parish records from the period show continuity in baptisms, marriages, and Masses. The faithful’s loyalty to the Church, despite uncertainty, reflects the strength of their faith (Heb 11:1). The schism’s resolution restored clarity, and the faithful accepted Martin V as pope. The crisis prompted the Church to improve communication with the laity, ensuring greater unity. Pastoral letters from bishops, preserved in archives, urged fidelity to the Church amid confusion. The schism’s impact, while disruptive, did not fracture the Church’s spiritual bond. The faithful’s perseverance testified to the Church’s divine protection.

Lessons for Church Governance

The Western Schism exposed vulnerabilities in the Church’s governance, particularly in papal elections and dispute resolution. The lack of clear mechanisms to address contested elections contributed to the crisis. The Church’s teaching on governance emphasizes the pope’s role as supreme authority, but the schism showed the need for supporting structures (CCC 882). The Council of Constance introduced reforms, such as regular general councils, though these were later moderated. The schism also underscored the importance of canonical clarity, leading to refinements in Church law. The Code of Canon Law, developed centuries later, reflects lessons from this period. Historical analyses, such as those by modern scholars like Francis Oakley, highlight the schism’s governance challenges. The Church’s ability to resolve the crisis strengthened its administrative framework. The schism’s legacy includes a more robust understanding of ecclesiastical authority. These lessons continue to guide the Church’s governance.

The Church’s Divine Protection

The Western Schism tested the Church’s resilience but affirmed its divine protection, as promised by Christ (Mt 28:20). The Church teaches that it is indefectible, incapable of failing in its mission despite human errors (CCC 889). The schism, while a grave crisis, did not alter the Church’s essential unity or doctrinal integrity. The resolution at Constance, guided by the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13), restored visible communion. The true papal succession, from Urban VI to Gregory XII to Martin V, remained unbroken. Historical evidence, including papal bulls and conciliar decrees, confirms this continuity. The Church’s survival of the schism reflects its supernatural character. Theological reflections, such as those by St. Catherine of Siena, who urged unity, emphasize divine guidance. The schism’s resolution strengthened the Church’s witness to Christ’s promise. This period remains a testament to the Church’s enduring unity.

Comparison to Other Schisms

The Western Schism differs from other divisions, such as the East-West Schism of 1054, which involved doctrinal disputes and mutual excommunications. The Western Schism was administrative, not theological, and all parties shared the same faith (CCC 817). Unlike the Protestant Reformation, which rejected papal authority, the Western Schism involved competing claims within the Catholic framework. The Church’s teaching on schism emphasizes rejection of communion, which did not fully apply here (CCC 2089). Historical comparisons, such as those in the works of historian John Mundy, highlight these distinctions. The Western Schism’s resolution was swifter than other divisions, reflecting the Church’s ability to correct internal errors. The crisis did not produce lasting schismatic communities, unlike later movements. The Church’s unity, rooted in Christ (Jn 17:21), remained intact. The schism’s unique nature underscores the Church’s capacity for self-correction. This period stands as a distinct chapter in ecclesiastical history.

Long-Term Effects on the Papacy

The Western Schism had lasting effects on the papacy’s role and perception. The crisis weakened the papacy’s prestige temporarily, as rival claimants diminished its authority. The resolution at Constance, however, reaffirmed papal primacy over conciliarist theories (CCC 880). The schism prompted reforms in papal elections, ensuring greater clarity and legitimacy. The Church’s teaching on the papacy as the foundation of unity (Mt 16:18) was strengthened through this trial. Historical records, such as the Liber Pontificalis, document the papacy’s recovery under Martin V. The schism also highlighted the need for the pope to remain above political influences, a lesson echoed in later centuries. The papacy’s ability to emerge stronger reflects its divine institution. The crisis shaped subsequent popes’ emphasis on unity and reform. The Western Schism ultimately reinforced the papacy’s central role.

The Role of Key Figures

Key figures influenced the schism’s course and resolution. St. Catherine of Siena urged the return of the papacy to Rome and supported Urban VI, emphasizing unity (Letters of Catherine of Siena). Cardinals like Pierre d’Ailly and Jean Gerson shaped conciliar debates, seeking solutions. Pope Gregory XII’s resignation was a selfless act that enabled the Council of Constance to proceed. Martin V’s election restored stability, as he navigated post-schism challenges. The Church’s teaching on the role of saints and leaders highlights their contribution to unity (CCC 828). Historical accounts, such as those by chronicler Ulrich Richental, detail these figures’ actions. Their efforts, guided by providence (Jn 16:13), helped resolve the crisis. The schism’s resolution reflects the collaboration of clergy and laity under divine guidance. These figures remain exemplars of fidelity to the Church.

The Schism’s Legacy

The Western Schism left a lasting legacy in the Church’s history and governance. It prompted reforms that strengthened ecclesiastical structures, such as clearer election procedures. The crisis clarified the balance between papal and conciliar authority, rejecting extreme conciliarism (CCC 880). The schism’s resolution demonstrated the Church’s resilience, reinforcing its indefectibility (CCC 889). Historical studies, such as those by Walter Ullmann, explore the schism’s impact on Church law. The crisis also deepened the Church’s commitment to unity, shaping its responseေ

Conclusion

The Western Schism was a profound challenge to the Catholic Church, but it did not destroy its essential unity. The Church teaches that only one true pope exists at any time, and Urban VI’s line was legitimate (Mt 16:18–19). The schism, resolved through the Council of Constance and the election of Martin V, affirmed the Church’s divine protection (Mt 28:20). The crisis, while causing confusion, did not fracture the Church’s spiritual communion (CCC 815). The faithful’s perseverance and the Church’s self-correction reflect its indefectibility (CCC 889). The schism’s legacy includes stronger governance and a reaffirmed papal primacy. Historical records, such as conciliar decrees and papal registries, confirm the true succession. The Western Schism remains a testament to the Church’s ability to overcome internal division under Christ’s guidance (Jn 17:21). This period underscores the Church’s enduring mission to be the visible sign of unity.

🙏 Support Catholic Answers – Donate via PayPal Now!

• donate monthly
• donate once only

Select a Donation Option (USD)

$10.00 (p/m) $50.00 (p/m) $100.00 (p/m) Other (p/m)

Enter Donation Amount (USD)