The Great Western Schism (1378-1417)

A schism within the West, not between West and East

The word "schism" designates in Catholic law the refusal of submission to the Sovereign Pontiff or the refusal of communion with those who are subject to him.^[10] This definition applies as much to the Eastern Schism — where two bodies of apostolic Churches ceased to commune together — as to the Western Schism. But the two situations are profoundly different.

The Eastern Schism (1054 and the following centuries) durably separates the Latin Catholic communion and the Byzantine Churches: two ecclesiologies, two disciplines, two entire liturgical traditions remain standing, but they no longer celebrate the Eucharist together. The Western Schism, by contrast, shatters no local Church in two: it is the same Latin Church that is asked, in each kingdom, to discern which of the two or three Roman authorities is the true one.^[11]

The Catholic Encyclopedia stresses the distinction in very clear terms. The quarrel is not a revolt against the papacy as an institution: it is, it writes, "a deplorable confusion over a question of fact", in which the majority of the faithful "were ignorant or deceived, but not guilty" — a situation classical theology calls invincible ignorance.^[12]

Why this ignorance was general

Understanding the mechanics of the schism requires understanding the state of the world in 1378. The papacy had just spent nearly seventy years in Avignon, in the south of the kingdom of France, by the decision of Clement V in 1309 and then of his successors. This "captivity" had profoundly Frenchified the curia: of the sixteen cardinals who elected Urban VI, eleven were French, four Italian, one Spanish.^[13]

When Gregory XI brings the pontifical see back to Rome in January 1377, after having been pressed earlier by Saint Bridget of Sweden (d. 1373) and, immediately, by Saint Catherine of Siena in 1376-1377, the move is neither stabilized nor accepted by all. Some of the French cardinals dream of returning to Avignon; the Romans, for their part, fear losing the pope once again. This context of instability is the matrix of the schism: it is not enough to return to Rome — the Roman people must still accept the election of a pope who might in turn choose to leave.^[14][15]

The death of Gregory XI and the pressure of the Roman people

Pope Gregory XI dies in Rome on 27 March 1378. The sixteen cardinals present in the city assemble at the Vatican for the conclave, in a climate of extreme tension. A Roman crowd, fearing that a French pope would bring the curia back to Avignon, surrounds the palace and loudly demands "Romano lo volemo, o almanco italiano!" — "We want a Roman, or at least an Italian!".^[16] The cardinals finally decide, on 8 April, to elect Bartolomeo Prignano, Archbishop of Bari, who takes the name Urban VI.

The election has three decisive features. First, Prignano is not a cardinal: like Urban V sixteen years earlier (1362), he is elected from outside the Sacred College. Second, he is Italian and Neapolitan, which reassures the crowd without triggering a battle among the French cardinals for the see. Finally, the cardinals, after enthroning him under pressure, publicly recognize him — even asking him for appointments, addressing official letters to him, and taking part in his coronation on 18 April.^[17] It is this public recognition by the cardinals themselves, extended over several weeks, that will later make it very difficult to maintain that the election could have been null on grounds of violence.

Urban VI and the humiliation of the cardinals

Urban VI is an austere, uncompromising, brusque man. Raised in the curia of Avignon, he becomes pope with a drastic reform programme: to abolish the luxury, pensions, nepotism and political socializing of the cardinals. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that he quickly fell out with the Sacred College: his reform of the Curia started from a just intention, but he pursued it without the necessary prudence, going so far as to publicly inveigh against the cardinals, and his intractable temperament did the rest.^[18]

Rather than reforming with patience, he publicly humiliates the cardinals, refuses to promote their candidates, and makes wounding remarks in consistory. The French cardinals feel both deceived (they had believed him pliable) and threatened (they genuinely fear for their dignity). Within weeks, the legitimately elected pope turns his own electors into personal adversaries.^[19][20]

As early as 1378, in her letters to Urban VI, Catherine reproaches him for making poor use of the honour God has done him and begs him to master his impetuous temperament.^[21]

Catherine of Siena, who will defend the legitimacy of Urban VI until her death, is herself obliged to warn him: his cause is just, but his temperament is in the process of losing it. The saint does not invent another pope; she begs the true pope to become worthy of his office.

The declaration of Fondi and the election of Clement VII

Between May and July 1378, the French cardinals gradually leave Rome for Anagni, then for Fondi, in the kingdom of Naples, under the protection of Queen Joan I. There they draft a joint declaration: the election of Urban VI, they say, had been extorted by fear of the Roman people and would therefore be null by right. On 9 August 1378, they publish this declaration and the see is officially declared vacant.^[22]

On 20 September 1378, thirteen of them elect at Fondi Robert of Geneva, Cardinal-Bishop of Sabina, who takes the name Clement VII. He settles shortly afterwards in Avignon, where he takes over the administrative apparatus left in place under Gregory XI.^[23] The episode creates a situation unprecedented in the history of the Church: not the election of a pope against another rival pope of a different current, but the election of a pope by the very same cardinals who had just elected and recognized his adversary.

Robert of Geneva is no insignificant figure. He had served as papal legate during the War of the Eight Saints, and it was he who, in February 1377, authorized at Cesena the massacre of several thousand civilians by the Breton companies, after the murder of pontifical soldiers — which earned him the later nickname of the "butcher of Cesena".^[24] The moral face of each camp will weigh heavily in the perception of the faithful: Urban VI will be odious by character, Robert of Geneva by precedent.

The Roman line: Urban VI and his successors

The Roman line counts four popes:

It is this line that the Catholic Church recognizes today as legitimate. The decisive criterion is not geographical but juridical: the election of Urban VI was conducted by the competent cardinals, validated by their public participation in the coronation and their official correspondence over several weeks, without immediate contestation.^[25]

The Avignon line: Clement VII then Benedict XIII

The Avignon line counts only two principal figures:

• Clement VII (Robert of Geneva), antipope from 1378 to 1394. Died at Avignon on 16 September 1394.
• Benedict XIII (Pedro Martínez de Luna), antipope from 1394 to 1423. Elected on 28 September 1394 by the cardinals faithful to Avignon, he swears to abdicate if that can restore unity — a promise he will never keep.^[26]

Pedro de Luna, a native of Illueca in Aragon, is a brilliant canonist and a man of indomitable will. France withdraws its obedience in 1398, holds him besieged in his own palace in Avignon, then partly restores its support before withdrawing it definitively. Pedro de Luna refuses all abdication, holds that only the legitimately elected pope can resign, and withdraws in 1411 to the castle of Peñíscola in Spain, where he will go on signing his bulls "Benedict XIII" until his death at Peñíscola, given here as 23 May 1423 — a disputed dating, the Catholic Encyclopedia notice also giving 29 November 1422.^[27]

The modern Catholic verdict

Twentieth-century Catholic historiography has stabilized the official position of the Church: the Roman line is the legitimate line, and the popes of Avignon as well as those of Pisa are antipopes. The Annuario Pontificio does not count them among the legitimate popes: neither the Avignon popes nor those of Pisa are ranked in the true line of Saint Peter, a strong presumption in favour of Roman legitimacy.^[28]

Indirect proof is given by the names of later popes. When Angelo Roncalli is elected in 1958, he takes the name John XXIII; yet there had already been, in the 15th century, a John XXIII — but he, elected by the Council of Pisa and deposed at Constance, was never considered legitimate. The new John XXIII can thus resume the number without contradiction, thereby publicly signifying that the Church regards his predecessor as an antipope.^[29]

A map of Europe cut in two

The kingdoms choose their obedience according to political as much as religious logics. France, Scotland, Castile, Aragon and Navarre gradually range themselves behind Avignon. Central Italy, the Empire, England, Hungary, Poland and the kingdom of Naples (at first) follow Rome.^[30]

For a parish priest, a country bishop or an ordinary faithful, the situation is dizzying. Each day at Mass he prays "in union with our holy father Pope N." — but which one is he? The one his king prays for, or the one his confessor prays for? And what is the sacrament of baptism worth, received from a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated in the opposing obedience?

The Church fortunately has a canonical framework for this kind of situation: Ecclesia supplet — in case of common error or of positive and probable doubt, the Church supplies the power of governance that would otherwise be lacking (can. 144, § 1). Concretely, this supplying covers acts that require jurisdiction: sacramental absolutions and assistance at marriage, for example, received in good faith by faithful who could not distinguish the true jurisdiction. It therefore does not guarantee the validity of the sacraments in general — baptism or the Eucharist do not depend on jurisdiction — but it secures the acts of governance: the continuity of the sacramental life of ordinary faithful was therefore never broken, even when the hierarchical communion was blurred.^[31][32]

The saints facing the schism: a contrasted discernment

The schism produces a remarkable phenomenon: canonized saints find themselves in both camps. Saint Catherine of Siena (d. 1380) ardently defends Urban VI; Saint Vincent Ferrer (d. 1419), by contrast, long supports Benedict XIII of Avignon, before publicly abandoning him in 1416 to prepare Constance.^[33]

This double example has a precise theological scope. It shows that holiness does not suffice to settle a question of fact when the objective evidence is disputed. Catherine and Vincent were both turned toward Christ, animated by the desire for unity, ready to die for their conviction. But they did not have access to the same information, nor to the same judgement on the material regularity of the 1378 election. The Church, in her mercy, never reproached Vincent Ferrer for his subjective conviction: she canonized him in 1455, without revising the legitimacy of Urban VI.^[34]

In another letter to Urban VI, she begs him, in the name of Christ crucified, to restrain the impetuous movements of his nature and to make for himself, by virtue, a heart great supernaturally, as God has made it great for him naturally.^[35]

Catherine dies in Rome on 29 April 1380, at thirty-three, after offering her whole life for the navicella — the barque of Peter. She will be canonized by Pius II in 1461 and proclaimed Doctor of the Church by Paul VI in 1970.^[36]

The conciliar illusion

For thirty years, the faithful, the universities and the princes try to find a way out. Four paths are discussed:

1. the via cessionis — simultaneous abdication of both popes;
2. the via compromissi — joint decision by an arbitral tribunal;
3. the via facti — war, by forcing one to yield;
4. the via concilii — assembling a general council that would impose unity.

Both popes successively refuse to keep their word to abdicate. Exasperated, several cardinals of both obediences assemble and convene a council at Pisa, which opens on 25 March 1409. Four patriarchs, twenty-two cardinals, about eighty bishops, theologians and representatives of the kingdoms sit there.^[37]

The council, supported notably by Jean Gerson and Pierre d'Ailly, declares on 5 June 1409 Gregory XII and Benedict XIII "schismatics and heretics" and pronounces their deposition. On 26 June, the cardinals elect in their place Alexander V (Pietro Filargo). He dies quickly, on 3 May 1410; his cardinals then elect John XXIII (Baldassare Cossa).^[38]

Aggravation instead of resolution

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the verdict: Pisa did not end the schism, it tripled it. Neither Gregory XII (who keeps Germany and Naples) nor Benedict XIII (who keeps Spain and Scotland) recognized the deposition. The Pisan pope, for his part, is recognized by France, England and part of Italy.^[39] The Catholic Church finds itself with three lines of popes simultaneously.

From the later Catholic point of view, the Council of Pisa is not an ecumenical council: it was convened neither by a legitimate pope, nor retroactively recognized by pontifical authority. It therefore does not appear in the official list of the twenty-one ecumenical councils. Alexander V and John XXIII of Pisa are classed among the antipopes.^[40]

Convened with Sigismund's support, saved by Gregory XII's humility

The King of the Romans Sigismund (crowned emperor only in 1433) presses John XXIII of Pisa to convene a new council at Constance, in the Empire. The council opens on 5 November 1414. Sigismund arrives there solemnly on Christmas night 1414 and exercises over the debates a "profound and continuous influence".^[41]

The most delicate juridical point is this: an ecumenical council requires pontifical convocation. Yet of the three competing popes, which one has the right to convene it? John XXIII takes part, but flees as soon as he senses the assembly turning against him. The solution will come from Gregory XII, the legitimate pope of the Roman line. On 4 July 1415, his legate, Cardinal Jean Dominici, and Prince Charles Malatesta read in his name a bull which first officially reconvenes the council (thus giving it the canonical status of a pontifical council), then pronounces his free abdication. The gesture is unique in history: a legitimate pope lays down his office to restore unity to the Church.^[42][43]

Deposition of John XXIII and the trial of Jan Hus

John XXIII of Pisa, after his flight, is caught, brought prisoner to Constance, tried for simony, evil living and heresy, and deposed on 29 May 1415. He accepts the sentence. His case is the simplest of the three: he does not even defend his cause and recognizes the conciliar decision.^[44]

During the council, in July 1415, the other great dossier is also concluded: that of the theses of Jan Hus, the Bohemian theologian influenced by Wycliffe. Hus had received an imperial safe-conduct to come and explain himself. The council judges his propositions heretical (notably on the Eucharist, predestination and authority), condemns him, and delivers him to the secular arm. He is burned on 6 July 1415.^[45] On the safe-conduct, the position of the council was that the imperial guarantee protected against unlawful violence but did not exempt one accused of heresy from the judgement of his legitimate judges — a position Sigismund himself ended up admitting, declaring on 1 January 1415 that he would not prevent the council from judging according to law.^[46] The Hus affair is juridically distinct from the schism, but it unfolds at the same time and will profoundly mark Bohemia — prefiguring the Hussite wars and, later, the terrain of the Protestant Reformation.

The Haec Sancta decree: limit and Catholic reading

On 6 April 1415, in the 5th session, the council votes the decree Haec Sancta synodus. The text affirms that the council "lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, forming the general council representing the militant Catholic Church, holds its power immediately from Christ, and all, of whatever state or dignity they may be, even papal, are bound to obey it in what concerns faith, the extirpation of the schism and the reform of the Church in its head and members".^[47]

This text is the doctrinal root of conciliarism. Read without nuance, it amounts to placing the council above the pope — which contradicts the divine constitution of the Church. The later Catholic reception therefore performed a work of discernment:

• The Council of Constance as such is partially ecumenical: its sessions from the abdication of Gregory XII (July 1415) are recognized, as are those that led to the election of Martin V.
• The Haec Sancta decree is regarded as a text of canonical emergency, valid for emerging from the schism, and not as a permanent doctrine on the pope-council relationship.^[48][49]
• Martin V approves the decrees of the council "conciliariter conclusa" — that is, those concluded conciliarly and concerning faith — but refuses to turn this approval into a general doctrine on the superiority of the council.

Florence (1439), Lateran V (1512-1517) and above all Vatican I (1870) with Pastor Aeternus definitively settle the question: the pope possesses "full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church", and this authority does not derive from the consent of a council.^[50]

The Frequens decree: a lasting legacy

The council also votes, on 9 October 1417, the decree Frequens, which prescribes the regular holding of general councils: one five years hence, then a septennial one, then one every ten years.^[51] This decree was never applied in all its rigour, but it left a trace: the modern Church, without accepting the conciliarist thesis, has indeed held several major councils (Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II) and keeps the conviction that an ecumenical council is an exceptional moment of discernment.

Deposition of Benedict XIII (26 July 1417)

There remains the hardest case: Pedro de Luna. Entrenched at Peñíscola in Spain, he refuses to abdicate. The Iberian kingdoms, still faithful, negotiate with the council. Sigismund meets Benedict XIII at Perpignan in 1415; the talks fail. The sovereigns end up withdrawing their obedience. On 26 July 1417, the council declares Pedro de Luna schismatic, heretical and perjured, and pronounces his deposition.^[52][53]

Pedro de Luna does not submit: he goes on regarding himself as pope, appoints new cardinals, and dies in 1423 in full certainty of being the true successor of Peter. One of his last cardinals will elect after his death an ephemeral Clement VIII of Avignon, who will end up rallying to Martin V in 1429. The Avignon line then disappears definitively.^[54]

The election of Martin V

On 11 November 1417, the feast of Saint Martin (whence his name), the twenty-three cardinals of the three confused obediences and thirty representatives of the five "nations" of the council unanimously elect Oddone Colonna, who takes the name Martin V. It is the first common election since 1378, and it is made with universal approval.^[55]

The election of Martin V juridically extinguishes the schism. Reconstruction remains: Martin V slowly returns to Rome (he enters it in September 1420), restores the ruined buildings, reorganizes the pontifical administration, founds the University of Louvain in 1425, and dies on 20 February 1431. It is one of the most important pontificates of the 15th century, because it rebuilds step by step a visible, Roman and Catholic papacy.^[56]

The thesis and its defenders

Conciliarism is the doctrine according to which a general council representing the whole Church would, in certain situations, stand above the pope. Born of the necessity of emerging from the schism, it becomes a political and theological programme: to limit pontifical power, to subject future popes to conciliar decrees, to institute a kind of permanent synodal constitution.

Its great defenders are holy and brilliant men. Jean Gerson (d. 1429), chancellor of the University of Paris, and Pierre d'Ailly (d. 1420), Bishop of Cambrai then cardinal, play a decisive role at Constance — d'Ailly from Pisa onward, which Gerson approves without sitting there. Their intention is not revolutionary: they seek a canonical instrument for emerging from an unprecedented crisis. But their formulation, isolated from its context of necessity, opens the way to heterodox claims.^[57][58]

The progressive condemnation

Several stages close the debate in the Catholic sense:

The current Catholic position is fixed in the Catechism, n. 882: "The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."^[63]

Conciliarism in its strong version is therefore heterodox. But a distinction must be made: the fact that the Council of Constance could, in an extreme situation, intervene to emerge from the schism has nothing scandalous about it — it does not deny primacy, it serves unity. It is the generalization of this exceptional case into a permanent doctrine that poses the problem.

Episcopal collegiality ≠ conciliarism

Vatican II, in rediscovering the collegiality of the bishops with and under the pope (Lumen gentium 22), did not rehabilitate conciliarism. The bishops form a college that always acts with its head: there is not, in Catholic doctrine, an episcopal college without the successor of Peter, nor a conciliar authority exercised against him.^[64] The distinction is subtle for the modern reader, but it is decisive: the Catholic communion is lived in the visible unity of the pope and the bishops, not in their opposition.

The schism as a trial of Christ's promise

The Western Schism is one of the greatest humiliations of Catholic history. For thirty-nine years, faithful lived without knowing exactly where the successor of Peter was. Saints were mistaken in good faith. Councils navigated between canonical necessity and heterodox temptations. And yet, the Church did not disappear.

That is precisely what strikes when one rereads the promise of Matthew 16:18 — "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". This promise does not say the Church will be spared crises: it says no crisis will destroy it. The Great Western Schism is one of the greatest experimental proofs of this promise. A purely human institution would never have survived thirty-nine years of triple papacy. The Church survived, reformed itself and purified itself.

A lesson on the papacy

The schism reveals what the papacy is, and what it is not. It is not a temperamental absolutism: Urban VI was a legitimate pope, but his temperament precipitated the crisis. It is not a mere interchangeable symbol either: the question of who is pope really mattered, because visible unity passes through a precise, recognizable person, in communion with whom one prays.^[65]

The papacy is a service of unity, which presupposes an enormous personal responsibility. The schism reminds every pope — and every Catholic — that one can be legitimate and unworthy, that one can be holy and mistaken, and that the Church stands only by the promise of Christ, never by the human quality of her pastors alone.

A lesson on conciliarism and synodality

The episode finally draws a clear line. There exists an authentic synodality in the Catholic tradition: councils, synods, broad consultations, decisions shared between the pope and the bishops. And there exists an illegitimate conciliarism, which would claim to subject the pope to an assembly. The difference is not political: it is ecclesiological. The Church is not a parliament; it is a mystical body whose visible head is the successor of Peter.

Vatican II knew how to reintroduce the synodal dimension without falling into conciliarism. The synods of the 21st century will continue this delicate work: making real collegiality of the bishops live, without dissolving pontifical primacy into a conciliar majority. The Western Schism remains, on this point, a historical landmark: no crisis justifies replacing Peter with a committee.

• Read The Eastern Schism for the earlier rupture between Rome and Constantinople (1054).
• Read The Photian Schism for understanding the Eastern tensions of the 9th century.
• Read The Council of Trent for the later great council that will answer the Protestant Reformation.
• Retain the principal distinction: 1378-1417 is an internal crisis of the Latin Church; 1054 is a rupture between West and East. The two schisms are not of the same nature.