|
|
The Western Schism
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). |
