Articles  Contents

 Pray for the Pope            Thuc Lineage                 A Look at the Thuc Line           Keeping the Faith in Stratton

The final chapter "Sedevacantism ?" is a summary written to be more easily read and to be printed separately. For those wishing to study the subject the main text has more meat and less opinion.

Contents

Author’s Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

"Thou Art Peter" (Rock). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Great Western Schism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Gallicanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Infallibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Visibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Schism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Summary "Sedevacantism ?". . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

"THOU ART PETER" (ROCK)

THE GREAT WESTERN SCHISM

(Sedevacantism’s Most Influential Era)

Note: In this section those gallican or sedevacantist ideals are italicized.

Down through history there have been men and groups of men who have judged and tried to pass judgment on the reigning pope. But never in history was this done in a manner sufficient to bring about the confusion of the Catholic world as it was done during the thirteen and fourteen hundreds. It was during this time that the Great Western Schism took place because of such rash men which prepared the way or bought about Protestantism. In order to understand how these events could have taken place, one needs to understand some history of the popes and the throne of Peter before this time. By studying history one can better understand our own times. By seeing how wild things were in times past, one can feel relief or at least not so much distress at seeing what is happening in our days. Knowing that something similar has happened in the past and knowing what brought it about and what the end result was helps us evaluate the events of our days. We will start with Pope St. Celestine V in 1294, as that time seems to set the stage for the errors of sedevacantism to issue in The Great Western Schism.

Pope St. Celestine V, Reigned July-December, 1294

Having had many impious and sometimes scandalous popes, Peter Morone, a pious, saintly hermit, was taken from his mountain cave and made Pope Celestine V. He had no understanding of the running of such an office and after five months resigned as Pope. There had never been a case of a pope's resigning which raised the question as to how to handle the situation. It is important to note that Pope St. Celestine V resigned so another could be elected and not to reject the papacy or to do away with the Papacy.

Pope Boniface VIII, Reigned 1294-1303

Boniface VIII's, being elected to replace Celestine V, further complicated matters by having Celestine (who was later canonized) apprehended for fear that he might be the cause of a schism, for the enemies of Boniface ". . . . claimed that Pope St. Peter Celestine V had not resigned, or could not resign, and was therefore still Pope when Boniface VIII took the tiara rendering his election invalid. Having voted for Boniface in the December, 1294 conclave, the Colonna were not in a good logical position to make this argument, . . . " The Glories of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, Christendom Press, 1993, page 335. Celestine V escaped and returned to his cave where he was again abducted but once again escaped only to wander through the forest for weeks before coming to the coast where he boarded a ship in hopes of completing his escape. The ship was driven ashore by a storm, Celestine was recognized by the authorities, once again abducted, brought before Boniface VIII and this time kept in custody. After some time he was transferred to the strong castle of Fumone at Ferentine where he died ten months later. These events gave the reign of Boniface a look of conspiracy, casting additional doubts on his papacy and the papacy.

The reign of Boniface VIII was near the end of an age where the rulers of the Christian world had given the popes the right to rule, that is, the right to determine the rightful ruler in an area and the right to settle disputes. Boniface stated in Papal Bulls that he, as pope, had these rights given to him by the Church and that he had temporal rights (in order that he could rule as a king). In fact, he had the right to rule temporally (other than the Papal States) only if the people or rulers gave him the right. So basically Boniface was spouting what could be, and was, construed by his enemies as heresy. This was especially true of those whom the pope had deposed or excommunicated, of which there were quite a few including some in high office. This dispute put many kings against the pope.

Boniface VIII in trying to settle a dispute of the Colonna family (a powerful Italian family in which there were many cardinals) made extreme enemies of the family who then worked various sorts of intrigue against the pope. The Colonna family issued a manifesto stating that Boniface was not pope because of his irregular election. Boniface pointed out that the Colonnas had not opposed him earlier and that, in fact, they had supported him. It was only after disagreeing with his decisions that they claimed his election invalid. "The Pope obtained support from most of the cardinals; all but two of the 17 current members of the College other than the two Colonnas signed a statement declaring that, Pope Peter Celestine V had resigned freely, that the election of Boniface VIII was valid and that the Colonna cardinals had voted for him and always until this time recognized him as Pope; the cardinals described the Colonnas as "madmen."" The Glories of Christendom by Warren H. Carrol, page 336. The disputing members of Colonna family fled the papal states to France after having been defeated in war and having their insurrection put down.

Philip the Fair (whose name did not truly describe him) King of France was at odds with Boniface because the king insisted on laying heavy taxes against the Church to support his unholy wars. Philip the Fair used the ideals of Gallicanism to support his arguments that he had a right to oppose the Pope and to rule the church. See the chapter on Gallicanism.

After much intrigue, including the Kings group forging documents from the Pope to the King, Philip the Fair called for a general council to accuse the Pope of most every sin, of heresy and of wrongful election. "The Colonna (cardinals who had fled the papal states) furnished the materials for those infamous charges, long since adjudged calumnious by grave historians . . ." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Boniface VIII, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913, Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 668.

Because of Philip's having taken control of the Church of France, the Pope was prepared to excommunicate Philip. "Philip, however and his counselors had taken measures to rob this step of all force, or rather to prevent it at a decisive moment. It had long been their plan to seize the person of Boniface and compel him to abdicate, or in case of his refusal, to bring him before a general council in France for condemnation and deposition." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Boniface VIII, page 668.

Philip sent a band of a couple thousand mercenaries who captured Pope Boniface VIII and held him captive for three days. After having been freed the Pope lived only ten days.

Although history is unclear as to Boniface VIII's wrongs, it is clear that he was wrong in many ways. Whether a formal heretic or not, the answer would be "not", but it must have been believed by most that he upheld beliefs which were contrary to Catholic teaching.

The reign of Boniface and its intrigues set the stage for future cases of judging of popes which resulted in the down-playing of respect for the papacy. Philip the Fair and his actions were not condemned by the Christian world, the result was more disrespect for the papacy.

This era was marked by a frequency of popes who spent a large percentage of their time and energy dealing with the affairs of different nations. This resulted in an extreme amount of attention to nationalism which we can see distracted the popes from their main duties of the sanctification of souls.

A quote from Church History by Fr. John Laux, M.A., Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1989, Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York, says, concerning Boniface VIII; "His violent temper and his inconsiderate political measure created numbers enemies for him at Rome and abroad. He found himself almost at once in conflict with the two most powerful kings of the time, Edward I of England and Philip the Fair of France. The question at issue was the taxation of the clergy." Page 396.

Pope Benedict XI, Reigned 1303-1304

The next pope, Benedict XI, was elected after a month's delay. He had been a supporter of Boniface VIII and was later declared Pope Saint Benedict XI. Pope Saint Benedict XI stood firm against the convictions of Philip the Fair concerning the memories of Boniface VIII, whom Philip the Fair wanted removed from the list of popes, and for this reason it is believed he was poisoned.

At this point in the history of the popes of this age, it is important to bring to the reader's attention the deplorable state of affairs in Rome which became one of the reasons for the division and confusion of the Church. Today we find it surprising that the popes did not reside in Rome. The people in the times covered by this study looked to Rome for leadership but over time and with gradual change, it came to be considered normal for the Pope to reside elsewhere. Rome had become the seat of world power. With this came different, conflicting groups bidding for power.

Each faction had its own section of the city and travel between the different sections meant the coping with guards and such causing communication between groups to become very impractical. The Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. IV, Clement V; Robert Appleton Company, 1908; Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York; page 20, describes the conditions of these times in Rome as such; "Confusion and anarchy were prevalent, owing to the implacable mutual hatred of the Colonna and Orsini (two prominent families), the traditional turbulence of the Romans, and the frequent angry conflicts between the people and the nobles, conditions which had been growing worse all through the thirteenth century and had eventually driven even the Italian Popes to such outside strongholds as Viterbo, Anagni, Orvieto, and Perugia." Pope Benedict XI died in Perugia. This residing outside of Rome lead the way to the abuse of establishing a papal palace where in lived and reigned the next good many true popes and a good many anti-popes of Avignon. So through gradualism the Church's resistance to the unorthodox idea of the pope living outside of Rome was accepted.

Pope Clement V, Reigned 1305-1314. Took up residence in Avignon.

Following a vacancy of the Chair of St. Peter of eleven months, Clement V was elected and was the first pope in many years to once again rule from Rome, but only for a short period of time. Clement moved to Avignon and this began the "Babylonian Captivity" a prelude to the Western Schism. ". . . the king, Philip the Fair, wished the name of Boniface stricken from the list of popes as a heretic, his bones disinterred burned, and the ashes scattered to the wind." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, Clement V, page 21. But Clement could not accept the King's demands, ". . ., since no Pope can teach heresy or be removed, alive or dead, from the catalogue of the Popes." The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol page 349.

Clement did call a council to judge the former pope. But the council, once convened, made no such move. It appears that the King finally realized that he had been fed a pack of lies, for he backed off and asked that it be proclaimed by the Pope that he (the King) had acted in good faith. ". . . with the death of his personal enemies, opposition to Boniface diminished, and his legitimacy was no longer denied even in France." Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. IV, Clement V, page 21. In all times, wrong information is so easily had especially from those who have something to be gained or an ax to grind.

Pope John XXII, Reigned 1316-1334, Avignon

For two years and three and a half months, the Chair of Peter had been vacant. All Christendom awaited anxiously the election of a new Pope. With the election of John the XXII, the Church was once again ruled from Avignon. John XXII took many of the same positions as Boniface VIII including that in which he proclaimed the Pope as having temporal power to enthrone or depose kings.

The rule of German lands was in dispute. With the position, went the title of Holy Roman Emperor. Louis of Bavaria finally gained the upper hand and was crowned King without the blessing of the Pope, John XXII. King Louis of Bavaria supported many of the enemies of the Pope and many of them had been condemned or excommunicated as heretics by John XXII. The Pope gave warning to the King that he had no right to exercise any rule until he (King Louis of Bavaria) had been examined, approved, and given the bestowal of Imperial Dignity by the Pope.

King Louis claimed the Pope to be harboring heretics and proposed a general council to set in judgment of the Pope.

Pope John XXII excommunicated King Louis of Bavaria who then went to Italy where, in Milan, he received the Crown of Lombardy from the hands of two deposed bishops and arbitrarily appointed several new bishops. The Pope appointed bishops to the same sees which resulted in open schism.

On 17, January 1328, the excommunicated King received the imperial crown from Sciarra Colonna, of the same family so infamous during the reign of Boniface VIII. On 18, April in the name of King Louis, Colonna (after a farcical proceeding) proclaimed John XXII a heretic, usurper, and oppressor of the Church, and deprived him of all his papal dignities, supposedly.

One of the issues which greatly added to the confusion was that Pope John XXII took the position that those in heaven did not possess the Beatific Vision and would not until after the Last Judgment. John had written on this subject before having become Pope and maintained the position throughout most of his reign and, in fact, preached many sermons on the subject. For this reason many called John XXII a heretic.

On the subject of John XXII's views on the Beatific Vision is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VIII, John XXII, Robert Appleton Company, 1910, Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 433: "A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorities and a Dominican wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November 1333) and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed a perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333 the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favor of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the Pope had given no decision on this question, but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the Pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3, January, 1334, the Pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and, in fact, had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death, he withdrew his former opinion and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision."

Warren H. Carroll gives an in-depth analysis of the issue from a truly historical position, which is by nature a traditional point of view as a traditional position will always be shown to be the historical position. He states in The Glory of Christendom: "The controversy over the Beatific Vision launched by Pope John XXII in a series of five extraordinary sermons at Avignon beginning November 1, 1331, is unique in the history of the Church. At the time of, and since the proclamation by the First Vatican Council in 1870 that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedral on faith and morals, there has been much speculation about whether, and under what circumstances, a Pope might hold an erroneous theological opinion without teaching it so as to be binding on the whole Church, but the Beatific Vision controversy involving Pope John XXII is the only actual example of this kind. It has also sometimes been noted as a remarkable phenomenon that despite the large number of aged Popes in the history of the Church, none has become senile. But a touch of senility may help to explain the astonishing imprudence of John XXII in this particular matter; for this controversy spanned his 88th, 89th and 90th years.", page 371.

"But a Pope can never really be only a "private theologian". While he may speak on theological issues without intending to bind the faithful, his unique post and duties and responsibilities make it inevitable that any pronouncement by him on such issues will have enormous impact. He cannot avoid seeming to teach whenever he speaks on theology. For a Pope to propose a doctrine, actually or apparently contrary to that held by most of the Church, when he is not sure of its truth, is imprudent in the highest degree. No Pope has ever gone so far in such imprudence as John XXII in the Beatific Vision controversy." The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol page 372.

"Clearly the Pope was not imposing his erroneous view, nor teaching it ex cathedra. But by continuing to press the issue he was putting himself and the Church in a most peculiar position-indeed, almost inviting the Church to repudiate him on a subject where he had supreeme and infallible authority but was refusing to exercise it, evidently because he had genuine doubts about the truth of his propositions. But if he doubted them, why in the world did he keep proposing them?" The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, page 372.

"History gives us no answer to that question; but a Catholic historian can well remind us that this would not have been the first time Satan had tempted a Pope, right up to the brink of disaster which God will not allow to happen. Were Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius praying for John XXII in this his hour of testing?" The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, page 373.

"Papal infallibility had once again been preserved and once again, as with Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius by a very narrow margin." The Glory of Christendom by Warren H. Carroll, page 373.

John XXII was very controversial in his time. A goodly portion of the faithful had reason to believe the Pope to be non-Catholic because of his informal heretical beliefs. But those judging the Pope only served to divide the Church with schism. By condemning the Pope, there was no benefit to the Church, but rather it was weakened and as a result many souls were lost. John XXII's positions led to further disregard for the papacy thereby leading to the Great Western Schism.

Benedict XII, Reigned 1334-1342, Avignon

The next Pope, Benedict XII, was the third Pope to reign from Avignon. Pope Benedict XII resolved to move the papal court back to Rome but was vigorously opposed and gave in to the arguments. He reigned for eight years.

Clement VI, Reigned 1342-1352, Avignon

"The memory of this Pope is clouded by his open French partisanship and by the gross nepotism of his reign." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. IV, Clement VI, Robert Appleton Company, 1908, Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 24. Nepotism is the giving of church possessions to family members such as bishoprics. Pope Clement reigned from Avignon like his predecessor. Avignon was on the edge of France. Pope Clement bought the territory and established a papal state of Avignon, further cementing Avignon as the papal residence. "The cumulative effect of the forty-one years of papal residence at Avignon and the evidence of partiality for the French by the series of French Popes there most evident in the incumbent Pope Clement VI - had reduced respect for the papal office to the lowest level since the great Hildebrandine reform of the eleventh century." The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, page 390.

Innocent VI, Reigned 1352-1362, Avignon

This Pope reigned for ten years. He restored the papacy to its proper activities and most noteworthy was that he caused the Papal States of Italy to be restored to the papacy which set the stage for the return of the papacy to Rome.

Urban V, Reigned 1362-1370, Avignon

Succeeding Innocent VI was Urban V who returned to Rome, but eventually went back to Avignon. He was a Frenchman who caused many problems in the Church due to excessive love of his homeland, but his reign was quite good because of his pious ways and understanding of the importance of returning the papacy to Rome.

Fr. John Laux writes in his book, Church History, "The celebrated Mystic, St. Bridget of Sweden, who spent the last thirty years of her life in Rome, wrote to the Popes at Avignon and expressed the fear that, unless they soon returned to Italy, they would forfeit not only their temporal, but also their spiritual authority. When Urban IV (sic) who had taken up his residence in Rome for two years (1368-1370), went back to Avignon, she prophesied "his speedy death" which actually took place a few months later." Church History , by Fr. John Laux, page 401. It was Urban V not Urban IV.

Gregory XI, Reigned 1370-1378, Rome

Although Gregory XI managed to return the papal reign to Rome, his was a turbulent eight year reign. A major cause of the trouble was due to Pope Gregory’s extreme French nationalism which imposed frenchmen in positions of authority over the Italians causing many riots in Rome. Pope Gregory was the last true pope of French origin and is famous for having been convinced by St. Catherine of Siena to return to Rome. "In the summer of 1376 she went in person to Avignon and urged Gregory to return to Rome. Her burning words at last overcame all opposition, and on September 13, 1376, Gregory left Avignon for Genoa, and on the 17th of January, 1377, made his entry into the City of St. Peter." Church History, by Fr. John Laux, page 401.

Urban VI, Reigned 1378-1389, Rome

Upon Gregory XI's death, Pope Urban VI was elected in Rome while mobs outside, and some inside, were demanding the selection of a Roman or at least Italian Pope. The cardinals did elect Urban VI, an Italian, but before he could get to Rome to accept the position, the mobs became violent. For fear of their lives (note this was after the new Pope had been elected), the cardinals dressed an Italian cardinal (other than the one truly elected) in the robes of the Pope and presented him to the crowd as the new Pope. The fake Pope protested such deception, but to no avail. Once Urban VI arrived he was announced as the Pope and was accepted by all.

". . . . Urban VI, who appears to have been a retiring, self-effacing man before his elevation to the pontificate, displayed at once a burning zeal for reform, particularly to eliminate the bribery and simony which had become all too common in the papal court, coupled with a shocking lack of prudence and tact. He called Cardinal Orsini a "half-wit"; directed that no cardinal should eat more than one course per meal; physically attacked the Cardinal of Limoges at a private meeting, waving his stick as though to beat him; and warned that he might soon begin excommunicating cardinals for simony, on his own authority and without canonical process. Cardinal Robert, young (36) and vehement, weighed in with a warning of his own: "Unlike your predecessors, Holy Father, you do not treat the cardinals with that honor which you owe to them. You are diminishing our authority, but verily I tell you that we will do our best to diminish yours." The next few months were to show that Cardinal Robert meant exactly what he said." The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, page 431.

Again from The Glory of Christendom, Warren H. Carrol we quote what its author quotes of St. Catherine of Siena in letters to the cardinals after their changed position towards Urban VI, "You could not endure, not only an actual correction indeed, but even a harsh word of reproof made you lift up rebellious heads. This is the reason why you changed . . . ", page 425.

According to Fr. John Laux in Church History; "The French cardinals, who formed the majority in the Sacred College, were dissatisfied with the city and wished to return to Avignon, where there were no dilapidated basilicas and ruined palaces, no tumultuous Roman mobs and deadly Roman fevers; where life was, in one word, more comfortable," page 404.

"In mid-July, while writing a letter to Urban assuring him of their loyalty, they agreed among themselves that the April election had been invalid due to duress by the surrounding mob and that, using this as a reason, they would withdraw recognition from Urban. On July 20, they wrote to the Italian cardinal who had been at the conclave calling upon them to come to Anagni within five days and announcing that they now regarded the Holy See as vacant." [my emphasis] The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, page 433. The whole world regarded Urban as the true Pope and these few men, because of what had taken place since they had made him Pope, decided to change their position.

St. Catherine of Siena's response to these cardinals in a letter was, "You clearly know the truth, that Pope Urban VI is truly Pope, the highest pontiff, chosen in orderly election, not influenced by fear, truly rather by divine inspiration than by your human industry. And so you announced it to us, which was the truth. Now you have turned your backs, like poor, mean knights; your shadow has made you afraid. You have divided yourselves from the truth which strengthens us, and drawn close to falsehood, which weakens soul and body, depriving you of temporal and spiritual grace. What made you do this? The poison of self-love, which has infected the world. This is what has made you pillars lighter than straw-flowers which shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek! . . . This is not the kind of blindness that springs from ignorance. It has not happened to you because people have reported one thing to you while another is so. No, for you know what the truth is; it was you who announced it to us, and not we to you. Oh, how mad you are! For you told us the truth, and you want yourselves to taste a lie! Now you want to corrupt this truth, and make us see the opposite saying that you chose Pope Urban from fear, which is not so; but anyone who says it - speaking to you without reverence, because you have deprived yourselves of reverence - lies up to his eyes . . . " The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, page 425. As with most anything, we can be sure there was some honest confusion for some, but for others it was a preying on the situation to benefit themselves. Those in doubt were to stick with what they knew and not accept that which was questionable.

On 20, September, Robert of Geneva - the same who stated that they may diminish the Pope's power - was chosen Pope (Anti-Pope Clement VII) and on this day the Western Schism began. "The schism was now an accomplished fact, and for forty years Christendom was treated with the melancholy spectacle of two and even three rival Popes claiming its allegiance. It was the most perilous crisis through which the Church had ever passed." Fr. John Laux in Church History, page 405.

"It is very difficult to decide exactly how far the schism is to be attributed to Urban's behavior. Indisputably the long exile at Avignon was its principal cause, as it diminished the credit of the Popes and inversely increased the ambition of the cardinals, who were always striving to obtain more influence in the government of the church. Whatever may have been the causes of this event, it is certain that the election of Urban was lawful, that of Clement uncanonical." Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. XV, Urban VI, Robert Appleton Company, 1912, Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 217.

As to the cause of the schism and to the damage caused by it, we turn to The Papacy by Wladimir D'Ormesson, Hawthorn Books-Publishers, 1958, New York, NY, as volumn 81 of The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernerd, Vicarius Generalis, Westmonasterii, page 77, "This revolution [Protestant revolution] had its origins in the past. Although it broke out in 1517 with the publication of the famous thesis of the monk Martin Luther on indulgences, many causes had been preparing the way for it for a long time. The two principal causes may be mentioned here.

"Firstly, the decline in the prestige of the papacy led in Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and their followers to a genuine hatred of Rome. This had begun with the humiliation of Agnani. For its part, the "Babylonian Captivity", as the popes' over-extended stay in Avignon was called, helped to prepare the way for the Great Schism, the conflict between council and the Pope, that somber period during which the Church was divided between two and even three factions.

"The second cause was the corruption - and the word has to be used - into which the Roman Curia had fallen; corruption in every sense of the word, carnal as well as intellectual . . . "

We might add another cause which St. Catherine alludes to in her statement to the cardinals who were starting the Great Western Schism when she said, "That is what has made you pillars lighter than straw-flowers which shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek!" A religious in schism does not give the graces (perfume) and stands for the faith like a pillar of straw. Those in schism want to deny the traditional teaching of the church that schismatics do not receive or give graces from the sacraments. Tradition, as one can see from St. Catherine's statement holds that outside the church there is no grace to be obtained from schismatics sacraments. St. Catherine also said "You have divided yourselves from the truth which strengthens us, and drawn close to falsehood, . . ., depriving you of temporal and spiritual grace." Quotes of St. Catherine taken from The Glories of Christiandom , by Warren H. Carrol, page 425.

As stated by many sources above, many extreme ills befell the church and of course the world because of men's disrespect for the papacy and the Pope. It is impossible to show disrespect for a Pope without showing some disrespect for the Papacy. The disrespect shown today by sedavacantists towards the Pope leads us down the same roads the times before the Great Western Schism to repeat the same consequences in our present times? The reign or the Anti-Christ?

A plot was formed to capture Urban VI, to try him and either depose him or burn him at the stake. The Pope discovered the plot, had the cardinals arrested, their possessions confiscated and even had some of the cardinals executed. At almost every turn Urban VI did the wrong thing. Public opinion turned against him almost totally. Yet he was still the one true Pope.

____________________________________________________________

Up to this point, in this text, each Pope has been discussed in his period of time separate from each other Pope. From this point on (due to the fact that we have a True Pope and an Anti-Pope, or two, at the same time) we will change the format so that we will first go through each Pope (True and Anti) discussing that Pope and his different points of interest in chronological order. This way, hopefully one can be introduced to each of these most important characters who formed these important times. If one can first know the characters, or at least have a list of characters to refer to, then one will be able to follow the next section which will discuss the events, players and try to show the problems, how they came about, how they affected the Church then, after and now.

_____________________________________________________________

Clement VII, Reigned 1378-1394 (Anti-Pope), Avignon

Clement was elected Pope by mostly French cardinals outside of Rome in defiance of Urban VI whom they had elected only a short time before. Clement and his followers moved to Avignon and set up a parallel church, starting the Great Western Schism.

Clement's reign was, in the first place, French with the Spanish cardinals quickly coming to his side. He was excommunicated by Boniface IX, Urban VI successor. Clement died excommunicated.

What a confusing and disgusting situation. People tried to rationalize the situation and try to find a solution without blaming or condemning anyone. "The University of Paris, or rather, its two most prominent professors, John Gerson and Peter d'Ailly, proposed that a General Council should be summoned to decide between the rival claimants. Many refused to accept this solution, rightly claiming that the Pope was supreme in the Church and could be judged by no one." Fr. John Laux in Church History, page 405. My emphasis.

Boniface IX, Reigned 1389-1404, Rome

Boniface IX was elected to replace Urban VI upon Urban’s death. In spite of the world turning against him and most of the world accepting the crafty anti-pope, Boniface IX managed to keep sight of who he was. Three nobles, other than that of French and Spanish persuasion, told him he should abdicate: Richard II of England (1396), the Diet of Frankfort (1397), and King Wenceslaus of Germany (Reims 1398).

Benedict XIII (anti-pope) who succeeded Clement VII (anti-pope), sent embassaries to Boniface, but the interview ended unfavorably. "The Pope, (Boniface IX) highly irritated, took to his bed with an attack of gravel and died after an illness of two days." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. II, Boniface IX, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913, Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 671.

Benedict XIII, Reigned 1389-1424 (anti-pope), Avignon

The anti-pope, Benedict XIII, who reigned from Avignon, remained schismatic throughout his years as anti-pope and to his death. The Catholic Encyclopedia has no section on Benedict XIII, the anti-pope, even though he was a prominent figure in history. Many of the problems of the time and in the following years can be contributed to this man. In spite of all the obvious evidence which convinced all the other schismatic popes to repent, this man refused.

Innocent VII, Reigned 1404-1406, Rome

Innocent reigned from Rome and pledged to end the schism even if he had to give up the tiara to do so. He came short of his goal mainly due to political issues and the schism went on.

Gregory XII, Reigned 1406-1415, Rome

"It was due to his great piety and his earnest desire for the end of the schism that, after the death of Innocent VII, the cardinals at Rome unanimously elected him Pope on November, 1406. He took the name Gregory XII. Before the papal election each cardinal swore that in order to end the schism, he would abdicate the papacy if he should be elected provided his rival at Avignon (Benedict XIII) would do the same." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VII, Gregory XII, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913, Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 1.

Gregory XII lost almost all followers but still remained the true Pope and was the one person most responsible for the proper return to sanity. During his reign, a third Pope was elected. The most note worthy development about Gregory XII's reign was that in spite of all that men did to solve the problem, it was solved only in God's good time. Even though Gregory abdicated his position so that a new Pope could be elected by a united church, no new Pope was elected until after Gregory XII died in the odor of sanctity leaving the papacy vacant not just in the eyes of men or due to men’s design. It seems the Holy Ghost held up the election of a new pope until after Gregory’s death.

Alexander V, Reigned 1409-1410 (anti-pope), Bologna Pisan Line

Cardinal Philarghi (the future Alexander V) led a group of cardinals to form the Council of Pisan whose purpose it was to depose the existing popes and elect a new Pope to end the schism. Most of the cardinals from both lines of popes attended. The catholic world was elated to see the church working together to end the schism. Once the Council of Pisan had elected Alexander Pope the world was even more dismayed to realize that now it had three claimants to the Papacy.

John XXIII, Reigned 1410-1415 (anti-pope), Pisan Line

The world was looking for a man that would take charge and end the schism. Cardinal Cosa seemed to be that man. He took a force of men and militarily took Rome and declared Alexander Pope of Rome, but Alexander refused to leave Bologna.

Once Alexander died and Cardinal Cosa was elected Pope of the Pisan Line, he went to work to take control of the Catholic hierarchy by virtually every means available. Even though he bought many of his allies, he ended his reign a broken man running from his own shadow.

The Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VIII, John XXIII, Robert Appleton Company, 1910, Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 434, describes Cardinal Cosa (later to become John XXIII) as " . . . utterly worldly minded, ambitious, crafty, unscrupulous and immoral, a good soldier but no churchman."

Martin V, reigned 1417-1431, Rome

Martin V was elected Pope (after Gregory XII died) by the Council of Constance. Martin V was of the Colonna family which had brought the Church so much misery by its self-serving actions. Often we see God use those who have wounded the Church to then correct the wrong.

The boldness by which Martin V refused to go to Avignon or anywhere else but Rome and rejected the heretical ideals of the Council of Constance, on limiting the power of the Pope, made the Catholic world realize how good it was to finally be a visibly united church again. But the Church's problems with sedevacantism wasn't over, not even in those times. More anti-popes were to be elected by the followers of Benedict XIII and by the Council of Basil.

Clement VIII, Reigned 1424-1429 (anti-pope), Avignon

Clement VIII was elected to succeed Benedict XIII after Benedict's death but submitted to Martin V in 1429.

Benedict XIV, Reigned 1424 (anti-pope), Avignon

Elected by one cardinal to replace Benedict XIII, he had very little following. By this time people had become so disobedient and disrespectful that this anti-pope could get away with such nonsense as being elected by only one cardinal and still proclaim himself Pope.

Eugene IV, Reigned 1431-1447, Rome

Eugene IV, elected at the death of Martin V, held strong against the forces of Gallicanism/Sedevacantism during the Council of Basil which elected an anti-pope, Felix V. Eugene finally saw the whole Christian world finally obedient to the Holy Roman Pontiff for a short while.

Felix V, Reigned 1439-1449 (anti-pope)

Duke Amadeus of Savoy was elected anti-pope by the Council of Basil in defiance of Pope Eugene IV who would not recognize or approve the Council of Basil.

After Felix the storms of Sedevacantism lead by Gallicanism seemed to die down and the Church could then turn to the problems of the Protestant revolt.

_____________________________________________________________

We can now return to a more readable text by going through the events more as they happened and give a broader view of what went on involving all these different factions.

It may concern some, that many of the quotes used are not from religious, but rather historians. We use historians, the same as the Catholic Encyclopedia did because the historian, although he may not take the positions of the traditionalists of his time, at least strives t see the trends of times past. So usually an astute historian can recognize the traditional teachings of the Church and easily recognize those who go against tradition. A traditionalist is one who follows the beliefs the Church as historically followed.

We find many so called "traditionalist" today who are not traditional at all but are rather innovators blinded by their own times, and with no understanding of times past which is necessary in order to be true traditionalists. A "traditionalist" has to be knowledgeable of church history or how else can he be a "traditionalist"? How can one follow tradition if one doesn't know what was traditional as shown by history or dogmatic decree?

So here we will use the knowledge of the historian as a reputable source of knowledge although all human sources are to be somewhat suspect.

_____________________________________________________________

As a review, we last left a somewhat orderly following of the history of the Great Western Schism, with Urban V's unusual election. As you may remember, the cardinals dressed a fake pope up as the Pope to appease the crowd which was becoming rowdy. When the true Pope arrived, he was announced to the world with no problems, but after a while the cardinals, seeing the new Pope was not friendly to them or their hopes of returning to Avignon, they turned against the Pope. They twisted their thoughts to believe what they wanted to believe so they could do what they wanted to do. As St. Catherine of Siena put it, ". . . lies up to their eyes."

It is said that the number one sin man goes to hell for is that committed against the sixth commandment. But I would say that the number one reason (not sin) that men go to hell is for the fact that they lie. Because of lies the sinner believes he hasn't sinned and the heretic believes he isn't in heresy and the schismatic believes he is in the Church. Most of them fail to confess their sins and make themselves right with God because they have believed their own lie and believe they are not guilty. As a result, they are condemned by their sins but are lost due to their lies or at least because they had no love of the truth, which is a form of a lie. So we see these cardinals lead the world down a dark path which caused many countless souls to be lost, then, and in the future, by their abandoning of what they knew well enough. Like the obese person who tells himself, "Oh well, it doesn't matter, I will eat just a little more." The Cardinals took the position that it was such a small hair to split for so much good to be gained and so much comfort to boot. So they claimed that the previous election was under serious duress and that they didn't really want to elect Urban V but were forced to by the mobs. All they had to do was state the fact that there was a menacing mob, leaving out the fact that their choice had already been made before there was a threat. True, they could probably remember someone stating that the people might become angry if they didn't elect someone the people would approve. The point is that if one is willing to let any particle of the truth go by the wayside things soon become much distorted. There is an old saying, "The ultimate punishment of a liar is that he believes his own lies." So the world doesn't repent and the confusion gets worse.

So an Anti-Pope was elected (Clement VII) who set up his reign from Avignon. The Catholic world was disturbed to realize what a mess the Church was in and as a top priority it wanted to see the schism ended. When Clement VII died, the world hoped that there could then be a reconciliation, but instead a replacement Pope was elected who was even more bull-headed, Benedict XIII.

When the true Pope died (Urban VI) the College of Cardinals, under the Bishop of Rome, unanimously elected Gregory XII who had sworn he would abdicate the papacy if the rival Pope from Avignon would do the same, so then a new Pope could be elected which could represent the whole of the Catholic world without dispute.

"In their embarrassment and anger, the French theologians dealing with the issue began to take positions contrary to the immemorial traditions and teaching of the Church, which in time became the full-fledged heresy of conciliarism." The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, page 460.

History is unclear, but it is believed that St. Vincent Ferrer set up a meeting between Gregory and Benedict to bring about a reconciliation of the schismatics to the Church. The meeting never took place as Gregory was afraid that he would be captured and made a prisoner of Benedict and because of various other problems.

Gregory convened his cardinals to address the problem and ordered them not to leave. Seven of the cardinals secretly left and met with the cardinals of Benedict at Pisa to form a Council of Pisa. Benedict and Gregory were both invited to participate, but neither went to Pisa.

"The famous French prelates Gerson, Cramaud and d'Ailly all now proclaimed the ultimate authority of a council to act without papal authorization in a crisis, without saying who was to define when such a crisis existed or how authority could be differently derived in a crisis than in less critical times." The Glory of Christendom, Warren H. Carrol, page 471.

"The last warning voice before the Council of Pisa against this highly dangerous trend was that of a scholar at the German University of Heidelbert; . . . he spoke, clear as a bell, for tradition and truth:

""One must submit unconditionally to the Pope, however wicked he may be. Gregory XII is the true Pope. Hence it is unlawful to deny obedience to him, and one cannot damage him in any way, no matter what good may be the purpose of it. The cardinals' withdrawal of obedience made without any semblance of due form, is invalid. The arguments made in support of this action carry no weight. It is impossible to say [as many theologians now were saying] that Gregory has committed a heresy by being involved in the schism . . . The Pope will have to give account to God for the vows he made to bring unity to the Church: no mere human being has any right to judge him in respect of them, nor has an assembly of bishops, and still less one of the cardinals . . . They are trying to force the hand of the Holy Ghost!"" My emphasis.

"That was exactly what these prelates and theologians were doing. But no man forces the hand of the Holy Spirit. When the council met at Pisa, He was far away." The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, page 471.

"All were stirred when the Patriarch of Alexandria, Simon de Cramaud, addressed the august meeting: "Benedict XIII and Gregory XII", said he, "are recognized as schismatics, the approvers and makers of schism, notorious heretics, guilty of perjury and violation of solemn promises, and openly scandalising the universal Church. In consequence, they are declared unworthy of the Sovereign Pontificate, and are ipso facto deposed from their functions and dignities and ever driven out of the Church. It is forbidden to them henceforward to consider themselves to be Sovereign Pontiffs, and all proceedings and promotions made by them are annulled. The Holy See is declared vacant and the faithful are set free from the promise of obedience." Catholic Encyclopedia ,Vol. XII, Pisa, Council of, Robert Appleton Company, 1911, New York, Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 113.

"Never", said they (the cardinals at Pisa), "shall we succeed in ending the schism while these two obstinate persons are at the head of the opposing parties. There is no undisputed pope who can summon a general council. As the pope is doubtful, the Holy See must be considered vacant. We have therefore a lawful mandate to elect a pope who will be undisputed, and to convoke the universal Church that her adhesion may strengthen our decision." Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, Pisa, Council of, page 113.

"On 26 June, 1409 he (Cardinal Philarghi) was the unanimous choice of the cardinals to fill the presumably vacant Papal Chair . . . His legitimacy was soon questioned and the world was chagrined to find that instead of two Popes it now had three." Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, Alexander V, Robert Appleton Company, 1907, New York, Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 288. Reminds me of the old television program, What's My Line, where three persons claimed to be a certain person and a panel asked the three persons questions in order to determine which one was the true person and which two were impostors. In the end, the true person would stand up. If we didn’t know better we would ask: "Would the real Pope please stand up?"

"There were now three Popes, and three Colleges of Cardinals, in some dioceses three rival bishops, and in some religious orders three rival superiors." Church History, by Fr. John Laux, page 407.

"Still Catholic by doctrine, the Church no longer displayed its great distinguishing mark of unity." The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol page 474. The mark was still there, it was just hard to tell where.

"The Synod of Pisa was no Ecumenical Council: it has never been regarded as such by the Church. It was from the outset, as Pastor says, an act of open revolt against the Pope, a denial of the Primacy of St. Peter and the monarchical constitution of the Church. It was the first attempt to put into practice the theory of William of Occam, John Gerson, and Peter d'Ailly that a General Council is superior to the Pope." Church History , by Fr. John Laux page 406.

Cardinal Cosa, who earlier in his life had been a soldier, supported Alexander V. He (Cosa) lead a force and captured Rome, proclaiming Alexander the Pope at Rome, but Alexander [the second anti-pope] refused to leave Bologna, where he died in the year 1410.

The Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VIII, John XXIII, page 434, describes Cardinal Cosa (later to become John XXIII anti-pope) as ". . . utterly worldly minded, ambitious, crafty, unscrupulous and immoral, a good soldier but no churchman."

May 17, 1410 was the day on which Cardinal Cosa was elected Pope by the Pisan Party (from the Council of Pisa) and on May 24 he was ordained a priest. The following day Cosa was consecrated and crowned Pope, taking the name John XXIII.

"To the other trials of the Church was also added that of heresy. Whenever abuses against the moral and disciplinary teachings of the Church have been widespread errors against her doctrinal truths have obtained a ready acceptance, especially if the cloak of zeal for moral reform was thrown over them. The Englishman John Wycliffe and the Bohemian John Hus were the chief heresiarchs of this period." Catholic History , by Fr. John Laux, page 406.

Even after all the Church had gone through because of Gallicanism and sedevacantism, the Catholic world as a rule looked to a new council to solve its problems.

"On 30 October, 1413 Sigismund (King of Germany) invited Popes Gregory XII and Benedict XIII and all Christendom to attend, and prevailed on John XXIII, with whom he had a meeting at Lodi towards the end of November, to issue the Convocation Bull (9 December, 1413) of the general council to be opened at Constance on 1 November, 1414." Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, John XXIII, page 434.

"The emperor had not bound himself by any permanent obligation towards John. He had needed this pope, as possessing the largest obedience, to bring about the council, but, from the summer of 1413, he had come to the conclusion that unity would be promoted only by the abication or the deposal of all three claimants of the papacy. John at first dominated the council (Constance) while he endeavored to increase his adherents by presents, and by the aid of spies, to learn the temper of the members. However, the hostility of the council towards him became ever more apparent." Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. VIII, John XXIII, Robert Appleton Company, 1910, New York, Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 435.

"A new Council met at Constance in 1414, having been called by the Pope of Pisa (John XXIII), and at its fourth and fifth sessions it proclaimed the superiority of the Council over the Pope, a thesis which became the basis of what was afterwards known as theological Gallicanism." The Papacy, by Wladimir D’ Ormesson, page 69.

At the Council of Constance, ". . . .John (XXIII) was persuaded to read aloud a formal promise of voluntary abdication of the papacy (2 March 1415), and to repeat this promise in a Bull of 8, March." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VIII, John XXII, page 435. Then he changed his mind and fled. In the twelfth session of the council 29 May, 1415 John was formally deposed by the council.

" . . ., on Good Friday (March 29, 1415) the Council drafted the essential provisions of what was later to become the famous and highly dangerous decree Sacrosanct which, along with denouncing the flight of Cosa, declared that the Council held authority directly from God and that the Pope, as well as all the faithful, must obey it in matters of faith, . . . " The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol page 486.

". . . never since the Council of Nicea had an ecumenical council been called by anyone other than a Pope until the Council of Pisa, which was hardly an encouraging precedent, . . . The Council of Constance could only acquire legitimacy from Gregory XII, who was in fact the true Pope, whatever people thought; but that was soon to come." The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol page 486.

"The promised resignation of Gregory XII was now in order, and was accomplished with the dignity to be expected from the Pope usually considered by Catholic historians the legitimate occupant of the See of Peter, through at this time his obedience had practically vanished, being confirmed to Rimini and a few German dioceses." Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, Constance, Council of, Robert Appleton Company, 1908, New York, Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York page 289.

John XXIII had bought many of his followers and had sold many a church position in order to gain his strength, while Benedict XIII commanded the following of the two strong Catholic States of Spain and France.

Gregory XII required that neither John XXIII nor any of his followers be head of the council. Gregory wanted the council to be headed by King Sigismund of the Holy Roman Empire. ". . . whereby it appeared, as the supporters of Gregory wished it to appear, that hither to the council was an assembly convoked by the civil authority." Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, Constance, Council of, page 289.

". . . Cardinal d'Ailly presented a treatise to the Council in October which asserted that it had "the plenitude of power" rather than the Pope, and could not err though the Pope could. To show the greater power of the Council, d'Ailly recalled the Council of Pisa which "had condemned and deposed two Popes, one of whom must have been legitimate." Clearly he had not yet grasped the significance of the acceptance of convocation and authorization by the Council of Constance from the true Pope whom the Council of Pisa had claimed to depose. So thick was the cloud of confusion with which the Great Schism had enveloped even the best Christian minds that it required decades for this truth to dawn. It did not become fully understood until the nineteenth century,

obvious though it should have been to canonists at the time." The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol page 498. Sounds like the same thick smoke of today.

The Council of Constance had taken positions contrary to the rule of the Church. It had proclaimed that a council could rule the Pope and that the Pope was subject to the council. These ideas were and are contrary to the teaching of the Church and it was through them, the ideals of Gallicanism, that the council presumed the authority to depose Popes. This is one of the reasons for Gregory's reluctance to have the council under the auspices of a schismatic Church and for his desire to put it under civil rule of King Sigismund of Germany.

"The Council of Constance finally put an end to the intolerable situation of the Church. At the fourteenth session (4 July, 1415) a Bull of Gregory XII was read which appointed Malatesta and Cardinal Dominici of Rogusa as his priories at the Council. The cardinal then read a mandatory of Gregory XII which convokes the Council and authorized its succeeding acts. Hereupon Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII. pronounced the resignation of the papacy by Gregory XII and handed a written copy of the resignation, retained all the cardinals that had been created by him, and appointed him Bishop of Porto and Perpetual Legate at Ancona. Two years later, before the election of the new Pope, Martin V, Gregory XII died in the odour of sanctity." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VII, Gregory XII, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913, New York, Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York page 1. The Holy Ghost wasn't rushed even though men thought they were so smart a new Pope wasn't elected only after the old Pope died, even though he had resigned two years earlier.

"Under canon law and the unbroken tradition of the Church, no action, even of an ecumenical council is authoritative for the universal Church without the approval of the Pope, . . . " The Glory of Christendom, by Warren H. Carrol, page 502.

"The papacy and the Church had thus passed through an extremely critical period. Yet grave dangers still remained. The doctrine of the superiority of the Council had not been suppressed, and Luther's revolt was soon to be supported, in the first instance, by the principle of this superiority. Other and even graver dangers lay ahead." The Papacy, by Wladimir D’Ormesson, page 70.

"The Church was to pay for these serious short comings by a particularly severe and painful ordeal in the shape of the Protestant Revolution." The Papacy, by Wladimir D’Ormesson, page 70.

It quite often comes to pass that we are required to consider events or actions of individuals of some era in the past. If we try to judge or understand an era in history without first understanding the way in which that point in history was reached, it will be impossible to realize how certain given events happened.

This time of the Great Western Schism is very interesting because of the unreal events that took place and the utter confusion of the times. But once understood, one can better see what happened and why. For instance: Take the great St. Vincent Ferrer. Here is a St. who was instrumental in the raising from the dead hundreds of people (in the early 1400's) and converting whole synagogues to the faith. Many historians say that St. Vincent supported Benedict XIII, anti-pope of Avignon whom he was defiantly subject to. In studying St. Vincent Ferrer's case, I found at least one historian, and that one, the most respected historian in respect to the saints, that being the Rev. Alban Butler the author of the most respected Butlers Lives of the Saints, who shows disagreement with most historians in believing that St. Vincent Ferrer was not supportive of the schismatics. A saint reportedly supporting schismatics raises the question, how could it be that this saint was a saint while being schismatic (outside the Church) and therefore without the graces of the Church?

In quoting some of Rev. Butler's statements, one can get a glimpse at how a saint, who traveled and was accepted with respect by all three claimants to the papacy, could still be a true member of the one true church. On page 21 (April 5) he says that Benedict XIII (anti-pope) " . . . commanded Vincent to repair to Avignon, and made him Master of the Sacred Palace. The saint labored to persuade Benedict to put an end to the schism, but obtained only promises which the ambitious man often renewed, but always artfully eluded." And on page 22 "Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII, sent for him out of Lorrain to Genoa, promising to lay aside all claim to the papacy. The saint obeyed, and represented to him the evils of the schism, which would be all laid to his charge; but he spoke to one that was deaf to such counsels." Butlers Lives of the Saints , by Rev. Alban Butler, Sarto Books, 1982. Three times in these two quotes Rev. Butler states that St. Vincent Ferrer did what his superior the anti-pope told him to do. So through "obedience" St. Vincent was subject to an anti-pope or at least this is what Rev. Butler believed.

In the times leading up to the Great Western Schism we see that Nationalism became blown completely out of proportion. Men put their country above the rule of the Church. French Popes promoted French churchmen and Italian Popes promoted Italian churchmen. To many, the purpose wasn't to do the best for the Church but rather to use the Church to promote the State, their family, or even their own ambitions.

Urban VI, we saw, was elected while a Roman mob was crying out for an Italian or Roman Pope to be selected. Their concern wasn't for the best possible man to be elected. They were too politically motivated. Clement VII was elected the first anti-pope of the Great Western Schism in the basically French territory by mostly French cardinals under the watchful and protectively dominating eye of the French monarch, who was the world power at the time.

Once again we see that Nationalism ruled the Church (or at least tried to), rather than the Church ruling Nationalism. As a result, when the cardinals from a nation went to elect a Pope, they went as a political group and the people of that nation went along with the hierarchy. When the cardinals met to declare Urban VI an anti-pope due to the unusual circumstances of his election and to elect a new Pope (Clement VII anti-pope) they went as a political group. Once Clement VII was elected there was no reason to expect the people of his country not to accept him as the true Pope since they had no means of knowing of the events that had taken place. They received any information they had via the hierarchy of the Church of their nation, that had carried out the elections. As St. Catherine of Siena said: " . . . it was you who announced it to us, . . ." The common people relied on the hierarchy to instruct them of important events. They had not the means available to them that we have today; satellite TV, cellular or regular telephones, periodicals, or even a reliable regular mail service. The common people depended on their superiors, were obedient to them and were faithful to their Pope, who happened in this case to be an anti-pope, they new no better. There was no case schism since, there was no choice for the people since they had no basis of understanding that there even was a problem or a decision to be made. As a nation, the French and Spanish were schismatic in that their hierarchies had chosen to take that path, but the common man wasn't even aware that his superiors had made a choice. Even if the common man had had some reliable means of sorting through the events and obtaining unbiased information, he still would have had to receive the sacraments from the available priests and bishops, as there, in most cases, was no question of being able to travel long distances on foot out of ones' parish in search of a different priest. And there was the problem of misinformation. Who was one to believe? One should be able to believe one's superiors.

So. St. Vincent Ferrer was an obedient and devout man whose fellow countryman had been elected Anti-Pope. Even though that man was an anti-pope and a schismatic it was not a personal schism for St. Vincent Ferrer. St.. Vincent Ferrer obviously never chose to be schismatic directly or indirectly. The choice was not his. He was not in the position to choose. The whole Spanish and French Church went to the side of the anti-pope Clement VII. St. Vincent was different than the ordinary man in that he traveled outside of his homeland and definitely saw and heard of the schism, as I am sure many men did, but he still held true to his superiors. Some of those suppiors were defiantly guilty of schism because they new and chose the wrong course.

""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)." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. XIII, Schism (Western), The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913, New York; Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 541. Here the author is talking about the common man not those who had brought about the schism.

""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." (My emphasis) (Bishop D’Ailly of Combrai in 1409) 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. (My emphasis) This is the pure doctrine of the Angelic Doctor (cf. Tshackert, "Peter von Ailli", appendix 32,33)." Catholic Encyclopedia ,Vol. XIII, Schism, page 540&541.

Nationalism is what ran the Council of Constance. The Council wasn't called by the Pope, but rather by King Sigismund of the German speaking people who persuaded John XXIII to be the first to convoke the council..

At the Council of Constance each major group of nations speaking a different language was placed in a group of their own and called a nation, which divided the assembly into six nations.

"In the fortieth session finally (30, October) was discussed the manner of the new papal election. The council decreed that for this occasion, to the twenty-three cardinals, should be added thirty deputies of the Council (six from each nation) making a body of forth-three electors." Catholic Encyclopedia ,Vol. IV, Constance, Council of, Robert Appleton Company, 1908, New York, Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 290.

So a church divided by a schism, started by nationalism, was to be reunited to the Church through a council convoked by a schismatic, but approved by the true Pope just before his resignation, under the guidance of a civil authority and consisting of an electoral made up of thirty out of fifty three electors who were put in position by their respective nations.

Roman Cardinal Odo Colonna of the famous and infamous Colonna family, which was party in starting the schism by undermining the true Pope, was elected Pope, Martin V, by the Council of Constance. The Colonna family went to work to restore the Church. "At its forty-fifth session, he (Martin V) solemnly closed the Council (22, April 1418), whereupon declining invitations to Avignon or to some German city, he returned to Italy and after a short stay in Florence, entered Rome 28 September, 1420, and took up his residence in the Vatican, thereby restoring to the See of Peter its ancient rights and prestige in Christendom." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. IV, Constance, Council of, page 290.

Benedict XIII, anti-pope, remained stubborn to the end and never admitted his wrong. The Council of Constance declared him deposed, through the ideals of Gallicanism, but the main point is that he never was the true Pope and couldn't possibly be while the previous Pope was still reigning.

Upon the death of Martin V, Eugene IV was elected Pope. A hatred of nepotism led Eugene IV to a conflict with the house of Colonna, the family of whom Martin V was a member. By surrendering their castles and paying an indemnity, the Colonnesi managed to patch up some differences and have some sort of peace with the Church.

A council was started at Basil to address problems of the Church, but Eugene IV dissolved the Council of Basil due to his distrust of the spirit of the Council. The Council refused to be dissolved and issued an encyclical stating it refused to be devolved. The Council had the support of all the secular powers since the Church was in great need of reform. The Gallican doctrine was reasserted which stated that the Council was superior to the Pope. The Pope was required to come before the Council, but he refused.

The Greeks showed a great deal of interest in reuniting with the Roman Church, but Basil was a difficult location to get to. The Pope changed the location to Ferrara by way of the publishing of a Bull. The Council of Basil declared the Bull invalid and threatened to depose the Pope. The leaders of the Council who were more disposed towards Eugene went to Ferrara to open the Council there under the Pope and as a result of the Council of Ferrara, the Greeks were brought, temporarily, into the Church. Those remaining at the defunct Council of Basil continued to move towards a formal schism. They pronounced Eugene, first suspended and then deposed on the charges of heretical conduct towards a general council (which they had called themselves). "To crown their infamy, the secretaries, now reduced to one cardinal and eleven bishops, elected an anti-pope, Duke Amaeus of Savoy, as Felix V. But Christendom, having recently experienced the horrors of a schism, repudiated the revolutionary step, and before his death, Eugene had the happiness of seeing the entire Christian world at least in theory, obedient to the Holy See." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. V, Eugene IV, Robert Appleton Company, 1909, New York, Imprimatur: John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 602.

In discussing the arguments of historians as to how the popes of Avignon should be considered, the Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. XIII, Schism, page 541 states: "A final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Catholica", 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 popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate."

""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 Stradt Rom im Mittilalter, VI, 620). " Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. XIII, Schism, page 541.

If the reader could reread this chapter after finishing the rest of the book one would find this chapter much more understandable. And one will better feel the villenous of these times.

"Louis finally sought to bring about a reconciliation with the Holy See (1693). ....the King informed the Pope that the teachings of the Gallican Articles would not be enforced in the French seminaries. Peace was thus re-established, but more than once the Articles were revived by the successors of Louis to the great detriment of the authority of the Holy See. Gallicanism did not disappear entirely until after the Vatican Council (1870)." Church History , by Fr. John Laux page 509.

"When the Vatican council opened, in 1869, it had in France only timid defenders. When that council declared that the pope has in the Church the plenitude of jurisdiction in matters of faith, morals, discipline, and administration, that his decisions ex cathedra are of themselves, and without the assent of the Church, infallible and irreformable, it dealt Gallicanism a mortal blow." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VI, Gallicanism, page 355.

"Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican, Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy; the Old Catholics have endeavoured to keep it alive under this form." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VI, Gallicanism, page 355. It is from roots of the Old Catholics that some of today’s sedevacantist bishops come.

"The principal force of Gallicanism was always that which it drew from the external circumstances in which it arose and grew up: the difficulties of the Church, torn by schism; the encroachments of the civil authorities; political turmoil; the interested support of the kings of France." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VI, Gallicanism, page 355.

"But in the seventeenth century the Gallican doctrine takes its revenge with Richer and Launoy, who throw as much passion as science into their efforts to shake the work of Bellarmine , the most solid edifice ever raised in defense of the Church’s constitution and the papal supremacy. Catholic encyclopedia , Vol. VI, Gallicanism, page 355. [My emphasis.]

Those who usurp their schismatic bishopric position today wrongly claim Bellarmine as a supporter of their arguments. Again from The Catholic Encyclopedia :

"Gallicans drew their argument from the proposition that the theory of indirect power, accepted by Bellarmine, is easily reducible to that of direct power, which he did not accept." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol., VI, Gallicanism, page 355.

"Another characteristic which is apt to diminish one’s respect for Gallican ideas is their appearance of having been too much influenced, originally and evolutionally, by interested motives. Suggested by theologians who were under bonds to the emperors, accepted as an expedient to restore the unity of the Church, they had never been more loudly proclaimed than in the course of the conflicts which arose between popes and kings, and then always for the advantage of the latter. In truth they savoured too much of a courtly bias." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VI, Gallicanism, page 356.

"Even apart from every other consideration, the practical consequences to which Gallicanism led, and the way in which the State turned it to account should suffice to wean Catholics from it forever." Catholic Encyclopedia , Vol. VI, Gallicanism, page 356.

With all the above it doesn’t concern me that the reader might still stand up for Gallicanism. But it is concerning that possibly the author has not shown the Errors of Gallicanism . So we will list them here:

In the next chapter the subject of infallibility will be addressed. But here we need to make it clear as to why we are going to so much trouble to expose Gallicanism when our real interest or subject is sedevacantism. In Gallicanism we find the roots from which sedevacantism comes. Without the errors of Gallicanism sedevacantism would have no real support.

The ideals of Gallicanism and the ideals of sedevacantism that they support or brought about are:

1. That a council can judge a Pope-in order for a council to judge a Pope the

individuals of the council must first judge the Pope-so why not the

individual outside a council judge the Pope-if this logic stands then

there is no authority-the real world is that God alone judges the Pope.

2. That the right to rule comes directly from God-as a result one does not

need to consider the Pope-as a result we have sedevacantist who claim

they are bishops and even Popes who claim they are Popes without

bishops.

Most sedevacantists are sedevacantist by reaction not logic. That is they reacted to a situation which put them in a position of support of sedevacantist ideals. As a result they were labeled by others (and many times by themselves as well) as sedevacantist without understanding what that position meant or in what direction it would lead them, their friends or their beloved Church. In most cases when one is going down the path to the position of sedevacantist one can be turned back with logic to replace the reactions.

"Christ actually delivered a definite body of revealed truth, to be taught to all men in all ages, and to be guarded from change or corruption by the living voice of His Visible Church, it is idle to contend that this result could be accomplished effectively - in other words that His promise could be effectively fulfilled - unless that living voice can speak infallibly to every generation on any question that may arise affecting the substance of Christ’s teachings." Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, Infallibility, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913, New York, Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 791. My emphasis.

" ‘Upon this rock.’ Jesus is promising Peter that he is to be to the Church as a rock is to a building. But a rock gives durability to a building. As a firm foundation, it holds all the different components together. The metaphor of the ‘house built on a rock and the house built on sand’ was perfectly familiar to the Jews. What is it that makes any society cohere and last? Surely, authority. If there is no proper authority, there is no proper social existence. Hence, St. Peter is here promised the authority necessary to keep the Church together and to make it endure. Unless this is so, Christ’s words are meaningless. [My emphasis.]

"Incidentally, it is worth noting that to find the true Church of Christ, one must find the rock upon which it stands. To find the Church, find Peter. ‘Where Peter is, there is the Church.’ " This is the Faith,, by Rev. Francis J. Ripley, Guild Press, Inc., 1960, New York, Imprimatur: Richard, Archbishop of Livirpole England, first published in England in 1951, page 147.

"Thus the theology of the papal power has as its first dogma the primacy of Peter, a primacy that is not only that of a spokesman nor that of a kind of honorary president of an assembly. It is a matter of a primacy of jurisdiction giving him the right to govern the Church, to bind and to loose. Peter was everywhere her head. His name, ‘Man-Rock’, which Christ conferred on him the first time He saw him remained everywhere with him.

"However, the Church was not made for a single generation alone. She was to continue according to Christ’s promise, ‘until the consummation of the world’. ‘What had been instituted by Christ, in Peter, must necessarily, when St. Peter died he left heirs to his power. It is an undeniable historical fact that these heirs were the bishops of the City of Rome, which he had evangelized, where he had founded a Church, where he had suffered martyrdom, and where his body had been buried. That is why the Vatican Council said that ‘whoever ascends this Chair of Peter obtains thereby, in virtue of Christ’s institution, the primacy of Peter over the Universal Church’." The Papacy, Vladimir D’Ormesson, Hawthorn Books-Publishers, 1958, New York, NY, as volumn 81 of the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernerd, Vicarius Generalis, Westonasterii, page 113. My emphasis.

"So we have proved that Christ established a society ruled by a single supreme head. We have seen also that that society was to endure until the end of time. Therefore, the headship must also endure until the ���������������������end of time. The divinely established constitution of the Church cannot be changed; other wise the Church would cease to be Christ’s Church.� [My emphasis.] Moreover, Christ made it clear that he was going to give the Church Strength to resist her foes (‘the gates of hell’) until the end of time. The contest was to go on long after the apostolic age; it was to be a permanent feature of the Church’s Life. The means by which the Church was to endure was undoubtedly the supremacy conferred on Peter and inherited by his legitimately elected successors in the Roman See. If a visible authority was needed so close to Christ’s own lifetime, it was surely necessary when the Church had grown with the passage of time." (My emphasis.) This is the Faith, , by Rev. Francis J. Ripley, page 160.

"In the Church of Christ, as in every government and properly organized institution on earth, there must exist an ultimate authority, which shall decide when bishops disagree. As a nation has its responsible ruler, a judiciary its supreme court, an army its commander-in-chief, and a ship its captain so must the Catholic hierarchy have a responsible, recognized head, who shall give a final decision in matters of faith and morals. And this has always been the case." Rebuilding a Lost Faith, Stoddard, page 144. Quoted in A Course in Religion, Part IV, by Rev. John Laux, M.A. page 118.

"The teaching body to which Christ promised infallibility is composed of the Supreme Head of the Church, the Pope, and the Bishops united with him, for they are the successors of St. Peter and the other Apostles, who made up the original teaching body of the Church. Hence when differences arise in matters of faith or morals, the decisions are given either by the Pope or by a Council of Bishops confirmed by the Pope." A Course in Religion, by Rev. John Laux, M. A., page 117.

The following is a quote of the I Vatican Council as quoted in The Papacy, , by Wladimir D’Ormesson, pages 114 and 115. "That is why, by attaching ourselves faithfully to the tradition which comes down to us from the origins of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the Exaltation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of the peoples, with the approval of the sacred Council, we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra - that is, when exercising his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals which is to be held by the universal Church - thanks to the divine assistance promised to blessed Peter, he enjoys that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wished to confer on his Church for the definition of doctrines of faith or morals; and therefore the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are, by themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church, irreformable."

"Cardinal Gasparri sums up the Catholic position in his Catechism as follows:

"1. The Church is infallible in her office of teaching owing to the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to her by Christ, when, either in the exercise of her ordinary and universal governance or by a solemn pronouncement as the supreme authority, she proposes, for the acceptance of all, truths of faith or morals that are either revealed in themselves or connected with revelation. [My emphasis.]

"2. To pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind is the peculiar function of the Roman Pontiff, and of the bishops together with the Roman Pontiff, especially when assembled in an Ecumenical Council. (My emphasis.)

"3. An Ecumenical or General Council is an assembly of the bishops of the entire Catholic Church called together by the Roman Pontiff; over such an assembly he himself presides either personally or by his legates, and it belongs to him authoritatively to confirm the Decrees of such a Council.

"4. The Roman Pontiff exercises his prerogative of personal infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra - that is, when, in the exercise of his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

"5. We are bound to believe with divine and Catholic faith truths concerning faith or morals that the Church proposes for acceptance by all the faithful, whether by her ordinary and universal authority or by some solemn pronouncement.

"6. A truth thus defined is called a ‘Dogma of the Faith’; denial of it is called ‘heresy.’ " This is the Faith, by Rev. Francis J. Ripley, page 161.

"We now assert that God prevents this Church from giving men wrong teaching. He wants them to have certainty about the vital things He has revealed. So!

"(a) He prevents the bishops as a body from teaching error, i.e. where there is a moral universality of teaching by the bishops throughout the world, that teaching is guaranteed by God. This is known as the infallibility of the Church. [My emphasis.]

"(b) He prevents the Pope from teaching error when, acting as head of the Church, he teaches the whole Church on some point of faith or morals revealed by Christ. This is known as the infallibility of the Pope." This is the Faith, by Rev. Francis J. Ripley, page 163.

"This does not mean that the Pope cannot make a mistake or commit a sin or that he can teach on any subject which strikes his fancy or that he is inspired by God.

"It does mean that under certain conditions the Pope is preserved from error, namely:

"1. When he speaks ex cathedra, as supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and successor of St. Peter;

"2. When he defines a doctrine, i.e. when he makes it clear that the doctrine must be believed with a firm, interior assent of faith;

"3. When the doctrine defined concerns faith or morals, i.e. when it belongs to the doctrinal teachings or the moral principles of the Catholic religion as found in Scripture or Tradition ; (My emphasis.)

"4. When he speaks thus to the whole Church, intending to bind all its members throughout the world.

"The Pope does not claim to speak infallibly unless all of these conditions are simultaneously present." This is the Faith, by Rev. Francis J. Ripley, page 170.

"We said already that the Pope uses his infallibility when the conditions requisite for its exercise are present. He is personally infallible; no other bishop is. But, as a body, united to their head, the Pope, the bishops are infallible when they teach peremptorily. This they can do in two ways:

"(a) by their ordinary day-to-day united teaching by means of catechisms, ceremonies, traditional liturgical rites, pastoral letters, general condemnations, provincial or plenary councils, the tacit approval of the unanimous teachings of theologians. When the bishops are morally unanimous in teaching a doctrine as of faith or morals, or in reprobating one as a heretic they are infallible in their ordinary teaching; [My emphasis.]

"(b) by assembling in General or Ecumenical Councils. A General Council is a gathering of the bishops of the whole world, or of so many of them that they represent the whole world.

"To be Ecumenical a council must be

Convoked by the Pope;

Presided over by the Pope, either in person or through his Legates;

Ratified by the Pope.

"An assembly of bishops without the Pope would not be Ecumenical or infallible." This is the Faith, by Rev. Francis J. Ripley, pages 172 - 173.

There are those sedevacantists who would have us believe, and teach by their writings, that because a good many of the post councilor bishops teach or go along with heresy we should determine that the Councilor Church contains nothing Catholic and that one is not Catholic if one has anything to do with it. They say that because the Church can not err then that Church which largely goes along with heresy can not be Catholic. The infallible Church is a Church following traditional teachings. Those in the Church can error and can lead most of the Church to follow those errors.

As stated in the above quote the only time the Church (without Papal decree) is infallible is when: unanimously teaching through her bishops; teaching in agreement with the unanimous teachings of her theologians; using traditional liturgical rites; and as is said by some, according to tradition.

Even if the majority of the Church goes along with heretical teachings the Church still remains, as it did during the Arian Heresy. The Church is not governed by a majority. We saw where popes taught heresy and yet the Church remained and those following that pope remained Catholic and those abandoning the pope and setting up churches to their own liking lost the faith.

"....everyone agrees that there are unmistakable juridical signs whereby it is possible to tell when the pope intends to speak ex cathedra . These signs are the following:

"1. He must be concerned with a matter of Christian faith or morals.

"2. The pope must use terms that leave his intentions immediately clear.

"3. He must address himself to the whole Church, and not to a local Church, or the Churches of one country or region.

"4. He must make clear his decision to bind the conscience of all the faithful." The Papacy, by Wladimir D’Ormesson, page 117.

"Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West