A Crisis of Legitimacy
Most of us have learned the basics of the Protestant Reformation as part of world history classes in school. There is the vivid image of Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the door of the church, and generally some notion of the issue of the selling of indulgences (which most people can relate to in terms of the shennanigans of various televangelists -- I had the joy of studying that period in a History of Western Civilization class right about the time of the Jim and Tammy Bakker scandals, and you can guess what comparison was made) and of the Wars of Religion which resulted.
However, there is much less attention given to another important split in Western Christendom which happened a little over a century earlier; namely, the Great Western Schism. This was a period in which there were two, and ultimately three claimants to the papacy.
It had its roots in what is commonly called the "Babylonian Captivity" of the Church, a period in which the Pope and his Curia (court) left Rome in favor of Avignon, a city in what is now France, after a serious breach between the Papacy and the French crown. This period was widely regarded as one in which the Papacy was under a disgraceful level of secular influence, and several leading religious figures called for each new Pope to return to Rome.
In 1376 Pope Gregory XI returned to Rome, to the displeasure of the "French party" among the cardinals. Dissatisfied with his successor, Urban VI, they returned to Avignon to hold their own conclave and elect their own pope, whom history records as an antipope, a pretender to the Chair of Peter.
For the next several decades Western Christendom was treated to the most unedifying sight of two rival claimants to the Chair of Peter each excommunicating the other as an antipope and laying various ecclesial penalties on the other's followers. For a brief time there was a third claimant, when a splinter group of cardinals went to Pisa (of Leaning Tower fame, although that would come later) to elect a pope of their own, whom history also records as an antipope. Unlike a typical secular civil war, this clerical civil war was relatively light on bloodshed, and it's quite possible that most of the common folk outside the area the various papal claimants held were quite unaware of what was troubling their betters.
In 1417 the Council of Constance was convened to sort out some kind of a workable solution to what was becoming a major injury to the reputation of the Church. Rather than try to force the Avignon and Pisan antipopes to acknowledge the Pope in Rome as the true Pope, they decided that all three claimants to the Chair of Peter should resign and relinquish all claims upon the pontificate. Then a new conclave would be called and a new pope would be elected, with the idea that this man would be untainted by the questions of the legitimacy of his predecessors.
Even so, not everyone was satisfied with this solution, and there were a few more antipopes elected afterward, who are also sometimes considered to be part of the "Avignon line" of antipopes. However, they had few followers and were hardly more significant than the various antipopes who've cropped up among some of the traditionalist Catholic groups who reject the Second Vatican Council and all subsequent popes as illegitimate.
Although the Council of Constance and the subsequent election of a new pope did put an end to the schism, it has been argued that the extended period of multiple claimants to the Chair of Peter may well have helped to make the Protestant Reformation thinkable. And it's true that the end of the Great Western Schism does coincide with the beginning of a period of severe corruption and worldliness in the papacy, which includes some notorious popes of the Renaissance, including Julius II, the Warrior Pope who spent as much time leading armies as he did tending to spiritual things (if you've ever watched The Agony and the Ecstasy, it opens with a group of armed and armored horsemen -- and then reveals that their leader is the Pope when he removes his helmet and calls for his cope so he can give the blessing).
However, there is much less attention given to another important split in Western Christendom which happened a little over a century earlier; namely, the Great Western Schism. This was a period in which there were two, and ultimately three claimants to the papacy.
It had its roots in what is commonly called the "Babylonian Captivity" of the Church, a period in which the Pope and his Curia (court) left Rome in favor of Avignon, a city in what is now France, after a serious breach between the Papacy and the French crown. This period was widely regarded as one in which the Papacy was under a disgraceful level of secular influence, and several leading religious figures called for each new Pope to return to Rome.
In 1376 Pope Gregory XI returned to Rome, to the displeasure of the "French party" among the cardinals. Dissatisfied with his successor, Urban VI, they returned to Avignon to hold their own conclave and elect their own pope, whom history records as an antipope, a pretender to the Chair of Peter.
For the next several decades Western Christendom was treated to the most unedifying sight of two rival claimants to the Chair of Peter each excommunicating the other as an antipope and laying various ecclesial penalties on the other's followers. For a brief time there was a third claimant, when a splinter group of cardinals went to Pisa (of Leaning Tower fame, although that would come later) to elect a pope of their own, whom history also records as an antipope. Unlike a typical secular civil war, this clerical civil war was relatively light on bloodshed, and it's quite possible that most of the common folk outside the area the various papal claimants held were quite unaware of what was troubling their betters.
In 1417 the Council of Constance was convened to sort out some kind of a workable solution to what was becoming a major injury to the reputation of the Church. Rather than try to force the Avignon and Pisan antipopes to acknowledge the Pope in Rome as the true Pope, they decided that all three claimants to the Chair of Peter should resign and relinquish all claims upon the pontificate. Then a new conclave would be called and a new pope would be elected, with the idea that this man would be untainted by the questions of the legitimacy of his predecessors.
Even so, not everyone was satisfied with this solution, and there were a few more antipopes elected afterward, who are also sometimes considered to be part of the "Avignon line" of antipopes. However, they had few followers and were hardly more significant than the various antipopes who've cropped up among some of the traditionalist Catholic groups who reject the Second Vatican Council and all subsequent popes as illegitimate.
Although the Council of Constance and the subsequent election of a new pope did put an end to the schism, it has been argued that the extended period of multiple claimants to the Chair of Peter may well have helped to make the Protestant Reformation thinkable. And it's true that the end of the Great Western Schism does coincide with the beginning of a period of severe corruption and worldliness in the papacy, which includes some notorious popes of the Renaissance, including Julius II, the Warrior Pope who spent as much time leading armies as he did tending to spiritual things (if you've ever watched The Agony and the Ecstasy, it opens with a group of armed and armored horsemen -- and then reveals that their leader is the Pope when he removes his helmet and calls for his cope so he can give the blessing).