Making a "point" is different than whether something was actually an historical fact and in the minds of those who lived that historical event. It's been a long time since the so-called Western Schism. No books have stated any such thing, which shows you are doing your own reasoning and claiming an historical fact that simply was not.

The raising of the oriflamme is a historical fact.

People abandoning their towns so they could be under submission to a different pope is a historical fact.

Both of those things are clear recognitions that the opposing side(s) were viewed to not be part of the Church by many.

Caring who is the true pope is not equivalent to rejecting the other papal claimaints as being not a part of the Church.

Find me something in a pre-Vatican II book that you think supports you, and I will read it.

Hi Argentino,

I posted this as a result of the discussion here regarding the Great Western Schism.  I was surprised o read in this CE entry that the various anti-popes excommunicated each other.  This would lead me to believe that there is at least some truth to what the others are saying here.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/great-western-schism-(catholic-encyclopedia-1912)/msg707252/#msg707252

Hi Argentino,

I posted this as a result of the discussion here regarding the Great Western Schism.  I was surprised o read in this CE entry that the various anti-popes excommunicated each other.  This would lead me to believe that there is at least some truth to what the others are saying here.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/great-western-schism-(catholic-encyclopedia-1912)/msg707252/#msg707252

It was a major controversy in the Church, and so many centuries ago. If it were true, there would have been an historian reporting that people didn't know where "the Church" was. This is not the case. On the principle of "a doubtful pope is no pope" they just looked at it as the See being empty. And empty See does not make anyone wonder where the Catholic Church is.

This is plain and simply not true.

Every country picked their own pope, where's the evidence that the See was regarded as empty by anyone? What benefit do you get out of lying about a vary simple historical fact?

It was the final analysis at the end, not what was going on as far as people believing who was the true pope, as you show the map. But it wasn't a matter of not knowing where the Catholic Church was.

It was the final analysis at the end, not what was going on as far as people believing who was the true pope, as you show the map. But it wasn't a matter of not knowing where the Catholic Church was.

One minute you're complaining about us giving an analysis that isn't in the words of the people alive at the time, and the next you're giving your own which the people's own actions directly contradict? 

Fact of the matter is, when a pope excommunicates someone, they're out of the Church. So any follower of Pope Urban VI must've believed that Pope Clement VIII was outside of the Church, and so on, provided they were an educated Catholic. Therefore, by choosing a pope to follow, you are making an implicit statement on where the Church is. You are saying that Pope X is in the Church, and indeed leads it, and Pope Y is not. That the laws of Pope X are the laws of the Church, but those of Pope Y are not, etc. And we see people's understanding of this by their actions at the time, refusing to be under the hierarchy of who they viewed as the false pope, etc. 

So it's obvious that people were making a decision as to where the Church was when they picked a pope, by virtue of the facts that the pope leads the Church and that excommunication renders one outside it. On the other hand, nowhere do we see evidence that people thought the Papal See was empty - that's just your own hypocritical conjecture. 

Even the term "schism" makes it obvious that it was a matter of the Church being divided. Not totally divided, sure, but it's not called the "Great Western Vacancy" for a reason. 

Hi Argentino,

I posted this as a result of the discussion here regarding the Great Western Schism.  I was surprised o read in this CE entry that the various anti-popes excommunicated each other.  This would lead me to believe that there is at least some truth to what the others are saying here.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/great-western-schism-(catholic-encyclopedia-1912)/msg707252/#msg707252

This is inaccurate as no pope  during GWS is considered an anti-pope. Catholics are free to recognise either the Fr or It faction because there was no heresy or homos present.

Pedro De Luna fell into heresy for while but he retracted,

The Church's censures are *always* primarily medicinal in nature and are given with the intent of inducing the sinner to repent, censures are not infallible nor are they intended to be an infallible decree that kicks the poor bastard permanently out of the Church and condemn him to hell with no hope at all no matter how obstinate he is - although the excommunicant understands by this judgement of the Church that that will ultimately be their end if they do not repent.

Even as somewhat hedged, the assertion above is still something of an overstatement of the case. Damnation as the ultimate and inevitable consequence can be reasonably assumed only when the excommunication is an effect of an actual mortal sin that is unconfessed and unrepented. An excommunication of the sort mentioned by forlorn—one imposed by a proper authority (ferendae sententiae), in this instance a pope—is an action in law, not in faith or morals. Thus, if it has been mistakenly or vindictively imposed, it would be blasphemous to suppose that God would second so terrible an injustice.

Even some excommunications incurred automatically (latae sententiae) should not be regarded as ipso facto indicative of the certain loss of sanctifying grace. After all, John Paul II considered Archbishops Lefebvre and Castro Meyer and the four consecrated bishops excommunicated latae sententiae after June 1988, but most commenters here at CathInfo surely disagree, as did and do all involved with the consecrations.