CathInfo.com

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.