SCHISM
540
SCHISM
Clemanges, and with them the whole School of Paris,
defended the interests of Clement. The conflict of
rival passions and the noveltj- of the situation rend-
ered understanding difficult and unanimity impossible.
As a general thing scholars adopted the opinion of
their countrj'. The powers also took sides. The
greater number of the Itahan and German states,
England, and Flanders supported the pope of Rome.
On the other hand France. Spain, Scotland, and all
the nations in the orbit of France were for the pope
of A\-ignon. Nevertheless Charles V had first sug-
gested officially to the cardinals of Anagni the as-
sembhng of a general council, but he was not heard.
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunica-
tion against each other; they created numerous cardi-
nals to make up for the defections and sent them
throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread
their influence, and win adherents. While these
grave and burning discussions were being spread
abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at
Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the
death of Clement of A\ngnon. "There are two mas-
ters in the vessel who are fencing wiih. and contra-
dicting each other", said Jean Petit at the Council of
Paris (1406). Several ecclesiastical assemblies met
in France and elsewhere -nithout definite result. The
e\-il continued without remedy or truce. The King
of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting
such a pope as Benedict, who acted onty according to
his humour and who caused the failure of every plan
for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal
severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops,
abbots, and lesser clergj^ of France. Charles VI re-
leased his people from obedience to Benedict (1398),
and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to
submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope
was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken
of pri\'ileges granted by the pope; in future every dis-
pensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.
This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even ^^ce-pope. Not without the conni- vance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faith- ful to him. When restored to Uberty in 140.3 Bene- dict had not become more conciUating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which as- sembled in Paris in 14(X), met with only partial suc- ce.ss. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions; had placed in him. The council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many confer- ences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), in- terventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the 6u.spiciou8 John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. f>n 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West.
(2) From this brief summary it will be readily con- cluded that this schism did not at all resemble that of the East, that it was something unique, and that it has remained m in history. It was not a schism properly m called, being in reality a deplorable mis- understanding concerning a question of fact, an his- t^jrical cx>mplication which lasted forty years. In the West there was no revolt against papal authority in general, no scorn of the sovereign power of which St.
Peter was the representative. Faith in the necessary
unity never wavered a particle; no one wished volun-
tarily to separate from the head of the Church. Now
this intention alone is the characteristic mark of the
schismatic spirit (Summa, II-II, Q. xxxix, a. 1). On
the contrary everyone desired that unity, materially
overshadowed and temporarily compromised, should
speedily shine forth with new splendour. The the-
ologians, canonists, princes, and faithful of the four-
teenth century felt so intensely and maintained so
vigorously that this character of unity was essential
to the true Church of Jesus Christ, that at Constance
soUcitude for unity took precedence of that for reform.
The benefit of unity had never been adequately ap-
preciated till it had been lost, till the Church had be-
come bicephalous or tricephalous, and there seemed
to be no head precisely because there were too many.
Indeed the first mark of the true Church consists
above all in unity under one head, the Divinely ap-
pointed guardian of the unity of faith and of worship.
Now in practice there was then no wilful error regard-
ing the necessity of this character of the true Church,
much less was there any culpable revolt against the
known head. There was simply ignorance, and
among the greater number invincible ignorance re-
garding the person of the true pope, regarding him who
was at that time the visible depositary of the promises
of the invisible Head. How indeed was this ignorance
to be dispelled? The only witnesses of the facts, the
authors of the double election, were the same persons.
The cardinals of 1378 held successive opinions. They
had in turn testified for Urban, the first pope elected,
on 8 April, and for Clement of Avignon on 20 Septem-
ber. Who were to be believed? The members of
the Sacred College, choosing and writing in April, or
the same cardinals speaking and acting contradictor-
ily in September? Fondi was the starting point of the
division; there Mkewise must be sought the serious
errors and formidable responsibiUties.
Bishops, princes, theologians, and canonists were in a state of perplexity from which they could not emerge in consequence of the conflicting, not disin- terested, and perhaps insincere testimonj^ of the car- dinals. Thenceforth how were the faithful to dispel uncertainty and form a morally sure opinion? They relied on their natural leaders, and these, not knowing exactly what to hold, followed their interests or pas- sions and attached themselves to probabilities. It was a terrible and distressing problem which lasted forty years and tormented two generations of Chris- tians; a schism in the course of which there was no schismatic intention, unless exception perhaps be made of some exalted persons who should have con- sidered the interests of the Church before all else. Exception should also be made of some doctors of the period whose extraordinary opinions show what was the general disorder of minds during the schism (N. Valois, I, 351; IV, 501). Apart from these ex- ceptions no one had the intention of dividing the seamless robe, no one formally desired schism; those concerned were ignorant or misled, but not culpable. In behalf of the great majority of clergy and people must be ploachid the good faith which excludes all errors and the wellnigh impossibility for the simple faithful to reach the truth. This is tlu; conclusion reached by a study of the facts and contemporary docMincnls. This King Charles V, the Count of FlaiHJcrs, the Duke of Brittany, and Jean Gerson, the great cliiincf'llor of the university, vie with one an- other in declaring. D' A illy, then Bi.shop of Cam- brai, in his diocesan synods echoed the same nifxlerate and c(mciliatory sentiments. In 1409 he said to the Genoese: "I know no schismatics save those who stubbornly refuse to learn the truth, or who after dis- covering it refuse to submit to it, or who still formally declare that they do not want Ui follow the movement for union". Schism and heresy as sins and vices, he
