---

The Councils of Pisa & Constance
Lessons & Precedents for our Times

Unlike the Great Eastern Schism, which was based on the total repudiation of the Papal primacy, the great Schism of the West was a dispute about who was the true Pope. 

After years under a single pope in Avignon, France, Gregory XI (Roger de Beaufort) had brought the papacy back to Rome.  Upon his death in March of 1378, the Cardinals, electing amid the violence of the mobs in Rome on April 8 of the same year chose as pope Bartolommeo Prignano, a non-Cardinal, Archbishop of Bari, who took the name of Urban VI.  Because of Urban's harshness and doubtful election -- under fear and duress so the Cardinals later claimed -- they gathered again at Fondi five months later, declared Urban's election null and void and elected Robert of Geneva as Clement VII, causing the split in the Church. 

The schism thus set in motion deserves to be called "Great" because no previous -- there were at least thirty-nine antipopes before the advent of Clement VII -- or later schism lasted so long and wrought so much mischief until the Great Apostasy of our times.  The Great Schism lasted 39 years before being healed by the election of Martin V at Constance in 1417, slightly longer than the time we have now spent under the four (major) antipopes of the twentieth century. 

Clement VII retreated to Avignon and soon the European nations began to divide in their allegiances to the two claimants to the Holy See.  Even the great saints of the time were split between the two contenders, Catherine of Sienna opting for the Roman line and Vincent Ferrer for Avignon.  Wars were incited between the various factions and the spiritual chaos was indescribable, everyone hurling epithets of heresy and schism against every other one who didn't agree with their views on the true papal claimant.  Even within families splits occurred.  As the schism waxed on with new Cardinals appointed and papal successors elected in both lines, the great minds from the Catholic universities of Europe and great leaders in both hierarchies began to search in earnest for ways and means to heal the schism. 

In the Roman line of popes following Urban VI came Boniface IX in 1389, then Innocent VII in 1392, then Gregory XII in 1406.  Gregory was the last of the popes in the Roman line before unity was restored. 

In the Avignon line, upon the death of Clement VII was elected Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna) in 1394.  De Luna, a crafty Spaniard and one of the original Cardinals under Gregory XI lived until May 23 of 1423, insisting upon the validity of his election until his death in Spain. 

Diplomatic means were pursued from the very beginning to end the schism by trying to get the rival popes together to negotiate its end, but something always prevented their meetings.  While various popes from both camps would agree to suggestions along this line, matters moved at a snail's pace to the frustration of the Cardinals from both allegiances.  They finally determined to take matters into their own hands. 

A number of proposals were made as to how the schism could be ended.  These included cession, arbitration or a general council.  Cession would have amounted to a dual mutual abdication from the pontificate by both claimants, leaving the See certainly vacant thereby as had occurred in the days of Celestine V.  Arbitration would have involved the mutual appointment of a body of judges to review the claims with the decision of this board being binding on both popes.  The General Council was suggested since, at that point in time, there were many who believed that the General Council was an authority higher than the pope and accordingly could forcibly depose the two claimants and elect another in their place. 

"Attempts at cession and arbitration having failed, the Cardinals from both lines, without the concurrence of either Gregory XII or Benedict XIII, in 1409 called the Council of Pisa.  As if the Holy See had really been vacant, they at once began to assume the position of the lawful rulers of the Church.  Both popes then endeavored by summoning councils of their own, to counteract the rebellion of the Cardinals, but the Council of the latter, although its convocation was, according to the canonical provisions of the time, absolutely illegal, took place and became extremely important. 

"The increasing desire for unity does not alone suffice to explain this astonishing fact.  The Synod of Pisa, according to Catholic principles, was, from the outset, an act of open rebellion against the pope.  That such an essentially revolutionary assembly should decree itself competent to reestablish order and was able to command so much consideration, was only rendered possible by the eclipse of the Catholic doctrine regarding the primacy of St. Peter and the monarchical constitution of the Church occasioned by the schism."[1] 

"'It was the will of Christ that the whole Church should have a single, visible head, so that, by the mutual connection of all these members under one head, the most perfect unity should subsist.'  Therefore, a short time before His Ascension, our Saviour, according to His promise (Matt. xvi., 17-19), appointed the Apostle Peter, after his threefold profession of love, to be His Vicar here on earth, the foundation and center of the Church, the shepherd of "the lambs and the sheep,"  that is to say, of the whole company of the redeemed on earth, as related by St. John (xxi., 15 et seq.). 

"The primacy conferred on St. Peter, according to the teaching of the Church, is not merely one of precedence and honor, but one of supreme jurisdiction, of complete spiritual power and authority.  Inasmuch as Christ committed this power immediately and directly to St. Peter, he holds it for the Church, but not from Her; he is not Her representative and delegate, but her divinely appointed head.  In virtue of this supreme authority, all Her members, including Bishops, are subject to the pope; subject, whether we view them as isolated individuals, or as assembled in Council.  Far from subjecting a pope to a Council, the early Church held it as a principle that the supreme authority could be judged by no one.  A General Council cannot exist without the pope or in opposition to him, for, as head of the Church he is the necessary and essential head of the General Council, whose decrees receive their ecumenical validity solely from his confirmation.  As supreme legislator, the pope can, in matters of discipline, revise and change the decrees of a General Council, as well as those of his predecessors. Former ecclesiastical legislation forms a precedent for his action, in so far as he, being the superior, is by his own example to show respect to the law.  The primacy also contains, comprehended within itself, the supreme judicial power.  Appeal may accordingly be made to him in all ecclesiastical matters; there is no appeal from his judgment to another tribunal; the plentitude of power of the Universal Church, conferred on the Holy See, is limited by nothing but Divine and Natural law. 

"The Schism, attacking as it did the very center of unity, brought discussion as to the position of the pope in the Church into the foreground.  In a period of such agitation, the discussion inevitably assumed a revolutionary character, most dangerous to the Church.  A multitude of theories, more or less openly opposed to Her teaching and law, were brought forward, intensifying the confusion by their abandonment of the solid legal foundations.  Many men, who were otherwise strongly attached to the Church, were carried away by these anti-papal tendencies."[3] 

We might well note this parallel with the situation of our times.  Heretical theories, abandonment of solid legal bases have all tended to increase the confusion and fragmentation among the remnant Catholics who have fled from the main apostasy.

"This last opinion, which may be considered as a consequence of Occam's teaching, was strongly controverted by Heinrich von Langenstein in his 'Proposition of Peace for the Union and Reformation of the Church by a General Council,' written in 1381.  He looks on the Schism as a thing permitted by God, Who, in His wisdom, which constantly brings good out of evil, had not prevented this great misfortune, but would have it bring about the right and necessary reform of the Church."[4]   In this regard he was right. 

Among the more extravagant things which Langenstein, perhaps the foremost theologian of his time, put forward as justification of Pisa are these: No especial weight is to be attached to Our Lord's institution of the papacy.  The Church would have had the right to appoint a head if He had not done so.  If the Cardinals should have chosen a pope who doesn't suit the Church, She had a right to revise the work of Her agents, and even to deprive them of Her commission.  The power to elect a pope belongs in the episcopate and reverts to it if the Cardinals cannot, or will not elect, or if they abuse the right of election.  All acts of Church and State are to be judged on the basis of whether they promote the general good.  Necessity breaks the law; indeed, it even renders its breach a duty. We must look to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. In the interpretation of every law we must be aware of the Aristotelian principle of equity (epikeia) Langenstein then admits that accordingly, it is not of the essence of a General Council that it should be summoned by the pope!  This could be done by a temporal prince instead!  The authority of a council stands above the Pope, and of the Sacred College, for of the Church alone is it said that the gates of hell should not prevail against Her! 

These theories, by which Langenstein broke with the whole existing system, soon became broadly diffused.  This most dangerous doctrine of the natural right of necessity was the instrument used in all efforts to put an end to the schism.  [Let us be reminded of the fact that whole "catholic churches" have come into existence in our times on the basis of this same true principle falsely applied as it was in the days before Pisa.]  Other loyal voices were raised in warning, stating the true doctrine, that even if all of the prelates of the Church came together, without the authority of the Pope, they would form no Council but merely a Conventicle.  These warnings went unheeded -- as ours do now, it seems, by all those who are interested in preserving illegitimate ecclesiastical enterprises or rushing off into the sunset to elect their favorite cleric a "pope." 

Just before Pisa, democratic principles contrary to the divine principle of the Church's constitution had invaded the thinking of even the soundest minds of that time, making Pisa a rash undertaking with a horrible outcome that was not foreseen by its overzealous participants.  Much, if not even all, of the problems of our day could have been averted if the history and lessons from Pisa and Constance would have been made mandatory reading for the present-day "catholic" church founders. 

Among the most ardent opponents of the seditious fathers of Pisa was the noble King Rupert III.  He saw that the path of the Cardinals could never lead to unity, but rather to a "threefold division, and to still greater discord and humiliation for the Church and Christendom."  He sent an embassy to Pisa which claimed that the Cardinals could not renounce obedience to their popes for the sake of obtaining union inasmuch as it is not lawful to do evil that good may come of it; that the Cardinals could not depart from unity in order to unite others; the Pope alone could summon a General Council; that they had presented their own pope to the world as lawfully elected, and if indeed he was unlawful their own position must be doubtful as well.  The embassy further contested the legality of the union of the two colleges, in as much as the Cardinals of one party could alone be recognized as lawful.  These and other considerations went unheeded.  The synod disregarded all canonical scruples and boldly assumed authority over the two popes, of whom one must necessarily have been the lawful head of the Church. 

The Synod declared itself to be canonically summoned and ecumenical, representing the whole Catholic Church, then proceeded to the trial and deposition of Gregory XII and Benedict XIII.  Without further negotiations with either pope, neither of whom had appeared at Pisa, their deposition was decreed, and a new election ordered.  On 26 June, 1409, they elected the aged Archbishop of Milan, Petros Filargis, a Greek, who took the name of Alexander V.  Instead of two popes there were now three!  The assembly which was to have restored unity had only increased the confusion.  Alexander V lived only about a year and was succeeded by John XXIII. 

Among the lessons learned from Pisa we should note the following:  Ecumenical councils must be summoned and presided over by popes or their legates in order to have credence in the eyes of God.  It is important to note that at no time has the Instauratio movement ever claimed to be an ecumenical council, nor is it leading toward or pretending to be a body appealing to authority for convocation.  It is, rather, a body representative of the members of the Catholic Church worldwide, claiming no existence under ecclesiastical law, but only under the natural law.  We might note also at Pisa that numerous false theories were advanced to "justify" the action taken.  We can see this now too in the spurious groups that have rashly rushed into papal elections basing themselves upon false assertions: "mystical appointments" and sectarian actions, clearly not the fruit of careful doctrinal and legal examinations.  The results should not surprise us.  Our action is not, as Pisa was, an action taken in the face of any true existing claimant to the papacy.  Other works have given the proofs of the vacancy of the Apostolic See from the death of Pius XII, including the theory of the "phantom pope," and the total inadequacy of all of the past efforts made to fill the supreme office. 

On to Constance

Accordingly, the Council of Constance was summoned by a pope who lacked all authority to do so, deriving, as he did, his powers from an unlawful body (Pisa).  When he saw the intent to depose him prevalent in the fathers assembled at Constance, in order to prevent further "lawful" session of the Council, he fled from Constance under somewhat adventurous circumstances (20th March, 1415) and was "deposed" by the council two months later.  John XXIII acceded to the council's deposition.  At this time matters took a turn for the better, thanks to the efforts of St. John Dominici, one of the great saints of the time, who was under the obedience of Gregory XII at Rome.  St. John finally convinced the reluctant Gregory to convene the Council himself, which had already been in full session and then abdicate.  This occurred on July 4, 1415.  Before his abdication he "received into communion" the Cardinals from the John XXIII obedience.  The Council then convicted and deposed Benedict XIII. 

The important point to note here was the abdication of Gregory XII who must have been the true pope at the time.  His abdication vacated the papacy making the subsequent election of Martin V possible and valid -- by a new means that was never before and never since used for the election of a pope.  The fathers of the time could not have been certain, as we are from this point of view five centuries later, as to the validity of Benedict XIII's claim to the papacy.  Had he been truly the pope in the eyes of God, the abdication of Gregory XII and election of Martin V could not have ended the schism.  Constance would have still been an illegal body that had no power to proceed.  The See would have still been occupied and no pope could have been elected.  But, thank God, Gregory XII was the true pope.  Abdicating as he did was the only action necessary on his part.  It would have made no difference whatsoever if he had failed to convoke the council.  As it was, his abdication left the council he had convoked without a head, which normally would have brought it to an end!  It therefore could not render any doctrinal decisions or pass any binding legislation until another head was elected! 

The council was now in a precarious position: as a body representative of the Universal Church it could only do one thing validly by itself without a pope after the abdication of Gregory XII: proceed to the election of a head for the perfect society it represented.  This it did, under the Natural Law, and the schism came to an end. 

The existing ecclesiastical law of the time called for the election of a pope exclusively by the Cardinals but the Council never considered following the prevailing ecclesiastical law because of the confusion as to just who the real Cardinals were, on the one hand, and because of the fear of new schisms if the Cardinals, who were responsible for the Great Schism, were left again with matters completely in their own hands.  The Council fathers therefore bypassed the existing ecclesiastical law and agreed to a new election methodology which seemed more suitable to themselves.  This was a clear departure from the law on the books at that time.  Since there was no pope during these sessions of Constance which 'decreed' the new election law, it should not be considered an ecclesiastical law at all.  It was merely a mutual agreement among the members (and nonmembers) present as to how they were going to proceed toward the valid election of the new pope.  As such it was an action under the Natural Law.  This the gathering, representative as it was of the Universal Church, was competent to do.  But, until Martin V arrived in November of 1417, no other law or doctrine approved by the Council had any official bearing or validity. 

It seems obvious to this writer that this is just what happened at Constance, despite the then current understanding of how they were proceeding, believing, as they then did, that they were acting under some unclear provision of ecclesiastical law.  In none of the texts (about a dozen or more) which I have consulted, has it emerged that any of the great leaders of that time seriously suggested that the schism could have been ended by action of the membership of the Church under the provisions of the Natural Law, even though the great Gerson had alluded to it in one of his sermons, he had failed to perceive the potential this opening presented for subsequent action and did not develop the thought any further. Through the force of events, God had provided the means -- which they actually used -- but it was unbeknownst to the movers of the Council of Constance. 

We have, therefore, a clear precedent from Church history upon which to base the unique action of our time.  At the time of Constance, the membership of the Church, along with many who were in schism, and therefore not members, actually, gathered together and agreed to a methodology which would be followed to secure a valid and licit new Vicar of Christ.  The fathers present were drawn from the obediences of three different popes, the Cardinals were of at least two continuing obediences: that of Gregory and Benedict, given Gregory's assimilation of John XXIII's Cardinals. One could argue that at that time less than half of the individuals participating at Constance were actually members of the Catholic Church who could, by strict right, validly proceed to the election of Gregory XII's successor.  How then was the election valid under the Natural Law? 

The answer, I believe, is this:  In an election conducted under the Natural Law, it is left to the discretion of the members of a society to determine for themselves what method will be followed to assure a valid outcome.  The members of a society, reduced to the final necessity of restoring a head to their society when all of the normal means have failed, have the right to legislate for themselves the method to be followed, which will result in a satisfactory outcome. 

In this regard, however, there are certain principles, themselves residing under the Natural and Divine Laws, which limit what might otherwise be construed to be an absolute freedom of action.  It would not, for instance, be proper to admit to the body of voters those whose interests are ultimately inimical to the Church, who, if conceded votes in the assembly by the members there, would take advantage of the privilege of voting only to preclude a successful outcome of the election, such as Jews, Protestants, etc.  On the other hand there does seem to be a latitude, given the history of Constance, to include those who, while technically not members of the Church (as were those in public, material schism back then) and not possessing a vote per se in the electoral body, do have the Church's interests at heart and long as much as Her members do for the restoration of Her Supreme Authority, and the removal of their own illegitimacy.  These could and in my opinion should, in light of the precedent set at Constance, be given a place in the election proceedings. 

---

Footnotes