III.) The Schismatic Church
Notwithstanding the evidence already presented, regarding Peter’s alleged Papacy, the Catholic Church experienced a schism between the years of 1378 to 1415, which led to nothing less than the sabotage of the perceived supremacy of the church in the minds of its followers. This momentous event was preceded by the ‘Babylonian Exile’ of the Church in the years 1307 to 1377 AD.
A.) The Babylonian Exile [30]
During this period, the Church, under the direction of the new French Pope, Clement V, set-up residence at Avignon, France, whereupon the papacy appeared to serve the needs of the French government more effectively than that of God. The Papal States in Italy ceased their monetary support of the Papacy at that point, which forced the Church to look to other means to raise finances. It was because of this crisis, that the practices of simony[31] and indulgences[32] were instituted.
B.) The Papal Schism[33]
The Schism itself began with Gregory XI moving back to Rome from Avignon,
much to the displeasure of the French cardinals.[34] Almost immediately after he moved back however, he died. This occurrence prompted the Roman adherents to demand the election of a new Italian Pope who would remain in Rome. The College of Cardinals elected Urban VI in 1378, but this Pope lost support very quickly. Many of the cardinals decided that Urban had been elected under duress, and voted that because of this, the election itself should be considered null and void. Another election was called and the young Clement VII was throned in Avignon. Urban excommunicated the other pontiff, as well as the College, then elected his own in retaliation. Thus began the Schism. For a period of 37 years, there were two pontiffs were acting simultaneously, one in Rome and the other in Avignon. Each of them had a College of Cardinals, a bureaucracy, and each maintained they had the right of succession.
For years, Europe fell into two opposing camps: France, Scotland, some German princes, and Iberia decided to align themselves with Antipope Clement VII from Avignon, while England, the Holy Roman Empire, and Eastern Europe chose to maintain their allegiance with Pope Urban VI in Italy. The reverberations of this crisis shook the Church to its very foundations and resulted in nothing less than the breakdown of the entire medieval world view.
C.) The Conciliar Movement
The church debated for a while about how to solve this conundrum. Out of the four[35] possibilities, they chose to hold a council or synod, much like that which was done in the early Church, whenever a problem arose. Among the questions tackled during this time, was that of the Pope’s authority over the Church. It was determined that it was merely bureaucratic in nature and that Christ was the head of the Church.
1.) Council of Pisa [36]
The first Council established, was the Council of Pisa. It was attended by both Church clergy and laity. The attendees of this council decided to depose both Pope Urban VI and Antipope Clement VII and vote in Antipope Alexander V. However, neither Urban VI nor Clement VII were willing to step down, so the problem was compounded, rather than rectified; three rivals within the papacy were claiming succession, rather than two. In order to alleviate the Church’s continuing state of turmoil, the new Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund, lobbied for a new council and succeeded in getting the Antipope John XXIII to convoke it[37]; the Council of Constance convened in 1414.
2.) Council of Constance [38]
Constance, the Sixteenth Ecumenical Council, was assembled in order to accomplish three things: to end the schism, to extirpate ‘heresy’ from the land and to reform the Church.
a.) Ending the Schism
Immediately after the they gathered, the council, with the help of the Emperor Sigismund, forced John XXIII to resign. The other two[39] abdicated their respective positions after the forced resignation of John XXIII was carried out. Another pontiff was not immediately elected to carry on the papacy; when Martin V was finally selected, he became a problem as well, because he later rejected the conciliar movement that elected him.
b.) Extirpation of Heresy
Prior to the Council of Constance, a religious movement in Bohemia had risen up and appeared to cause the Church many problems. John Huss, one of the leaders of this movement, preached to whomever would listen about the moral decline of the Church and clergy. He and a few others were burned at the stake for their trouble. According to Encarta, “[i]n 1414 Huss was summoned to appear at the Council of Constance, which had been convened to resolve the schism in the church and to suppress heresy. Having received a safe conduct from Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund, Huss thought he might manage successfully to defend his beliefs. On his arrival, however, his enemies had him imprisoned and tried for heresy. The charges against him falsely stated the doctrines he had preached. Called upon to recant (and to promise not to teach) his doctrines, Huss refused categorically. He was condemned by the council and was burned at the stake, dying heroically” (Encarta “Huss” 1996).
c.) Reform of the Church
The final task of this council was to reform the Church. This ‘reformation’ came about, primarily in the form of two documents. The first one, ‘Haec Sancta’, was drawn up, in order to justify the actions of the council itself. This document essentially stated that the council had been called lawfully, its authority was from Christ, and that all men were bound by the decisions made by the council itself, including the Pope. The second paper, “Frequens”, called for the frequent and regular convening of councils in the future.[40]
3.) Council of Basle [41]
In 1414, in spite of his disregard for the Conciliar Movement, Pope Martin V was forced to convene the next synod, as per the “Frequens” document. Shortly after the council of Basle was convened, Martin died, leaving Eugenius IV to reluctantly preside over it.
The main reason this Council was convened, was to try to rectify the problem caused by the entire schism. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, ”[i]n Basle itself it was resolved to depose the pope and in order to prepare the way for deposition three articles were drawn up, namely that: a general council is superior to a pope, the pope can neither prorogue nor dissolve such an assembly, and whoever denies these three articles, is a heretic” (MacCaffrey 1998).
During its four year course, the Council of Basle reissued the “Haec Sancta”, in order to assure all that these meetings were ‘God ordained’ and also spoke to the Hussites in Bohemia because they continued to speak out against the Church, in spite of the fact that many, including Huss himself, were burned at the stake during the last synod. This proved to be a move that would cause the laity to have an even lower regard for the Church itself, since they were perceived to be consorting with known heretics.
At one point in time, Eugenius forced the Council to move to Florence over the issue of the reunification with the East. However, not only did the Council not cooperate, but some delegates stayed in Basle, effectively causing the council itself to suffer a schism! The delegates who were left from the fractured council of Basle deposed Eugenius and elected Felix V, which, in effect, created yet another papal schism.
D.) Restored Renaissance Papacy?
All of this confusion was finally put to an end in 1458, when a strong young pope, Pius II, condemned the Conciliar movement as a mistake and restored the papacy to its old prestige, albeit in a vacuum.
Following the condemnation of the Conciliar movement, the papal throne was consistently occupied by men who called into question the moral legitimacy of the papacy to lead Christendom. Among these, were individuals, such as Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope, Julius II, and Leo X.
Pope Sixtus IV appointed all of his relatives to ecclesiastical positions. He was also purportedly involved in the Pazzi conspiracy to assassinate the Medici of Florence.
From his vantage point within the College of Cardinals, Innocent VIII used the money he had, to purchase the papal throne. In addition, he had apparently fathered many illegitimate children, although he kept this fact pretty
quiet.
Conversely, Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope, took great pride in his children. His daughter, Lucrecia, had been married to many Italian nobles, all of which died mysteriously, leaving her their estates. Alexander’s son, Cesare, spent Church money to hire an army and become a prince. This particular act was immortalized by Machiavelli, in the book, Il Principe.
Julius II was a ‘warrior pope’; he even had papal armor made for himself. Not much else can be said about this man, aside from the fact that he was also a patron of the arts -- he commissioned Michaelangelo to redo the Cistine Chapel, which was originally commissioned by Sixtus.
Leo X, the son of Lorenzo de Medici may have claimed to be a Christian; it was very difficult to tell from his spiritual walk, however. Among the more infamous words he spoke, were these: “Let us enjoy the papacy since God has given it to us.” [42] (Löffler 1998).
Steven J Keillor waxes eloquently about this time:
Instead of seeking the salvation of souls and the worship of God as ends, the fifteenth-century Catholic Church often used people's hunger for salvation and for God for its own profit. Pope Leo X sold two thousand church offices yearly for five hundred thousand ducats. With the annual income from their purchased offices, officials hired deputies at much lower salaries to do the spiritual tasks and pocketed the difference. One cleric often held many offices. Already archbishop of Magdeburg, Albert of Brandenburg desired another arch bishopric (he had to support several mistresses), for which he owed Leo X about thirty-one thousand ducats. To raise the money, he sent the notorious Johann Tetzel to sell indulgences with the jingle:
As soon as the gold in the basin rings,
Right then the soul to heaven springs.In saints' relics, the church had another consumer good to sell (Keillor 1996).
Each of these men mentioned lived-out their papal careers as ‘Prince of X’ or ‘Duke of Y’. None of them seemed concerned with the appropriate governance of the Church, but instead focused on the temporal things of this life. The allegiances they formed with the world served as sad testimonies to the real ambitions their hearts enhoused.
When he spoke of the behavior of many within the clergy of the day, Erasmus took on a very bitter tone. He compared the behavior of the Popes to that of princes and nobility of the time:
“And as to the court lords . . . most of whom though there be nothing more indebted, more servile, more witless, more contemptible, yet they would seem as they were the most excellent of all others. . . they are contented to wear about them gold, jewels, purple, and those other marks of virtue and wisdom; but for the study of the things themselves, they remit it to others . . . but if you look into their manner of life you'll find them mere sots . . . [t]hey sleep till noon and have their mercenary Levite come to their bedside, where he chops over his matins before they are half up. Then to breakfast, which is scarce done but dinner stays for them. From thence they go to dice, tables, cards, or entertain themselves with jesters, fools, gambols, and horse tricks. In the meantime they have one or two beverages, and then supper, and after that a banquet . . . [a]nd in this manner do their hours, days, months, years, age slide away without the least irksomeness. . . . Nor are princes by themselves in their manner of life, since popes, cardinals, and bishops have so diligently followed their steps that they've almost got the start of them. For if any of them would consider what their alb should put them in mind of, to wit a blameless life . . . these, I say, and many of the like kind should anyone truly consider, would he not live a sad and troublesome life? Whereas now they do well enough while they feed themselves only, and for the care of their flock either put it over to Christ or lay it all on their suffragans, as they call them, or some poor vicars. Nor do they so much as remember their name, or what the word bishop signifies, to wit, labor, care, and trouble. But in racking to gather money they truly act the part of bishops, and herein acquit themselves to be no blind seers” (Erasmus 1996).
In reality, based on the historical writings of the time, the restoration of the Papacy appeared to be little more than a political maneuver, designed to regain some of the former power the Church had wielded prior to the schism.
E.) Not What Is Portrayed
Without a doubt, neither the unbroken succession of the Papacy nor the ‘Renaissance
restoration’ were periods in history that heralded the ‘truthfulness’ of the doctrine within the Catholic system.
The Schism refutes the claim made by Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, in the Tract, “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth” that “[t]he line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself” [43] (Keating 1996). [my emphasis] Moreover, the Pontiffs that occupied the ‘throne of Peter’ as ‘vicars of Christ’ during both periods of time, shamed the very names they represented and brought into question the need for the existence of such a system.
APPENDICES | INDEX| BACK | PART IV | CEPHAS FILES
Please tell your friends about our website: http://www.cephasministry.com