Historical antipopes and Catholic life

[x1980x]

In the past, there were some controversies regarding the identity of the true Pope, leading to individuals who have been labeled Antipopes. I’m not talking about modern conclavists.

When, in times past, there was a controversy over the legitimate claimant to the title of Pope:

1. Two what extent was the “correct” answer obvious to the average devout Catholic? For example, in 1329, was it obvious to even the most dimwitted Catholic with an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology that Nicholas V was a poser, heretic, Antichrist, or worse and that it was plainly obvious that John XXI was the Real Pope and that anyone who disagreed had clearly left the CC, or was there room for disagreement and the truth only became clear in later times?
2. To what extent did the choice between one papal claimant and another affect the daily lives of average Catholics or even priests or bishops? For example, did priests and bishops generally pay lip service to both sides while keeping their head down and taking care of their flock, or were common people expected to stand up and take sides and people lost their families, jobs, property, or even their lives for choosing the “wrong” pope? Were there parallel hierarchies, congregations, and orders with an RCIA-like conversion process between them? For example, if a believer in the year 530 decided one morning that they were wrong for following Dioscorus and that the real pope was Boniface II, what, if anything, would change in their life because of this?

To make an analogy, the infamous hanging chads scandal in the US in 2000 didn’t cause a civil war or civil meltdown - people and government officials kept on going about their daily lives and waited for the situation to resolve. You didn’t have local police in a Republican-dominated area drawing a line in the sand and telling everyone loyal to Bush to stand here and everyone loyal to Gore to stand there and then executing the “traitors”. People who personally sided on the losing side were not shunned or arrested afterwards.

 

[pablope]

In the past, there were some controversies regarding the identity of the true Pope, leading to individuals who have been labeled Antipopes

. I’m not talking about modern conclavists.

When, in times past, there was a controversy over the legitimate claimant to the title of Pope:

1. Two what extent was the “correct” answer obvious to the average devout Catholic? For example, in 1329, was it obvious to even the most dimwitted Catholic with an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology

 

[Horatius]

The answers to your questions depend on which period we’re talking about.

You mentioned the antipope Nicholas V. In his case, yes, I think it would have been fairly obvious to contemporaries that he was a poser. At the time, the German king Louis IV and Pope John XXII had strong differences. Rather than deal with the pope, Louis decided to install a pet pope of his own (Nicholas V) who would rubber stamp his policies.

A lot of antipopes over the centuries were like that. The king or emperor couldn’t get along with the pope, so they “elected” someone else to be pope instead. Pretty transparent to contemporaries, and these guys usually didn’t have a wide following. These situations didn’t affect people’s day-to-day lives.

A more difficult situation prevailed during the Great Schism (1378–1417). That started off because many of the members of the College of Cardinals regretted electing Urban VI, so later the same year they held a second convocation and elected Clement VII.

In hindsight we recognize Urban VI as the real pope, but at the time many people were legitimately confused. Unlike imperial stooges like the antipope Nicholas V, the antipopes during the Great Schism were elected by the College of Cardinals (or one of the colleges, since a second college formed around Clement).

As far as I know, sides were taken based on kingdom. If your king was pro-Urban, then the bishops in his kingdom were pro-Urban, and likewise if your king was pro-Clement. Generally only the bishops and people in similar positions of authority were in a position to take sides. The priests and laity mostly just went about their business.

It is important to note that Catholicism is not as centralized as many outsiders imagine. Most of the Church’s business happens at the diocesan level. That was even more true in the Middle Ages than it is today. People were certainly aware of the Schism, and they thought it a bloody shame, but in most cases it didn’t affect their daily lives.

 

[x1980x]

…

A more difficult situation prevailed during the Great Schism (1378–1417). That started off because many of the members of the College of Cardinals regretted electing Urban VI, so later the same year they held a second convocation and elected Clement VII.

In hindsight we recognize Urban VI as the real pope, …

As far as I know, sides were taken based on kingdom. If your king was pro-Urban, then the bishops in his kingdom were pro-Urban, and likewise if your king was pro-Clement. Generally only the bishops and people in similar positions of authority were in a position to take sides. The priests and laity mostly just went about their business.

It is important to note that Catholicism is not as centralized as many outsiders imagine. Most of the Church’s business happens at the diocesan level…

Ah. I gather that you mean that dioceses basically kept on operating as they did and you didn’t have a “Clementine Catholic Church” hurling epithets and anathemas at the “Urban Catholic Church” across the street and evangelists wandering the streets to try to convince people to convert from the Clementine Church to the Urban Church in 6 easy lessons and possibly a free martyrdom if the Clementine Inquisition comes by again to “ensure the laity’s loyalty”.

When the smoke cleared and Urban was vindicated, to what extent were people who had explicitly sided with Clementine under a mistaken but good faith belief that he was the real pope considered sinners or schismatics? Could they more or less come back and say, “whoops, thank God that’s over, guess I was wrong but no harm no foul, I want God’s true Pope”, or were they expected to go to confession and do penance for “picking wrong”? In other words, was siding with Clementine against Urban equivalent to converting to Lutheranism or EO?

 

[DavidFilmer]

When the smoke cleared and Urban was vindicated, to what extent were people who had explicitly sided with Clementine under a mistaken but good faith belief that he was the real pope considered sinners or schismatics?

You can’t be a sinner if you did something in good faith. It doesn’t matter what you did - if you lack knowledge and consent, it cannot be a sin.

I would also like to point out that anti-Popes are seldom evil men. They, themselves, are usually men of good will and intent who are mistaken about their own claim to the Office. One anti-Pope (Hippolytus) is a Saint of the Church.

 

[Horatius]

Ah. I gather that you mean that dioceses basically kept on operating as they did and you didn’t have a “Clementine Catholic Church” hurling epithets and anathemas at the “Urban Catholic Church” across the street …

Actually it’s both, in the case of the Great Schism. The dioceses did operate as they had before, and also you had an Urbanist and a Clementine church hurling epithets at each other. (Pretty much every time in history there’s been an antipope, verbal epithets were hurled.) But as you say, they weren’t hurling their epithets across the street, but rather across royal boundaries.

When the smoke cleared and Urban was vindicated, to what extent were people who had explicitly sided with Clementine under a mistaken but good faith belief that he was the real pope considered sinners or schismatics?

Like David said, in order for an evil act to be sinful, it has to be done with full knowledge and free intent. If you act in good faith and mistakenly do the wrong thing, then you haven’t sinned.

In other words, was siding with Clementine against Urban equivalent to converting to Lutheranism or EO?

In the case of the schisms we’ve been talking about, no. You’re just minding your own business, going to church and doing your thing. Then one day news arrives that the king has severed the bishops’ allegiance to the pope. You yourself haven’t undergone a conversion.

Conversion to another doctrine is an act of personal faith, but schism is usually a legal matter, and usually only a handful of people are directly involved. If that handful of people is in a position of power (like the king of France during the Great Schism, or the kings of Sweden and England during the Reformation), then they can make lots of rank-and-file Catholics go along with their alternate hierarchy. But only the people in positions of legal power are actively choosing the act and incurring the guilt.

But nowadays there are religious denominations that have all the same doctrines as the Catholic Church, but claim that there is no sitting pope. So they are technically schismatic groups, as opposed to heresies or non-Christian religions. But since the government’s not involved and an individual Catholic can choose whether to join them, then yes, it would be sort of like joining the Lutherans or the EO (more like the latter). And in that case, yes, one would have to go to confession upon returning to the fold.

 

[Hasire]

Check out the case of the Antipope St. Hippolytus of Rome.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the past, there were some controversies regarding the identity of the true Pope, leading to individuals who have been labeled Antipopes. I’m not talking about modern conclavists.

When, in times past, there was a controversy over the legitimate claimant to the title of Pope:

1. Two what extent was the “correct” answer obvious to the average devout Catholic? For example, in 1329, was it obvious to even the most dimwitted Catholic with an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology that Nicholas V was a poser, heretic, Antichrist, or worse and that it was plainly obvious that John XXI was the Real Pope and that anyone who disagreed had clearly left the CC, or was there room for disagreement and the truth only became clear in later times?
2. To what extent did the choice between one papal claimant and another affect the daily lives of average Catholics or even priests or bishops? For example, did priests and bishops generally pay lip service to both sides while keeping their head down and taking care of their flock, or were common people expected to stand up and take sides and people lost their families, jobs, property, or even their lives for choosing the “wrong” pope? Were there parallel hierarchies, congregations, and orders with an RCIA-like conversion process between them? For example, if a believer in the year 530 decided one morning that they were wrong for following Dioscorus and that the real pope was Boniface II, what, if anything, would change in their life because of this?

To make an analogy, the infamous hanging chads scandal in the US in 2000 didn’t cause a civil war or civil meltdown - people and government officials kept on going about their daily lives and waited for the situation to resolve. You didn’t have local police in a Republican-dominated area drawing a line in the sand and telling everyone loyal to Bush to stand here and everyone loyal to Gore to stand there and then executing the “traitors”. People who personally sided on the losing side were not shunned or arrested afterwards.

My opinion is that the Western Schism had little impact on the daily lives of average Catholics. They worked, loved, laughed, cried, prayed just the same as they always had.

Modern theologians and historians (and anti-Catholic polemicists) are more interested in the schism than were the people of the day.

The Western Schism
Taken from “PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS” by CANON FRANCIS J. RIPLEY
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306iron.asp