"Multiple Popes" (answer to SM)

[Peter_J]

No doubt I said that inelegantly. What I meant was that two different men both claimed the Chair of St. Peter. I’m not sure it was confusion so much as different factions, each claiming the right of election? Or have I gotten something wrong?

No, I don’t think you’ve gotten anything wrong; but the main point here is that, even though Catholics disagreed about who the real Pope was (Footnote: I say “disagreed” rather than “disagree” because the question was pretty much settled by the early 20th century), it has nevertheless always been agreed that there was, in fact, only one legitimate Pope at a time.

In broad strokes, the thinking at various times might be summed up like this:

• During the schism (1378-1417), Catholics were split on the question of who the real Pope was (while agreeing that there could only be one).
• At the time the schism ended (1417), Catholics agree that Martin V was the reigning Pope, while agreeing-to-disagree about which Popes had been legitimate during the schism.
• Over the next several centuries, a consensus formed on the question of which Popes had been legitimate during the schism. (For anyone interested in this debate, I think that this article from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is very interesting. Scroll down to the last paragraph.)