When Three Men Claimed the Papal Office

“There were three popes” is shorthand for three men claiming one office. It does not mean the Church had three equally legitimate heads. The Western Schism unfolded over decades, beginning with two rival elections and only later becoming a three-claimant crisis.

1378: how one election became two obediences

After Gregory XI died, the cardinals elected Urban VI in Rome. The city’s crowds had demanded a Roman or Italian pope. The cardinals initially acknowledged the result; later, a group argued that intimidation had deprived the election of freedom. They elected Robert of Geneva as Clement VII in September 1378. His party eventually centered on Avignon. Urban’s harsh dealings with cardinals worsened the conflict, but a ruler’s later conduct and the validity of his original election are separate issues.^[1]

These were rival obediences: people believed they were obeying the true pope. The conflict was bewildering even for devout Christians. Treating every supporter of a claimant as knowingly hostile to the Church misses that human difficulty. Our reflection begins with that confusion rather than assuming that everyone could see what later readers see.

1409: Pisa’s attempted solution created a third line

Cardinals from the two camps assembled at Pisa to resolve a division that repeated negotiations had not ended. They pronounced both current claimants deposed and elected Alexander V. Gregory XII and Benedict XIII rejected the assembly’s authority. When Alexander died in 1410, the Pisan party elected Baldassare Cossa as John XXIII. Thus the intended settlement added another claimant.^[2]

The arrows show successions within competing lines, not a sequence in which all of these men were universally accepted. The medieval John XXIII is distinct from the twentieth-century pope who used that name.^[2–3]

1414–1417: Constance addressed three different cases

Constance opened in November 1414. Sigismund helped bring political pressure and international participation to the effort. At first the assembly operated under the Pisan John XXIII; demands that all three claimants step aside soon became central. Its voting arrangements and early claims about conciliar authority remain important to understanding why its proceedings require careful distinctions.^[3]

John XXIII: He promised to resign, then fled Constance in March 1415. The council continued and deposed him on May 29. His flight did not dissolve the assembly. The historical account also cautions that hostile accusations against him could be exaggerated; a fair account should not repeat every charge as established fact.^[5]

Gregory XII: On July 4, 1415, his representatives carried out a formal convocation in his name and announced his resignation. This was a resignation through authorized representatives, not the same procedure as John’s deposition. The distinction matters especially in Catholic accounts that recognize Gregory’s title. His action helped open a path to unity, and he died before Martin’s election.^[4,8]

Benedict XIII: Constance deposed him in July 1417. He did not accept the decision and continued his claim with a diminished following. A decree and a claimant’s actual submission are therefore not interchangeable events.^[6,8]

Who finally became pope?

Odo Colonna was elected Martin V on November 11, 1417. He was not one of the three claimants just described. An important twist is that he had participated in the Pisan elections before becoming the broadly accepted choice at Constance. The earlier “second” or “third” candidate did not simply turn out to be the winner.^[7]

Nor did every wound vanish on election day. The former John XXIII later submitted to Martin and became a cardinal-bishop in 1419. Benedict continued to resist with little support. Calling 1417 the end of the schism identifies the decisive practical settlement; it should not imply that everyone instantly accepted it.^[5–7]

What this history asks of us

There is a real lesson in the willingness to give up a personal claim for communion. There is also a warning in Pisa: a proposal meant to restore unity can create another center of loyalty when its authority is disputed.

But the analogy has limits. Constance is not a ready-made procedure for removing any pope whose behavior or policies trouble us. Its successive stages, the question of a valid claimant, and the distinction between papal resignation and deposition require more study than a slogan permits.

For those of us sympathetic to the SSPX, the useful question is how to defend the faith and seek reform while remaining aboard the Church. We want clarity about what happened, charity toward people who struggled to understand it, and the humility to distinguish an alarming situation from a conclusion the evidence has not established.

Sources and documents

1. Louis Salembier. Western Schism. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), historical account, especially the 1378 elections.
2. Louis Salembier. Council of Pisa. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), preliminaries and meeting of the council.
3. Thomas Shahan. Council of Constance. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), extinction of the Western Schism; a historical interpretation, not itself a council decree.
4. Michael Ott. Pope Gregory XII. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), resignation through representatives on 4 July 1415.
5. Johann Peter Kirsch. John XXIII (the fifteenth-century claimant). The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), Council of Constance and later submission.
6. J. P. Kirsch. Pedro de Luna (Benedict XIII). Catholic Encyclopedia. 1910. Historical account.
7. Michael Ott. Pope Martin V. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), election and reconciliation.
8. Council of Constance, acts: sessions 12, 14, 37, 41; Tanner introduction, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.