|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on 13 dates. [show]|
- 1 Comments
- 2 The term "abdicated"
- 3 The Term Pope should refer to the line that was licitly elected
- 4 Obedience
- 5 What effect did the Council of Basel have, if any, on the Western Schism?
- 6 from one obedience to another
- 7 Political history
- 8 copied from site
- 9 "Even saints..."
- 10 The Great Schism according to school
- 11 'Great schism' or not?
- 12 Name misspelling
- 13 Map error
- 14 Too many errors, removing the map
I'm not an expert by any means, but I heard a piece on the radio (NPR Morning Edition April 15 2005 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4601440 ) that made me come here to look this up, and wikipedia has some problems on both this page and on the Pope Martin V page. According to what I heard on the radio, the church wound up with 3 popes for a time, and the issue was resolved with two of them abdicating, and the third being de-poped by the council. What is in this article and the Pope Martin V article is not consistent with either that or with each other, and what is meant is not particularly clear. Brassrat 15:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The term "abdicated"
I believe this term is not used in relation to popes and that the official term is simply "resigned". This is stated in the Catholic Church Hierarchy article on this site. Should someone change the Resolution section to reflect this? Thanks. 188.8.131.52 07:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Illuvater01
- Papal abdication and The Catholic Encyclopedia beg to differ. Plasticup T/C 04:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Term Pope should refer to the line that was licitly elected
The title Pope is reserved for the licit holder of the office. The term Anti-pope is used by=ut doesn't fit.
I tried an edit, but I thought we may come up with a bettter term.
- Then use pope, "pope", antipope if the wordage is that sensitive. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The article states:
... France, Aragon, Burgundy, Savoy, Naples, and Scotland chose to recognize the Avignon claimant, while England, northern Italy, Scandinavia, and central Europe of the Holy Roman Empire followed the Roman claimant.
The part in bold makes no sense to me, grammtically or factually. The central European states of Poland and Hungary were not part of the Holy Roman Empire, and the map shows that parts of the Empire passed from one obedience to the other. I'll edit the sentence based on the info on the map. Feel free to make corrections. Appleseed 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- I made some changes but more work needs to be done. In addition to the things mentioned above, the issue of areas passing from one obedience to another (e.g. Portugal) and the specifics of "northern Italy" also need to be addressed. Appleseed 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe that refers to the Savoy? One of the antipopes was from Savoy. Dominick 21:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
What effect did the Council of Basel have, if any, on the Western Schism?
I was reading an article that was stating that the Avignon popes were struggling with the Council of Basel. Why?
- The Council of Basel was in 1431, 16 years after the schism had ended. The only "Avignon pope" remaining was Jean Carrier, who had an insignificant following. It's likely that the article confused Basel with Constance. Djcastel 14:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
from one obedience to another
I wrote the reason why Portugal passed from one obedience to another. Hope that helps, Appleseed.M.F.
The comments above demonstrate that without analysis of the historical political context, the phenomenon of the schism is opaque. --Wetman 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
copied from site
Most of this article seems to be copied from here: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Western_Schism
Russia Moore 06:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the other way around. Reference.com is one of many sites that scrape Wikipedia articles, though at least they give credit to Wikipedia at the bottom. Djcastel 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The article says:
- Even saints were caught up in the schism: St Catherine of Siena defended Urban's papacy, while St Vincent Ferrer was in Clement's camp.
Since neither of them were saints at the time, I don't think the descriptor is appropriate. You could say that supporters of both camps were later sainted, but not that "saints were caught up in the schism". Guettarda 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed the text from the article. Guettarda 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Suppression isn't the answer. Catherine of Siena's vocal support of Urban was a feature. Another supporter was John of Legnano: I've expanded his article and Urban VI's. Politics kept Richard II of England in the Roman camp. Urban's involvement with Naples, where there was fighting, is an element. This slender and superficial article does not begin to cover a major episode of medieval European history. Meanwhile quibbles bowdlerise even the few facts here. --Wetman 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Great Schism according to school
I know, sometimes school teachings aren't accurate. But, here's the story on the Great Schism I heard in school.
"At this time the catholic church was corrupt, and the priests had not been following their duties as a priest, and were breaking their vows of poverty and celibacy, and a few others. After Gregory, Pope Urban VI was elected to be pope. He announced his goal to "clean up" the Catholic Church. The catholic priest and many other higher leaders did not want to be excommunicated from the church, and so it was agreed that they would tell the members of the Church that the pope was not mentally well (he was crazy). It was accepted, and so Urban was ignored. Another pope was elected, Pope Clement, but he moved back to France immediatly after being elected. So we had an unaccepted pope in Rome and a "real" pope in France."
So yeah, I'm not sure. But it was taught in school. And this did happen just before the Reformation, which would show that the church became at about this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burn N Flare (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
'Great schism' or not?
Why at the start of the page does it say that this schism is not commonly called 'The Great Schism', when all the references listed call it exactly that? - 10 January 2008
I corrected the misspelling of Pope Urban VI's birth name. The article said he was born Bartolomeo Prignani, when in fact he was born Bartolomeo Prignano. I am a descendant of the Prignano ancestry, so I noticed. - 14 January 2008 --Nprignano
That map is wrong. The part that it has marked as "Kingdom of Sweden" (in French) was actually part of Denmark at the time covered by the map. It also has the Isle of Man as Scottish rather than English, although that had ceased to be so some decades before the period of the map. Is there any way of correcting it? PMLawrence (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Too many errors, removing the map
I'm removing the map as it's full of errors. Navarre is shown as being part of Castille, Scania is shown as being part of Sweden, the English possessions in France are shown as being part of France and I'm sure there are other errors as well, though I'm only familiar with the ones listed. As map that is this inaccurate detracts from the quality of articles in which it's included. Jeppiz (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)