Western Schism leads to new Church?

Aaahh, the Western Schism. The conflict that the Vatican kept trying to resolve by adding more popes into the fray. So is it possible that the Schism ends in a new Church being formed completely, the Avignon Catholic Church to contrast the Roman Catholic Church? What are the possible ramifications if so?
 
Last edited:
Unlikely, except maybe in some kind of Cold War scenario where a powerful American state (USA, non-screwed over Mexico, more stable Brazil) is in a rivalry with a European state that controls Rome (Napoleonic France, über Austria, etc.).
 
Rather hard to do.
For having a new Chuch, you'd need to have at least dogmatic differences, and that's not really going to happen with both popes rivaling of orthodoxy to demonstrate they're the real shit.

You didn't have pre-existing divisions, as in Greek and Latin churches that became more and more different after the VIIIth/IXth centuries, and you didn't have radically new theology as Reformation : it was essentially a political crisis, as in a civil war would probably not end with two states living side by side.

Critically not with resolvement of Schism that was a leitmotif not only for Churches but as well for kings, emperors, and so on, as in a possible really good legitimacy and fame boost.
 
Actually,.I suspect it could. The churches would be theologically similar/identical, but politically puppets of the secular powers who controlled them.

This would make adherence to any given pope a political matter, far more than a theological one. Note that this was already the case with Avignon vs Rome.

My guess is that you'd need at least three popes -French, Spanish and HRE - for this to work.

It would be an even worse scandal than otl, I imagine, and might bring a 'Protestant' reformation much sooner.

It could easily then devolve into a whole series of state churches.
 
Actually,.I suspect it could. The churches would be theologically similar/identical, but politically puppets of the secular powers who controlled them.

This would make adherence to any given pope a political matter, far more than a theological one. Note that this was already the case with Avignon vs Rome.

My guess is that you'd need at least three popes -French, Spanish and HRE - for this to work.

It would be an even worse scandal than otl, I imagine, and might bring a 'Protestant' reformation much sooner.

It could easily then devolve into a whole series of state churches.

MNP's TL, The Raptor of Spain (an awesome TL that sadly ended) roughly did this. Where the schism resulted in Spain getting its own Church. Later this results in several national churches across Europe.
 

Stolengood

Banned
There WERE three popes at a certain time: Avignon, Rome, and Pisa. None of them wanted to back down, but eventually the Pisa pope did and the Avignon pope was forced to.

It didn't have to happen that way, though...
 
There WERE three popes at a certain time: Avignon, Rome, and Pisa. None of them wanted to back down, but eventually the Pisa pope did and the Avignon pope was forced to.

No, he wasn't.

At the Council of Constance, the Pisan Pope and the Roman Pope were both deposed in favor of a fourth claimant. The Avignon Pope, Benedict XIII however refused to attend, and denied the Council's legitimacy, pointing out that by its own admission it was made up entirely of men selected by illegitimate popes.

That might have been a big deal, but by this point the Avignon Pope wasn't even in Avignon anymore, and had a handful of supporters--among them Scotland and Aragon--which swiftly got smaller. He wound up living out the rest of his days on Pensacola, defiant to the end. And then his followers chose a new pope. And one guy disputed the election, and elected another guy. And that's how the Avignon claim declined to farce...
 
Actually,.I suspect it could. The churches would be theologically similar/identical, but politically puppets of the secular powers who controlled them.
The issues is that secular powers were far from having the only voice on it.
Without even mentioning popular and urban pious movements leading to reconciliation (and that was huge, in a world where religion was the main important societal marker) think only of the scholar (lay or clerical) that pushed for it and formed a good part of secular administration.

Because you didn't have any theological issue, the schism was unbrerable eventually for them, and had to be solved.

Not that, as I mentioned above, secular powers didn't saw an interest to pushing to reconciliation would it be only for political gains.
 
what about the hohenstaufen antipope, is their anyway the german antipope could lead to a new church?

No. Antipope were never meant as "founding a new church" at all, but to impose an authority over all the church to begin with.

Ending with "supporter of a pope with only limited acknowledgement" doesn't bear many positive features.
 
Top