Ever heard of a time when there wasn't just one pope, or even two — but three men all claiming to be the real Bishop of Rome at once? But it happened. Sounds like a church-history fever dream. And it wasn't a footnote. It tore Western Christianity apart for decades.
Most guides skip this. Don't.
The short version is this: during the late 1300s and early 1400s, the Catholic Church ended up with a mess so weird that we now call it the Western Schism — and at the ugly peak of it, three popes at the same time were collecting taxes, appointing bishops, and excommunicating each other. That said, here's what most people miss: it wasn't only about theology. It was about money, pride, and real estate.
What Is the Situation With 3 Popes at the Same Time
So what are we actually talking about when we say "3 popes at the same time"? We're not describing a single weird Tuesday. We're describing a stretch from 1409 to 1417 where three different men simultaneously held themselves out as the true pope, each with his own court, cardinals, and followers Most people skip this — try not to..
People argue about this. Here's where I land on it.
The roots go back earlier. Still, in 1309, the papacy packed up and moved to Avignon, in what's now France. That alone ticked a lot of people off — the pope wasn't in Rome anymore. Practically speaking, then in 1377, Gregory XI moved back to Rome. Think about it: he died almost immediately. What followed was a disaster.
The First Split: Rome vs Avignon
After Gregory XI died, the cardinals elected an Italian pope — Urban VI — in Rome. But he was, by most accounts, erratic and abusive toward the cardinals. So a chunk of those same cardinals said "nope" and elected another guy, Clement VII, who set up in Avignon. Now you've got two popes. On top of that, one in Rome, one in France. Both saying the other is a fake Not complicated — just consistent..
The Council That Made It Worse
Fast forward to 1409. A group of cardinals from both sides called the Council of Pisa. Their plan? Depose both existing popes and elect one new, clean pope. Sounds reasonable. That's why except neither of the two sitting popes agreed to be deposed. So after Pisa, you didn't have one pope. Here's the thing — you had three: the Roman one (Gregory XII), the Avignon one (Benedict XIII), and the Pisan one (Alexander V, then John XXIII). That's your three popes at the same time.
Why It Matters / Why People Care
Why does this matter? Because most people skip it and assume the Church was always a tidy pyramid with one guy on top. It wasn't.
When you've got three popes at the same time, every Catholic kingdom has to pick a side. France backed Avignon. On the flip side, england and most of Germany backed Rome. Then some switched to Pisa. Entire countries excommunicated each other over which old man in a pointy hat they sent money to Which is the point..
And here's the real-world fallout: parishes didn't know which bishop was legitimate. Consider this: taxes meant for "the Church" went to three different coffers. On top of that, people genuinely worried they'd die outside the true Church because their local priest was ordained by a "wrong" pope. Saints' days got confusing. In practice, the schism did more to damage papal authority than any critic could have dreamed.
Turns out, the idea that the pope is the unmistakable center of unity looks pretty thin when there are three of them shouting about it.
How It Works (or How to Do It)
Okay, but how does a religion accidentally spawn three popes? Still, it wasn't random. There's a mechanics to it. Let's break it down.
Elections Without Enforcement
The pope is elected by cardinals. In theory, that's fine. But in the 1300s and 1400s, there was no neutral police force to say which election counted. If a group of cardinals says "we elect him" and another group says "no, we elect him," and both groups have robes and rings, you've got rival popes. Consider this: the system assumed everyone would agree. They didn't.
Political Backing Keeps Fakes Alive
A pope with no kingdom backing him is just a guy in a dress yelling in an empty hall. But each of the three popes at the same time had real kings paying them lip service — and cash. Practically speaking, that's what kept them going. Because of that, benedict XIII had Aragon and Castile for a while. Gregory XII had Rome and parts of Italy. Even so, john XXIII had a lot of Germany and England behind him at different points. Day to day, without royal protection, these claims collapse. With it, they linger for years.
The Money Pipeline
This part is ugly but worth knowing. Each pope issued indulgences, collected annates (first-year salaries of new bishops), and sold offices. So there was a financial machine running in triplicate. That's why none of them wanted to step down. Which means why give up a revenue stream because some council says you're invalid? In real talk, the schism stayed alive because it was profitable for everyone at the top.
How It Finally Ended
The mess wrapped up at the Council of Constance (1414–1418). They played hardball. Even so, they got two popes to resign or be deposed, and they ignored the third until he fled. Then they elected Martin V in 1417. One pope again. But the whole episode left a scar — and fed the later calls for reform that turned into the Protestant Reformation a century later.
And yeah — that's actually more nuanced than it sounds.
Common Mistakes / What Most People Get Wrong
Honestly, this is the part most guides get wrong And it works..
People assume the three popes were obvious frauds. They weren't. But each had a plausible legal argument. Each had cardinals who genuinely believed they were valid. Calling them "anti-popes" is easy in hindsight. At the time, the labels were messy and political Most people skip this — try not to..
Another mistake: thinking it was only about doctrine. But the Avignon relocation, the French-English rivalry, and Italian city politics drove most of it. It wasn't. Now, sure, there were arguments about whether an election under fear or pressure was valid. The theology was often a costume the politics wore Still holds up..
And a big one — people think the Church "fixed it" and everything was fine. The Western Schism didn't prove the system worked. It proved the system could produce three popes at the same time and take nearly 40 years to clean up. That's not a flex.
Practical Tips / What Actually Works
If you're reading this because you're into history, writing a paper, or just trying to understand why the Church looked so broken back then, here's what actually helps Not complicated — just consistent..
First, map it visually. Three columns: Rome, Avignon, Pisa. Write the name of each pope under his line. Also, you'll see fast how the claims overlapped and who backed who. I know it sounds simple — but it's easy to miss without a chart Nothing fancy..
Second, don't trust the word "pope" in old texts without checking the date and side. A 1410 document calling someone "our most holy pope" might mean John XXIII to an English reader and Gregory XII to an Italian one. Context is everything.
Third, read primary sources from different kingdoms. On the flip side, an English chronicler and a French one describe the same three popes at the same time with totally opposite "obvious" truths. That contrast is where the real learning lives Turns out it matters..
And if you're explaining it to someone else? Lead with the money and the kings. The theology makes more sense once you see who was paying whom.
FAQ
Who were the three popes at the same time in 1410? Gregory XII in Rome, Benedict XIII in Avignon, and Alexander V (later John XXIII) from the Pisan line. All three claimed to be the true pope No workaround needed..
How did the Catholic Church end up with three popes? After the papacy returned to Rome, a disputed election split the Church into Roman and Avignon lines. A council tried to fix it by electing a third pope, which just added another claimant instead of removing the first two And it works..
Did all three popes excommunicate each other? Essentially, yes. Each declared the others illegitimate and outside the Church. It created a situation where being in good standing with one pope meant being damned by another Practical, not theoretical..
When did the three-pope problem end? It ended with the Council of Constance, which deposed or accepted the resignation of
the rival claimants and elected Martin V in 1417, restoring a single papacy after nearly four decades of division.
Why didn't the cardinals just pick one pope and move on? Because each line had its own set of backers—crowns, cities, and cash flows—that would not surrender legitimacy without a fight. Admitting your pope was fake meant your bishops, taxes, and treaties were void.
Was ordinary worship affected by the Schism? For most villagers, the local priest still said Mass. But taxes flowed to different "heads," dispensations got tangled, and a person could be declared a heretic simply by crossing a border Most people skip this — try not to..
Conclusion
The Western Schism is less a story of faith lost than a story of structure cracked. That's why three men wore the crown of Peter because kings, councils, and cash could not agree on who held the keys. The Church survived, but the myth of unbroken, self-correcting authority took a permanent hit. If there's a takeaway, it's this: institutions look strongest when no one is counting the claimants. Map the names, follow the money, and the sacred starts to look a lot like the political Simple, but easy to overlook..
