WTF? Pope about to resign?!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Which is why dissenters like MtG have such a hardon for them.

I could give a **** less. I just find it amusing how you and so many Catholics, especially recent converts, lap up the clean, official, holy, sanitized version of events. The pre-reformation Church was, for a millenia or more, a stinking, fetid mass of corruption, murder, adultery, buggery, thievery and debauchery without the slightest connection to anything Godly or holy. But little zealots can't stand acknowledging that, so they dance around it.

Two or three centuries from now, I'm sure the zealot point of view will be that buggery of kids never happened, it was opportunistic lies and distortions by Satan-inspired haters of the true Church.

[Ben Kenobi]

He was elected by a conclave of cardinals. So was the Avignon pope, So was the Pisan pope,

And so was Urban. You can't deny that Urban was the legitimate pope while at the same time elevating Clement. You can't get there from here.

You don't have a schism unless there is an intent to separate from the head of the Church.

And there was intent to separate from Urban, the Head of the Church. Ergo, Schism.

Really? Clever chaps, to know to excommunicate someone over two centuries before they're even born.

Gah. That's what I get for relying on memory. Constanz. Not Clermont.

Oh really? We have Dr. Ben the gynecologist, the authority on Canonical law and Church history, and now the editor-in-chief of the Oxford English Disctionary, and still living under a bridge feasting on goats. Never knew you were so multi-talented. BYW, the term is widely and generally used. Your broken day-date-weekday clock hasn't come around again yet.

Last I checked, this is my field.

I guess it takes a while to extort funds out of the peasantry for annointing of the sick and last rites, and to tax the nobles.

So you're taking up with Ron Paul now? Oh wait, Church taxation is extortion and theft. State taxation is not. I have seen the light.

[MichaeltheGreat]

And so was Urban. You can't deny that Urban was the legitimate pope while at the same time elevating Clement. You can't get there from here.

I've never denied he was a pope. If you recall, my original statement was that the Catholic Church once had three popes. Disenfranchising poor, deluded Urban VI would have contradicted that point. As usual, you're shifting arguments when you can't hold your ground on the original argument.

And there was intent to separate from Urban, the Head of the Church. Ergo, Schism.

There may have been an intent to separate Urban VI's head from the rest of him, but there was no intent to separate from the head of the Church. Just to replace it with a new head, because the old head had clearly lost his head.

Gah. That's what I get for relying on memory. Constanz. Not Clermont.

Wrong again. They're the ones who fried him. His excommunication was by the local archbishop in accordance with a Papal Bull issued by Alexander V in 1409. Hus appealed to John XXIII (the original, not the second one), who created and ordered a committee of bishops to investigate and make findings of heresy, etc. etc. since Hus was a Wyclifite. Hus was lured to Constanz under a safe conduct guarantee, then arrested, tried by the council under authority from Gregory XII, and burned at the stake. Unless you want to opt for the view that it was extrajudicial murder, the trial for heresy proceeded from the excommunication and investigation of the committee of Bishops, both of which occurred at the orders of Pisan popes and were accepted as lawful by Gregory XII and the council of Constanz.

Last I checked, this is my field.

Last I heard, you're some early 20s pimply ass kid teaching Sunday school to kids. A historian that makes you not.

So you're taking up with Ron Paul now?

If he has a point of view about the immorality and baseness of selling sacraments and indulgences and taking bribes for appointments to posts and acts against secular rivals, etc., etc., then yes. Not too many people try to justify and sugarcoat the evils of the pre-reformation Catholic Church.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've never denied he was a pope.

Then when did his pontificate end?

If you recall, my original statement was that the Catholic Church once had three popes.

And I've proven that they never had such a thing.

Disenfranchising poor, deluded Urban VI would have contradicted that point. As usual, you're shifting arguments when you can't hold your ground on the original argument.

My argument hasn't changed. There were never 3 popes. There always and has ever been, just one.

There may have been an intent to separate Urban VI's head from the rest of him, but there was no intent to separate from the head of the Church.

Yes, there was intent to separate from the Head of the Church. Urban VI. You've acknowledged now that there was intent to separate, and if Urban VI was the Pope, and the Pope is the head of the Church, that yes, there was intent to separate from the Head.

Now, we can move on - there is only one head of the Church. Not two, not three. Just one. And that head was Urban VI, not Clement.

His excommunication was by the local archbishop in accordance with a Papal Bull issued by Alexander V in 1409.

Nope. He was excommunicated by the Council of Constance. You're wrong here. It's right there in the documents of the proceedings. Your argument also fails on this point. If the Council excommunicated Hus and declared Martin V as pope, then attempting to get in the backdoor is denied.

Last I heard, you're some early 20s pimply ass kid teaching Sunday school to kids. A historian that makes you not.

I have a degree. I've been teaching now (yes at a real school) for some three years.

So, what's your degree MtG? Do you have one?

Not too many people try to justify and sugarcoat the evils of the pre-reformation Catholic Church.

Not very many dissenters, perhaps. But that's the nature of the beast. Why would a dissenter not cling to 500 years ago if it helps make him feel better about himself?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Then when did his pontificate end?

Depends who you ask. That's another sidestep.

And I've proven that they never had such a thing.

In the Beniverse, maybe your assertion = proof, but that doesn't apply in the real world.

My argument hasn't changed. There were never 3 popes. There always and has ever been, just one.

Yes. And for a while, one in Rome, one in Avignon, and one in Pisa, all concurrently. If the issue was as simplistic as you make it out to be, Gregory XII would not have had to resign to clear the way for a new, undisputed election and it wouldn't have taken nearly 40 years to get there. Your inability to cope with a nuanced world with all sorts of inconvenient complication isn't the rest of the world's problem, and it doesn't change actual events.

Yes, there was intent to separate from the Head of the Church. Urban VI. You've acknowledged now that there was intent to separate, and if Urban VI was the Pope, and the Pope is the head of the Church, that yes, there was intent to separate from the Head.

According to Benonical law, but there's only one person who follows that. Urban VI was deemed unfit by a conclave of cardinals. Urban VI, among other things, decided he was going to pack the college of cardinals with a bunch of Eye-tal-yuns, so they could stick it to everyone else as God was apparently now Eye-tal-yun too. So the same conclave of cardinals that elected him, elected Clement. Clement didn't rebel. He didn't separate. He was duly elected by the proper body, who, under canonical law AT THE TIME, had the right to do so. That little gap in Canonical law wasn't fixed until 75 years later. The only practical difference between the council of Pisa (yes, I know you're going to pretend it doesn't exist) and the council of Constanz was that in Pisa, the council couldn't obtain the resignation of either Pope, and went ahead and elected a pope regardless. As also permitted by canon law at that time. Or were both Italian and French cardinals, as well as great number of church doctors of the time, ignorant of the contemporaneous canonical law, and only the all-wise and all-knowing Ben knows what the law really was at that time?)
After the FUBAR of Pisa, Gregory XII saw the light and decided he'd resign, paving the way for the Council of Constanz to remove the other two popes, so there could finally be an undisputed election.

Nope. He was excommunicated by the Council of Constance. You're wrong here. It's right there in the documents of the proceedings. Your argument also fails on this point. If the Council excommunicated Hus and declared Martin V as pope, then attempting to get in the backdoor is denied.

Classic. You put a ****ing smiley face in reference to burning someone at the stake. Really classy there.

The final sentence pronounced excommunication as a proforma matter as a precondition for condemnation to death by burning. Hus was originally excommunicated by order of Zbyněk ZajÃc, Archbishop of Prague on July 16, 1410. The sentence of excommunication was repeated in February 1411 and published in all churches in Prague in March 1411, due to some pissing matches the Archbishop had with the local populace and King Wenseslaus.

I have a degree. I've been teaching now (yes at a real school) for some three years.

Bully for you. So does Kent Hovind. So, for that matter does every public school teacher in California. Barack Obama has a law degree and is regarded by some as a constitutional scholar. Having a four year degree and teaching school only makes you a historian in the Beniverse.

So, what's your degree MtG? Do you have one?

If you ever interview me for a job, then it's your business.

Not very many dissenters, perhaps. But that's the nature of the beast. Why would a dissenter not cling to 500 years ago if it helps make him feel better about himself?

Don't you really want to come out and call me a heretic? Run along now, little troll. You're getting boring again.

[kentonio]

What I believe is irrelevant.

I don't know squat.

Yay, new sig material.

[Ben Kenobi]

Depends who you ask.

Well, then. History records that Urban VI's pontificate ended 1389. Do you contest this?

In the Beniverse, maybe your assertion = proof, but that doesn't apply in the real world.

Historical facts are historical facts. You're welcome to challenge them, but they remain the same.

Yes. And for a while, one in Rome, one in Avignon, and one in Pisa, all concurrently.

Again. You've acknowledged that Urban VI was legitimately elected the Pope. Ergo - his successor after the death of Urban VI was the pope, and followed by his successors' successor. Then Martin as declared by the Council of Constance.

Ergo there was ever just one Pope. There cannot be two. There cannot be three. People may declare themselves to be Pope, but that does not change the fact that there was just one. What they believe, hope, desire, aspire, is just as irrelevant as my own opinion.

If the issue was as simplistic as you make it out to be, Gregory XII would not have had to resign to clear the way for a new, undisputed election

That Schismatics attempted to introduce complexity, doesn't change the underlying reality. There was, just, one, Pope. Not two or three. The Schismatics themselves eventually recognised the truth of this and came back into the fold.

it wouldn't have taken nearly 40 years to get there.

It served the interests of France to have their own puppet. Much as it served Henry VIII to have his own as well. This is well documented. But, France doesn't speak for the Church anymore so than Henry VIII did a century later. The schism had to run it's own course.

it doesn't change actual events.

The fact of the matter is that Urban was consecrated the pope, that he was elected unanimously and that, gosh, he died in 1389, still the Pope. You're not battling me, you're battling historical facts. You are wrong here, MtG, and it doesn't matter how much you post on this - you aren't going to change the facts of the matter. This is no different than arguing against the fact that Pope John Paul died in 2005.

According to Benonical law

Nonsense. According to the law of the Church, then as now.

Urban VI was deemed unfit by a conclave of cardinals.

Oh. Did they get permission from Urban VI to convene?

So the same conclave of cardinals that elected him, elected Clement.

Not so. If so, there would have been no division, now would there? Some of the cardinals chose to enter Schism. Others remained faithful to Urban. Those who were in schism, decided that they no longer wished to follow Rome, and wished to set up their own heirarchy (much like Luther centuries later), split off and then crowned one of their own, Clement, as their new leader.

Which is fine. However, it no more makes Clement Pope than it made Luther Pope. Splitting off and forming your own group doesn't change the fact that there is a legitimate Pope. Urban. If they didn't like the choice they made, then perhaps they should have chosen more carefully.

Clement didn't rebel. He didn't separate.

He did both. He set up court again in Avignon.

He was duly elected by the proper body

Not so. The head of the College of Cardinals is the Pope. The Pope at the time being Urban VI. They could not convene without his permission.

under canonical law AT THE TIME, had the right to do so

Then why didn't the Cardinals who remained faithful at the time abandon Urban? They asserted the same things I am typing out to you now - Urban was elected, legitimately, by the College of the Cardinals. They could not undo their decision after the fact just because their choice was not to their liking. Card laid, card played.

These selfsame cardinals also argued that any decision made required the same body to decide both. Which the Clement supporters were unwilling to do, because they chose to Schism. They attempted to set up a parallel magisterium (something that had been tried before with Arius), which failed for Arius, just as it had failed for Clement.

the council couldn't obtain the resignation of either Pope

Gosh, and why is that? Perhaps that's because they had no such authority to demand such. Constance was convoked with the authority of the Pope.

Or were both Italian and French cardinals, as well as great number of church doctors of the time, ignorant of the contemporaneous canonical law, and only the all-wise and all-knowing Ben knows what the law really was at that time?)

Hardly, they argued same as I am arguing here.

Gregory XII saw the light and decided he'd resign, paving the way for the Council of Constanz to remove the other two popes, so there could finally be an undisputed election.

You're off on your sequence, but then, that's because there's some solid lies you've worked in there. Gregory XII convened the Council, with his papal authority to do so to settle this issue. The council insisted that the other two resign, and Benedict XIII chose not to resign, and was excommunicated by the Council. Then, Gregory XII resigned, and Martin V was elected Pope by the Council.

You put a ****ing smiley face in reference to burning someone at the stake. Really classy there.

And when your argument is completely crushed you make a complete non-sequitor.

Bully for you. So does Kent Hovind. So, for that matter does every public school teacher in California. Barack Obama has a law degree and is regarded by some as a constitutional scholar. Having a four year degree and teaching school only makes you a historian in the Beniverse.

So, what's your degree, MtG?

If you ever interview me for a job, then it's your business.

LOL Owned.

[kentonio]

Why don't you save yourself a lot of words and just say 'In case of schism the winner of whatever battle/war ensues gets to be the legitimate infallible representative of god on earth, and the loser gets ****ed, regardless of what some cardinals might happen to think about it all'. Because let's face it, that's what happened. Trying to make a legitimacy case from all this he said/she said bull**** about the cardinals is painful to watch.

It's also worth remembering that by the standards of anyone else but Ben the popes of yesteryear were a pretty nasty bunch of ****s all things considered.

[The Mad Monk]

To solve our popless problem here are some pictures of Ratzi the Nazi.

You're even more popeless than the thread.

[Elok]

Can't we all just agree that the word "pope" is fun to say? Pope pope pope.

[BlackCat]

Elok is right, this thread needs some popefun

[Sava]

there is nothing worse than a convert

QFT

[Ben Kenobi]

Why don't you save yourself a lot of words and just say 'In case of schism the winner of whatever battle/war ensues gets to be the legitimate infallible representative of god on earth, and the loser gets ****ed, regardless of what some cardinals might happen to think about it all'. Because let's face it, that's what happened.

Because that's not what happened at all? Read the history, you will see this isn't the case. Clement had the support of the French state, had the money had the backing and Urban did not. his successor had the same. However, it changed nothing. Having the advantage in money and men didn't triumph over the truth, that Urban was the legitimate Pope. Benedict XIII ended up losing everything. Including the backing of the French.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Historical facts are historical facts. You're welcome to challenge them, but they remain the same.

History is a matter of interpretation of incomplete facts, not of pronouncing your favored version of events a "fact." I'm not suprised you view history as simply a collection of facts, since you have a four year degree from god knows where and you teach, presumably history since you claim it's your field - like teaching K-12 school makes you an authority on anything. There's a reason most kids are bored to tears by history as taught as the K-12 level - because it's taught as a collection of facts and dates to be memorized, no thinking desired, thank you.

blah blah blah

Ah, yes, it's so simple. That's why at the time, it took nearly 40 years and multiple rounds of negotiation, discussion and gamesmanship to be recognized. They should have had you there to explain it and guide the way. Ben to the rescue!

People may declare themselves to be Pope

Ah yes, of course. The whole silly thing arose because a guy in France just up and said "I'm the pope." No conclave of cardinals elected him, half the western Church didn't recognize his authority, etc. All that never happened in the Beniverse, just some guy stood up and said I'm the pope.

as irrelevant as my own opinion.

We already know this. Glad you're joining the program.

That Schismatics attempted to introduce complexity, doesn't change the underlying reality. There was, just, one, Pope. Not two or three.
The Schismatics themselves eventually recognised the truth of this and came back into the fold.

In other words, there was a negotiated solution driven by secular pressure from ambitious rulers, in which all popes resigned or were cashiered so a single new pope could be elected. It wasn't until later that the other popes were "anti-poped" and it wasn't until 1904 that the Pisan popes were "depoped" In fact. Alexander VI expressly recognized the legitimacy of Alexander V by designating himselve VI instead of V. So sorry, Ben it's not quite as black and white as you like to pretend.

It served the interests of France to have their own puppet.

And Urban VI's announcement of his intent to pack the church with a slew of Italian cardinals had nothing to do with historical French adventurism into Italy, including specifically Sicily and Naples? Everybody had their own puppet now.

But, France doesn't speak for the Church anymore

Which was the entire point of Urban VI's Italian Cardinal packing. No doubt inspired by God, of course.

Typical wasted twisted words reshaping someone else's argument. This is no different than arguing against the fact that Pope John Paul died in 2005.

Captain obtuse strikes again. Yes, the entire discussion has been a dispute of the years of death of some individuals.

Nonsense. According to the law of the Church, then as now.

You might want to dig up Gregory X and especially Adrian V and have a little chat with them. Or perhaps re-read your garbled assertion and explain how, in the Beniverse only the pope can summon a conclave of cardinals to elect a new pope, when normally, the conclave is only assembled after the pope is dead. The modern process and regulation for calling the conclave did not exist at the time.

Oh. Did they get permission from Urban VI to convene?

They didn't need it. Not under canon law at the time.

Not so. If so, there would have been no division, now would there?

They really needed you back then! Yes, Ben would have waved his magic wand and the entire division between French and allied interests and Italian and allied interests would magically have dissappeared. The expectation was not schismatic, the expectation was that Urban VI, seeing as he no longer had the confidence of the cardinals, would have recognized that he'd been replaced.

Others remained faithful to Urban.

None particularly remained faithful to Urban per se. They did remain "faithful" to the notion of an Italian dominated church promoting Italian and allied secular interests and political intrigue.

Which is fine. However, it no more makes Clement Pope than it made Luther Pope.

Nice non-sequitur. Are you really this ****ing ignorant and obtuse? They didn't intend to "split off." Unlike Luther, they made precisely zero changes in matters of faith or doctrine. They considered themselves to be the same church, with full authority over the same church. More or less half of western Christendom agreed.

Splitting off and forming your own group doesn't change the fact that there is a legitimate Pope.

Nobody split off. There was an intractible factional split over the legitimate leadership of the entire church. Same process that resulted in a three year interregnum prior to election of Gregory X.

If they didn't like the choice they made, then perhaps they should have chosen more carefully.

Ah, yes, so they elect a dictator with absolute power and must thereafter submit to his whims? So when the pope unilaterally decides to pack the church with new, exclusively Italian cardinalates to give the Italian faction majority control over the entire church, they should just suck it up? What would the modern Church reaction be if John Paul II had decided unilaterally to create 170 new Polish cardinalates so that Poland had majority control of the College of Cardinals forever more? Funny that the Church views Urban VI as legitimate, to serve it's own purposes, but there has never been a pope since Urban VI selected from outside the Cardinalate.

And you wonder why the Catholic views on reconciliation are so much fantasy?

Then why didn't the Cardinals who remained faithful at the time abandon Urban?

Urban didn't live long enough, and those Cardinals remained not loyal to Urban per se, but to Italian control of the Church, for the benefit of their own offices and their secular allies.

Hardly, they argued same as I am arguing here.

So you're a kneejerk factionalist regurgitating 600 year old factional claims?

You're off on your sequence, but then, that's because there's some solid lies you've worked in there.

Go **** yourself, you greasy little twerp.

And when your argument is completely crushed you make a complete non-sequitor.

You couldn't crush anything if you sat on it. And you're the one who decided to put a smiley face on the subject of the torture of an uncorrupt and genuinely motivated reformer of a corrupt and vile institution. That's a nice reflection on your character, or lack thereof.

[Ben Kenobi]

History is a matter of interpretation of incomplete facts

Unfortunately, this isn't the case here. Urban's papacy ended with his death in 1396. This is a historical fact, as much as you'd like to deny this to be so.

I'm not suprised you view history as simply a collection of facts

What else is there to teach? If you're not teaching what is historically true, then you aren't teaching history.

, since you have a four year degree from god knows where

Given that you don't even have a degree at all, I fail to see how you can question my credentials.

There's a reason most kids are bored to tears by history as taught as the K-12 level - because it's taught as a collection of facts and dates to be memorized, no thinking desired, thank you.

Whereas to you, the facts aren't important. I'm happy to discuss various theories on pedagogy, but I really don't see the point in discussing it with someone who's lacks the credentials, and the desire to learn.

Ah, yes, it's so simple. That's why at the time, it took nearly 40 years and multiple rounds of negotiation, discussion and gamesmanship to be recognized. They should have had you there to explain it and guide the way. Ben to the rescue!

Simple things are revolutionary. You seem to labor under the presumption that simplicity is easy to achieve. No, it's very difficult.

Ah yes, of course. The whole silly thing arose because a guy in France just up and said "I'm the pope."

Yessir. Brittanica even says so. Had Clement obeyed the Pope the schism would not have occurred. Given that he disobeyed the Pope, the schism arose and took some time to straighten out.

No conclave of cardinals elected him, half the western Church didn't recognize his authority

The French cardinals elected him and France and her allies at the time recognized him. Of course, that simply means he had authority in France, which is why he set up shop in Avignon. Presumably if Clement were actually the selection of the Church, he would not have been a puppet of Charles V, and would have had support across the Christian world.

In other words, there was a negotiated solution driven by secular pressure

The Schism itself was initiated by the secular desire of the King of France, Charles V. Ergo, when the secular pressure reversed itself, the Schism evaporated. What was the theological basis for the Schism? There was none.

It wasn't until later that the other popes were "anti-poped" and it wasn't until 1904 that the Pisan popes were "depoped"

According to whom? The line is very clear, Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, Gregory XII and then Martin V.

In fact. Alexander VI expressly recognized the legitimacy of Alexander V by designating himselve VI instead of V.

He did no such thing. Did he say that? No. Papal Regnal numbers aren't very accurate in Medieval times.

And Urban VI's announcement of his intent to pack the church with a slew of Italian cardinals

As is his right, as the Bishop of Rome. Where does it state that he wasn't permitted to do so?

Everybody had their own puppet now.

Which is why the Romans appointed a Neapolitan? You know quite as well as I do, that those who appointed Urban were unhappy with him precisely because he exercised his rights as a Pope and pushed for reform.

You might want to dig up Gregory X and especially Adrian V and have a little chat with them. Or perhaps re-read your garbled assertion

I love it how arguments you don't like and disagree with are somehow 'garbled'.

only the pope can summon a conclave of cardinals to elect a new pope, when normally, the conclave is only assembled after the pope is dead.

Was the Pope dead? No? Then the French Cardinals could not summon a conclave without permission of the Pope. They even invited him for precisely this reason, because they knew that they couldn't form a legitimate one without him. When Urban refused to attend and they persisted in electing Clement - at that point they were in Schism.

The modern process and regulation for calling the conclave did not exist at the time.

It was widely understood at the time by the Cardinals that the Pope was the head and had the authority to convene councils of the church, etc. If this were not so, then why was it only the French Cardinals who attended. If, what you say is correct- then all of the cardinals should have attended. They did not. Why? Because it wasn't a conclave, except in the minds of the attendees and Charles V. Had Charles V chosen not to recognize Clement, there would have been no schism.

They didn't need it. Not under canon law at the time.

Then why did they invite him?

The expectation was not schismatic, the expectation was that Urban VI, seeing as he no longer had the confidence of the cardinals, would have recognized that he'd been replaced.

Why then should only the opinion of the French Cardinals be taken into account? They didn't like the outcome, so they took their ball, went home and appointed Clement to represent them as the head of the Schism. You seem to ignore every other cardinal present at the conclave who chose to stick with Urban. Why do only the French count?

None particularly remained faithful to Urban per se.

Then, why didn't all the cardinals attend? See, you're stuck, MtG. There were loyal cardinals. Plenty of them. You can dismiss their 'true motivations' all you like, but the fact is yes, there were loyal cardinals. Yes, they did stick by Urban VI, and later on with Pope Boniface IX.

Nice non-sequitur. Are you really this ****ing ignorant and obtuse? They didn't intend to "split off."

Yes, they did intend to split off by attemping to appoint Clement. If they did not intend to split off, why didn't they remain with the Church in good standing? If they were sincerely motivated by unity first and foremost, they would have stayed. The truth? They didn't want unity. They wanted control and when they didn't get it tried to split off and get away from the control of the Pope. Exactly what motivated Luther.

They considered themselves to be the same church, with full authority over the same church. More or less half of western Christendom agreed.

And, like the Rock said, it didn't matter what they thought. I'm sure they also believed they were doing the right thing. The problem is that insofar as they rejected the authority of Urban VI, they were in Schism. Nor does it matter what the French King thought either. The Church is not a democracy. You can't add up the votes to 50 percent plus one. Urban was the legitimate pope, and there is nothing that Clement could have done, or the French cardinals to change this fact.

Nobody split off.

Then why did Clement set up shop in Avignon. Aren't they supposed to be the 'true' representatives of Rome?

There was an intractible factional split over the legitimate leadership of the entire church.

Then why was Urban elected if the split were intractable. Clearly, the split was tractable, as he was elected unanimously. Eventually the French came to understand that they could not succeed.

Same process that resulted in a three year interregnum prior to election of Gregory X.

Which is why Constance was required. The divisions were severe, but that does not change the fact that Urban was the legitimate pope.

Ah, yes, so they elect a dictator with absolute power and must thereafter submit to his whims?

Yes, that's what they are called to do - submit. They were unwilling to submit to the Pope, which is what touched all of this off. They didn't like that the new pope called them out on their corruption.

So when the pope unilaterally decides to pack the church with new, exclusively Italian cardinalates to give the Italian faction majority control over the entire church, they should just suck it up?

Is that not within the authority of the Pope to appoint cardinals? If nationalism was more important to them than unity, then that explains precisely why they split. And, also why, the split ended.

What would the modern Church reaction be if John Paul II had decided unilaterally to create 170 new Polish cardinalates

You're aware that Benedict was something like one of single digit cardinals who had not been elected by Pope John Paul II? Obviously not.

majority control of the College of Cardinals forever more?

Right. Because Cardinals never die.

but there has never been a pope since Urban VI selected from outside the Cardinalate.

And? Your point being? That's been the process for a long time now, to only appoint a cardinal.

And you wonder why the Catholic views on reconciliation are so much fantasy?

I understand how reconciliation weighs heavy on dissenters. Especially when the Church claims you as hers.

Urban didn't live long enough

That's a terrible explanation. So you're saying they would have somehow magically became disloyal should he have lived longer?

And you're the one who decided to put a smiley face on the subject of the torture of an uncorrupt and genuinely motivated reformer of a corrupt and vile institution. That's a nice reflection on your character, or lack thereof.

Yep, rather than address the point that Hus was excommunicated by the Council of Constance (another damned historical fact!), you resort to personal attacks and emotional appeals (and non-sequitors).