After the contested events of 1378, the Roman and Avignon claimants each maintained that he held the one papal office. Pisa’s attempted settlement in 1409 added a third line because the existing claimants did not accept the council’s decision. The resulting map of allegiances reflected legal judgments, political relationships and the information available to particular communities.
Objective title and personal responsibility must be distinguished. A person could adhere sincerely to an invalid claim through a mistaken judgment about an election. That sincerity did not create the office, but it matters when assessing culpability. The presence of respected and holy persons in different obediences should therefore neither be ignored nor used to declare contradictory claims equally true.
The Council of Constance restored unity through a sequence of acts involving the claimants and the election of Martin V in 1417. Gregory XII’s formal convocation and resignation are important in the Catholic legal account. The council’s success should not be reduced to a slogan about an assembly being permanently superior to the pope; the status of particular decrees and their confirmation requires separate treatment.
The episode illustrates the difference between indefectibility and uninterrupted administrative clarity. Catholic doctrine does not promise that every ecclesiastical fact will always be immediately evident to every believer. It affirms the endurance of the Church’s faith and constitution. The restoration of visible government required human prudence, law and cooperation within that continuing ecclesial life.