[vladimir998]

“....the Great Western Schism (1309-1417).”

And

“Often called the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” the Schism was provoked by the election of rival popes and the removal of the papacy from Rome to Avignon, France.”

Perhaps Horton is a moron, or maybe he’s just not careful here. There was no schism lasting all the way from 1309 to 1417. He is conflating the Avignon Papacy (when there was no schism) with the Great Schism of the West which came AFTERWARD and lasted from 1378 to 1417.

He’s a Protestant. I don’t expect him to know history very well.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407700985/avignon-papacy.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

[Elsie]

He’s a Protestant. I don’t expect him to know history very well.

At least you ain't wishy-washy about your belief.

[HarleyD]

Perhaps Horton is a moron, or maybe he’s just not careful here. There was no schism lasting all the way from 1309 to 1417.

I would suggest it may be most prudent if you wouldn't get your information from bias sources like the Catholic encyclopedia. At the very least it may be best not to refer to people as "morons" without understanding history. From Wikipedia:

The period from 1377 to 1417, when there were rival claimants to the title of pope is referred to as the "Western Schism" or "the great controversy of the antipopes" by some Roman Catholic scholars and "the second great schism" by many secular and Protestant historians. Parties within the Roman Church were divided in their allegiance among the various claimants to the office of pope. The Council of Constance finally resolved the controversy in 1417.

Yes, there are some Protestants who still understand history. Proverb for the day:

Pro 18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.