If he was the supreme pontiff, and Pastor Aeternus is true, there was no Pope Martin V to submit to.
Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called
Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
Hey don't make me come over there!
But seriously, he submitted to Odo Colonna, who is generally thought to have already been Pope Martin V (or, conceivably, only became pope in 1418 -- or even in 1429, if you endorse the Avignon line).
It is not possible since Vatican 1 says a council can not judge or depose the Pope, so, by vatican 1 criteria, John XXIII remained the true Pope, the council decision is invalid and so is his submission to anti Pope Martin V.
I think we have gotten to the point of anti-Catholic-straw-grasping.
Even if John XXIII was a valid pope to begin with (and I notice that you've given no argument to show that he was), it would follow that Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418. The fact is that Catholic teaching has never said that a pope cannot resign/retire.
If he wasn't, then the Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope. The Council said:
"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"
So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.
This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.
So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.
But Vatican I says:
"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
Hmm ... I'm getting the impression that you didn't read what I put after the comma:
"Even if John XXIII was a valid pope to begin with ... , it would follow that Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418. The fact is that Catholic teaching has never said that a pope cannot resign/retire."
IOW, it only affects the ending-date of the schism.
No, Napoletani has check mated you: if the council didn't have the authority to depose of Pope John XXIII, as Pastor Aeternus
assets, it lacked the authority to make Odo Colonna Pope Martin V. The deprivation of Pope John XXIII of his rightful throne and his subsequent imprisonment deprives any recognition of Odo Colonna as Pope Martin V by Pope John XXIII as "required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested" (CCC 332 §2), and also would further undermine the legitimacy of Odo Colonna, as a pope cannot make his successor pope-hence the reason why the conclave couldn't be called until Pope Benedict XVI of Rome officially left-which is what "would follow" if "Odo Colonna (Martin V) became
pope in 1418." Not to mention that Odo Colonna had not been even ordained a priest until after the council made him their supreme pontiff: was his ordination as bishop of Rome regularized in 1418?
That all claimants to the post of "supreme pontiff" submitted to the council Pope John XXIII affirms his legitimacy. He, however, never submitted to said council, so, per Pastor Aeternus
, its actions against him are void.