The first use of conciliar theory put into practice came with the Council of Pisa in 1409 to decide out of the two reigning Popes who should become the one true Pope and put an end to the rebel Avignon Papacy. Showing just how flimsy the idea of conciliarism was, the Council was hugely unsuccessful, instead electing a third Pope to further complicate the matter. The next Council, the Council of Constance, held between1414-1418, was much more flourishing and showed the peak of influence that the conciliarist movement would have. The Schism between the Avignon Papacy and the rest of the Church was healed by the Council, who deposed al of the anti-Popes, including John XXII and the Avignon Pope Benedict XIII, and then affirmed
Christie Blake Page 3
the authority of general councils over future Popes. Conciliar limits on papal power were introduced due to abuses committed by the three competing Popes. These limits and decrees were met with approval, and these actions that completely changed the authority structure of the Church were accepted at its critical moment. Two decrees were of supreme importance at Constance: Sacrosancta and Frequens. The decree of Sacrosancta was introduced in 1415, and laid down that a General Council was, in matters of faith, the supreme authority in the Church. It contained these truths: a General Council is above the Pope, the Pope cannot dissolve or interrupt a Council, nor can he transfer it to another place, and anyone who denies these truths is a heretic. This decree saw constant bickering about its contents. The second decree of Constance was Frequens, 1417, and saw arrangements made for the Councils regular summons, demanding that they should be frequently held. As the Council of Constance had achieved its first tasks of healing the schisms and setting up charters for the future running of Councils, it then took a course of trying to exterminate heresy. However, the Council soon dissolved leaving more difficulties than what it had healed. The next and last Council, the Council of Basel from 1431-1449 attempted to solidify the position of conciliarism but ultimately failed. In 1431, the Council opened amidst quarrelling between its members and Eugenius IV, seemingly due to the Councils willingness to negotiate with the Bohemian Hussites, who Eugenius saw as a threat. More problems arose with the theory of mixed government between the Pope and the Council being replaced with community sovereignty, of which the Council was the recipient. This was cemented with the
Christie Blake Page 4
decree De Stablilimento Concilii on February 15th 1432, which said it has not, is not and will not in the future, be right or possible for the Council to be dissolved or transferred by any person, including the Pope. The Council therefore had the rights of the papacy’s judicial and administrative function. However the Council’s plans for reunion with the Byzantine Church became more and more radical and Eugenius began to take matters into his own hands. The year 1437 brought decisive break between the two and the schism in the West became renewed. The Council was still backed by the French monarchy and therefore felt that it could safely depose Pope Eugenius, however failing to see his success with the Greek Church, something the Council itself had failed in. Bitter fighting erupted in the Council, as more schism would continue with its rule, and this would no longer be welcome. Eugenius come to terms with all of Europe’s rulers, who withdrew their support from the Council, and it ended in 1449.
Conciliarism had arisen out of crisis, and churchmen broke with tradition to implement it into the everyday workings of the Church, however after it helped solve the problem of the Great Schism caused by the Avignon Papacy, it became a problem in itself. One of its main dysfunctions was that the faithful as a whole were more comfortable with the sovereignty of one singular person. Many members of the Church continued to believe that the Pope, successors to Peter who had built the Church, should retain his rightful position as the sole governing authority in the Church. Papal authority was vigorously defended, most of the view that Christ gave the ecclesiastical power not to all of the community, but to a single person, Peter, who the popes were the successors of. This support for the supremacy of the Pope saw the gains of the conciliar movement gradually lose influence. After the Council of Constance and the end of frustration with the papacy once they were deposed, the Council was no longer needed, as it had re-established the traditional unity provided
Christie Blake Page 5
by the Pope. The conciliar movement did succeed in reuniting the Western Church, but failed in all its reformist and constitutional aims for the Church. These would have only been achieved through support, the problem being the Pope’s authority still being fresh in the people’s mind. Another reason for this was although the ‘universal church’ supposedly consisted of everyone, very few of the laity were involved with conciliarism, it was chiefly clergy, who were themselves as corrupt as some accused the Pope of being. After Eugenius left the Council to its own devices, the faithful saw the Council as provoking more schism between the Church and the regions that supported either party. More schism would not be tolerated; therefore the Council seemingly provoked its own demise. In the end, conciliarism utterly failed to destroy papal absolutism and its ideas faded along with all its decrees and action.
Conciliarism did achieve the main aim of ending the Great Western Schism and ending the rebellion of the Avignon Papacy, but instead of installing the new Pope and letting him rule, the Council preferred to make its own grab for power, and in doing so caused more problems for the faith. Perhaps if the Council had worked alongside the Pope instead of constantly thwarting him, the outcome may have been different. Instead conciliarism failed to make a mark on the Roman Catholic Church, leaving a legacy that was more trouble than it was worth.
Christie Blake Page 6
Bibliography
B. Secondary Sources
-
‘Conciliarism’, retrieved from ,
accessed 24th April, 2008.
-
‘Conciliarism’, retrieved from http;//matthew548.com/d-conc.html
accessed 24th April, 2008
-
‘Conciliarism’, retrieved from
accessed 24th April, 2008.
-
‘Conciliarist Theory’, retrieved from http://www.catholicculture.org/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32689,
accessed 24th April 2008.
-
Davis, R.H.C., Waley, D., Denley, P. The High Middle Ages and Later Medieval Europe, Sydney, Pearson Custom Publishing, 2005.
-
Fasolt, Constantin. “William Durant the Younger and Conciliar Theory”, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 58, No. 3 (July 1997), University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.
-
Henderson Burns, James, The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-1450, Cambridge University Press.
-
Henderson Burns, James, Izbiki, Thomas M. Conciliarism and Papalism, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
-
Keen, M. The Penguin History of Medieval Europe, London, Penguin, 1991.
-
O’Rourke, Timothy G. The Impact of Reapportionment, Transaction Publishers, 1980.
-
Pettegree, Andrew. The Reformation World, Routledge, 2000
-
Schatz, Klaus. Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to Present, Liturgical Press, 1996
-
Stark, Werner. The Sociology of Religion: A Study of Christendom, Routledge.
Christie Blake Page 7
Checklist
Format
YES NO
Yes Have I provided the full essay title and number?
Yes Do I have sufficiently wide margins for comment (about 4 cm)?
Yes Do I have footnotes which indicate the source of my information and
ideas?
Yes Are my footnotes placed at the bottom of e ac h page?
Yes Are my footnotes numbered consecutively throughout the essay?
Yes Have I provided a bibliography?
Yes Do my footnotes and bibliography conform to the Traditional method
(not Harvard) as set out in this Study Guide.
Yes Have I written on one side of the paper only?
Yes Have I numbered my pages?
Yes If my essay is typed, have I used double spacing?
Yes Have I indented my paragraph openings?
Method and Argument
Yes Have I avoided a chronological structure?
Yes Have I either explained key terms or at least shown that I have a
working definition of these terms in mind?
Yes Have I referred to these key terms and to the topic throughout my
discussion?
Yes Have I answered the question? Have I decided clearly upon what i t
is asking?
Why? What? How? Explain? Assess?
Yes Do I have an introductory paragraph?
Yes Do I have a concluding paragraph?
Yes Have I written paragraphs of more than three sentences each?
Christie Blake Page 8
Yes Do my paragraphs have topic sentences?
Yes Do my paragraphs have a concluding 'so what' sentence which
relates the material back to the question?
Yes Have I read widely?
Yes Have I avoided plagiarism?
Syntax, Style and Grammar
Yes Have I varied the length of my sentences and sentence beginnings?
Yes Have I written sentences? Have I checked my spelling?
Yes Have I avoided using quotations from secondary sources? (Remove
quotations and say it in your own words.)
Yes Have I tried to avoid passive voice and written more simply and
directly in active voice?
Yes Have I avoided clichés, jargon and slang? (If not, remove them.)
Have I avoided abbreviations such as C9th; eg; etc.; ie?
Have I avoided contractions such as weren’t, couldn’t, hadn’t?
Yes Have I avoided the use of it's meaning it is when I need its (without
an apostrophe) the possessive form?
Yes Have I used simple (not simplistic), clear, direct English and not used
two or more words when one will suffice, such as:
prior to = before
Yes Have I remembered to use apostrophes where appropriate?
Yes Have I used however correctly?
Yes Have I proof-read my essay carefully?
James Henderson Burns; The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-1450, Cambridge, p. 573.
‘Conciliarist Theory’, retrieved from http://www.catholicculture.org/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32689, accessed 24th April 2008.
‘Conciliarism’, retrieved from http;//matthew548.com/d-conc.html accessed 24th April, 2008.
Constantin Fasolt, “William Durant the Younger and Conciliar Theory”, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 58, No. 3 (July 1997), 1997 p. 391.
Burns; The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-1450, p. 573.
Fasolt, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 58, No. 3 (July 1997), p. 391.
‘Conciliarism’, retrieved from accessed 24th April, 2008.
Burns; The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-1450, p. 573.
R.H.C. Davis, D. Waley, P. Denley The High Middle Ages and Later Medieval Europe, Sydney, 2005, p. 120.
‘Conciliarist Theory’, retrieved from http://www.catholicculture.org/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32689, accessed 24th April 2008.
M. Keen, The Penguin History of Medieval Europe, London, Penguin, 1991, p.290.
‘Conciliarist Theory’, retrieved from http://www.catholicculture.org/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32689, accessed 24th April 2008.
Keen, The Penguin History of Medieval Europe, 1991, p.290.
Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to Present, Liturgical Press, 1996, p. 110.
‘Conciliarism’, retrieved from , accessed 24th April, 2008.
Keen, The Penguin History of Medieval Europe, 1991, p.293.
Davis, Waley, Denley The High Middle Ages and Later Medieval Europe, 2005, p. 121.
Burns; The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-1450, p. 573.
Andrew Pettegree, The Reformation World, Routledge, 2000, p. 43.
Werner Stark, The Sociology of Religion: A Study of Christendom, Routledge, p.290
Burns; The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-1450, p. 573.
Andrew Pettegree, The Reformation World, Routledge, 2000, p. 44.
Timothy G. O’Rourke, The Impact of Reapportionment, Transaction Publishers, 1980, p.60
