Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/337

 CONSTANCE

291

CONSTANCE

imaginable abuse. In its general congregations and sf^-^eions bitter reproaches were often uttered on the s imp themes. The academic equality of many of the members, tlie prostrate condition of ecclesiastical liiadship, the peculiar freedom of discussion in the " nation" meetings, and other causes made this coun- cil II unique forum for the discussion of all points and ini'thods of reformation. More would certainly have luen accomplished had the learned men and the zeal- "iis preachers been able to reach some degree of unani- mity as to the importance and order of the reforms (I lied for, and had there been more general anxiety for fic Tsonal refonnation and less passion in denouncing llic past abuses of papal and curial administration. 1 he Germans (Avisamenta nationis germanica?) and tlic English were ardent for a reformation of the Ro- man Curia, so that a new, holy, and just pope would find his way made straight before him. The former asserted that for 150 years the popes had ceased to ^', I vern with that justice which for twelve centuries had ( liaracterizedtheni. Thecardinals, they said, had loved iirhi's too much, and ecclesiastical synods had been ii'^locted. These were the true causes, according to Iti'iu, of the corruption of the clergy, the decay

I •! i;ood studies, the ruin of churches and abbeys. Re- I'nrms had been promised at Pisa, but what had be- r^'nie of these promises? .\s a matter of fact, how- vvi-r, the reforms most loudly called for meant the ri >toration to the bishops of their ancient freedom in lli( collation of benefices, also a notable diminution in the various dues and .assessments payable to Rome from the ecclesiastical properties and revenues of the \arious nations, which for several reasons had been uniwing in number and size during the previous

II iitury, and were not always unjustified or inequi- t : 1 1 ill'. We have already seen that it was much against ( III ir will that the Germans agreed to a papal election

III lure receiving full satisfaction in the matter of the afiiresaid reforms. The day after his coronation Martin V appointed a (third) reform commission, lint its members showed no more unanimity than their pri'docessors in the same office. The new pope de- clared that he was ready to accept any propositions that were unanimously agreed on. Eventually, after Miiich discussion and various suggestions seven points Ml re agreed to in the forty-third session (21 March, MIS). AH exemptions granted during the synod \\i re withdrawn, and in the future should be granted Willi difficulty; unions and incorporations of bene- licis were likewise to be diminished; the pope agreed til renounce the revenues of vacant benefices ; all sim- (II v was forbidden, likewise the custom of dispens- ii u beneficed persons from the obligation of taking nnlcrs; the papal right to impose tithes on clergy and (1 lurches was .sensibly restricted; ecclesiastics must 111 nicforth wear the dress of their order (Mansi, Cone, XW'II, 1114-77). Other reforms were left to the initiative of each nation which provided for them by ^[■|(■ial concordats, a term said to have been here used fur the first time. The Gemian Concordat (including I'nland, Hungary, and Scandinavia) and that with 1 'ranee, Spain, and Italy, ran for five years; the Eng- lish Concordat was indefinite (for the details see Mansi, op. cit., XXVII, 1189 sqq., and Hubler, Die Kiinstanzer Reform und die Konkordate von 1418,

■ Leipzig, 1867). The number of cardinals was fixed at twenty-four, and they were to be taken proportion- ately from the great nations. Stricter regulation was uKo agreed on frr papal reservations, annates, coni- nii ndams, Indulgences, etc. Nevertheless, in a papal II ii-isforv- no March, 1418). Martin V rejected .any M of appeal from the .\postolic See to a future ■ il, and a.sserted the supreme authority of the an pontiff as Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth in all 'ions of Catholie Faith (N'ulli fas est a supremo • ■. videlicet .Xpostolicii sede sen Rom. Pontif. .Icsu I -ti vicario in terris appellare aut illius judicium in

causis fidei, qus taraquam majores ad ipsum et sedem .Vpostolicam deferendiB sunt, declinare, Mansi, Cone, XXVIII, 200). Von Funk has shown (op. cit., 489 sqq.), that the oft-maintained confirmation of the de- crees of Constance by Martin V, in the last session of the council (omnia et singula determinata et decreta in materiis fidei per praesens concilium conciliariter et non .aliter nee alio modo) must be understood only of a specific case (Falkenberg, see below), and not of any notable part of, much less of all, the decrees of Con- stance. It is true that in the Bull "Inter Cunctas", 22 Feb., 1418, apropos of the Wycliflfites and Hussites, he calls for a formal approval of the decrees of Con- stance in favorem fidei et salutem animarum, but these words are easily understood of the council's action against the aforesaid heresies and its efforts to restore to the Church a certain head. In particular the famous five articles of the fifth session, establishing the supremacy of the council, never received papal con- firmation (Hergenrother-Kirsch, II, 862, and Baudril- lart, in Diet, de theol. cath., II, 1219-23). For a refu- tation of the Galilean claim that these decrees possess a dogmatic character, see Gallicanism. Neverthe- less, the Council of Constance is usually reckoned the Sixteenth General Council ; some, as stated above, ac- knowledge it as such after the fourteenth session (re- convocation by Gregory XII); others again (Salem- bier) after the thirty-fifth session (adlierence of the Spanish nation); Hefele only in the final sessions (forty-second to forty-fifth) under Martin V. No papal apjiroljation of it was ever meant to confirm its anti-papal acts; thus Eugene IV (22 July, 1446) ap- proved the council, with due reserve of the rights, dig- nity, and supremacy of the Apostolic See (absque tamen praejudicio juris dignitatis et praeeminentia: Sedis Apostolicae). See Bouix, "Depapa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico" (Paris, 1869), and Salembier (below), 313-23.

III. Thk Repres.siox of Heresy. — At varioua times the council de.alt with current heresies, among them those of John Wyclif and John IIus. Condemna- tion of Forty-five Wycliffitr Propositions. — In the eighth session it was question of W'yclif, whose writings had already been condemned at the Covmcil of Rome (1412- 13) under John XXIII. In this session forty-five propositions of Wyclif, already condemned by the uni- versities of Paris and Prague, were censured as hereti- cal, and in a later session another long list of 260 errors. All his writings were ordered to be burned and his body was condemned to be dug up and cast out of consecrated ground (this was not done until 1428 under Bishop Robert Fleming of Lincoln). In 1418 Martin V, by the aforesaid Bull "Inter Cunctas", approved the action of the council (Mansi, op. cit., XXVII, 1210 sq.; see Wycliffites).

Condemnation and Execution of John Hns. — Since 1408 John Hus. an eloquent preacher of Prague, had openly taught the Wycliffite heresies. By his ardent zeal for ecclesiastical reforms on the basis of Wyclif's teachings, his patriotic insistence on the purity of Bo- hemian faith and his assertion of Bohemian nation- alism, he had gone rapidly to the front as a leader of his nation, then deeply embittered against the Ger- mans dominant in the political and academic life of Bohemia. Since 1412 he had been banished from Prague, but was only the more dangerous, by his fiery discourse and his writings, among the highly excited Bohemians, who mostly saw in him the flower of their national genius, and were otherwise embittered against a clergy which then offered too many elements of weakness to the attacks of such reformers as John Hus and his friend and admirer Jerome (Hierony- nuis) of Prague. The errors of Hus concerned chiefly the nature of the Church (only the predestined), the papal headship, the rule of faith (Scripture and the law of Christ), Communion under both kinds (q. v. also Hussites), auricular confession (unnecessary),