Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T20:34:13.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Council of Constance: Its Fame and its Failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2009

David Schley Schaff
Affiliation:
Professor of Church History, Western Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, PA.

Extract

Van Der Hardt significantly entitled his voluminous collection of documents bearing on the Council of Constance, Magnum œcumenicum Constantiense concilium —the Great Œcumenical Council of Constance. The recent Catholic historian Funk pronounced it to be “eine der grossartigsten Kirchenversammlungen welche die Geschichte kennt”—one of the most imposing church assemblies known to history. In my own judgment, the council which assembled in Constance (1414) was, upon the whole, not only one of the most imposing of church œcumenical councils but perhaps the most imposing assembly of any sort which has ever met on the soil of Western Europe. In its sessions the urgent questions were discussed which agitated to its foundations Western Christendom during the last centuries of the Middle Ages. The Council had on it the smell of the Middle Ages and at the same time it felt the breath of the age about to open. It was an ecclesiastical synod and yet it had much of the swing of a democratic assembly. It was the first approach to a free religious parliament in which the lay element had recognition at the side of the clerical element. The two elements, mediæval and modern, strictly clerical and lay, had representation in its two places of meeting, the Cathedral, the temple of religion, and the Kaufhaus, the board of trade. The assembly was an ecclesiastical body, called to settle ecclesiastical questions; Constance was an imperial city, one of the centers of the North Alpine traffic. The questions discussed were of church administration and doctrinal purity, but the voting was done by national groups, “nations,” a wide departure from the habit of restricting the voting to the bishops, as at the Council of Nice, 325 A.D., and later councils.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Society for Church History 1921

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 45 note 1 In six volumes, Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1696–1700. Hermann van der Hardt was professor of Hebrew and librarian at Helmstādt.

page 48 note 1 Sigismund wrote to Manuel in the summer of 1414. See the interesting letters, Finke, Acta Concilii Constanc., i, p. 397.

page 50 note 1 Denifle, Chartularium, i, p. 620.

page 51 note 1 Chartularium iii, p. 633.

page 51 note 2 Haller, Papsttum und Kirchenreform, pp. 346 note, 347.

page 57 note 1 Du Pin, , The Works of Gerson, ii, pp. 54–72Google Scholar; Schwab, , J. Gerson, pp. 171–178.Google Scholar

page 57 note 2 Du Pin, , ii, pp. 201 sqq.; Van der Hardt, ii, p. 265.Google Scholar

page 60 note 1 Du Pin, , ii, p. 61.Google Scholar

page 63 note 1 Du Pin, ii, p. 277.Google Scholar

page 66 note 1 Weimar, Ed. of Luther's Works, ii, p. 275, and the letters describing the Leipzig discussion written by Melanchthon, Mosellanus, and Eck: Smith, Luther's Correspondence, pp. 205, 257, etc. Eck wrote: “Luther defended the Greeks and declared some of the articles of the Bohemians condemned at Constance to be most Christian and even evangelical.”Google Scholar

page 67 note 1 Grund und Ursach, Weimar, Ed., vii, p. 395 sqq.Google Scholar

page 68 note 1 See the letters of Aleander and Contarini bearing on Luther's testimony to Huss at Worms. Smith, op. cit., pp. 529, 538.