Radical conciliarism

Put plainly: who commands, when pope and council contradict each other? The Catholic answers: the pope, assisted by the council; the radical conciliarist answers: the council, against the pope if need be. Everything else follows.

The five theses of the system

The system, as fixed in the treatises of Basel (1430s), holds together in five linked propositions^[5]:

1. The council holds its power immediately from Christ, and not from the pope: it therefore needs neither to be convoked nor confirmed by him to be legitimate.
2. The council is superior to every person in the Church, pope included, in matters of faith, of extirpation of schism and of reform.
3. The council can judge and depose a pope — for heresy, schism, or even for refusal of reform.
4. Councils must meet periodically (every five to ten years) and govern the Church permanently, the pope being merely their executive agent.
5. Appeal from the pope to the council is always admissible: any faithful dissatisfied with a pontifical decision can appeal to the future council, which in practice suspends all Roman authority.

Crisis conciliarism and radical conciliarism: not to be confused

Not all defenders of the council say the same thing. The following table, essential for judging the men of Constance honestly, distinguishes the emergency remedy — which the Church could tolerate in 1415 — from the permanent system, which it condemned^[6]:

Conciliarism was not born of meditation on the Gospel: it was born of a breakdown — two, then three men calling themselves pope at the same time, and no one on earth to decide between them. When the supreme judge is himself the matter in dispute, the idea arises naturally: it is the Church assembled that will judge.

Marsilius of Padua: the first blow (1324)

Half a century before the Schism, the physician and philosopher Marsilius of Padua, with John of Jandun, published the Defensor pacis (1324): supreme authority in the Church would belong to the general council representing the totality of the faithful, and the pope would be merely its revocable executive agent^[7]. The riposte was not long in coming: John XXII condemned the Marsilian theses in 1327 (Licet juxta doctrinam), and Marsilius ended his days at the court of Emperor Louis of Bavaria, protector of all the enemies of Avignon^[8]. But the seed was sown in the universities: the weapon was forged, the Schism would provide the occasion to use it.

Ockham: judging a heretical pope

The English Franciscan William of Ockham, fallen out with John XXII over Franciscan poverty and likewise a refugee with Louis of Bavaria (1328), went further still: in his polemical writings (Dialogus, Breviloquium de principatu tyrannico), he maintained that a pope fallen into heresy can and must be judged — by a general council^[9]. Ockham did not build a complete conciliarist system — he remained a polemicist of circumstance — but he bequeathed to following generations the decisive argument: there are cases in which the council judges the pope, and these cases are for theology to define^[10]. The Paris academics who would make Constance had all read Ockham.

Pisa (1409): the remedy that aggravates the ill

In 1378, the Schism had cut Christendom into two obediences — Rome and Avignon — and neither the path of negotiation (via cessionis: simultaneous resignation) nor that of arms had succeeded. The cardinals of both obediences, assembled at Pisa in 1409, tried the via concilii: they deposed the two popes, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII, and elected Alexander V^[11]. Result: instead of two popes, Christendom had three — Pisa did not heal the schism, it aggravated it^[12]. The Pisan failure proved one thing to contemporaries: a council without clear principles about its own authority is not enough. It was to supply these principles that the doctors of Paris wrote, and that Constance would promulgate Haec sancta. The detailed events belong to the article The Great Western Schism.

The full narrative of the council — convocation by Sigismund, flight of John XXIII, depositions, election of Martin V, trial of Hus and condemnation of Wyclif — is told in the article The Council of Constance (1414-1418). Here, only doctrine concerns us: what does the decree say, in what emergency was it voted, and what is it worth?

The flight of the pope and the session of 6 April 1415

In March 1415, John XXIII — one of the three claimants, the one the council had recognised on opening — fled Constance in disguise, hoping to wreck the assembly by depriving it of its head^[13]. The Fathers riposted: at the 5th session, on 6 April 1415, they promulgated the decree Haec sancta, which declares that the council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, holds its power immediately from Christ, and that every person — were he of papal dignity — is bound to obey it in matters of faith, of extirpation of schism and of reform^[14].

"This holy synod of Constance declares that, legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, constituting a general council, it holds its power immediately from Christ; and that everyone, of whatever state or dignity, were it even papal, is bound to obey it in what concerns the faith, the extirpation of schism and the reform of the Church in its head and in its members." — Decree Haec sancta, Constance, 5th session, 6 April 1415 (Ignispedia translation)^[15]

The formula is unheard of: never had a council written in black and white that the pope must obey the council. But the context is equally unheard of: three popes, one of them on the run, no tribunal on earth to decide between them. The decree was voted as an act of survival — without it, the council disperses and the schism becomes definitive^[16].

Frequens: the permanent council (9 October 1417)

Two and a half years later, at the 39th session (9 October 1417), Constance added the decree Frequens: general councils must henceforth meet regularly — every five years, then every seven years, then every ten years — to oversee reform and prevent any new schism^[17]. This is the institutional version of conciliarism: no longer an emergency act, but a permanent machinery of control placed above ordinary pontifical government. The councils of Pavia-Siena (1423-1424) and then Basel (1431) would be convoked in execution of this decree^[18].

What is Haec sancta worth? Honesty requires it be said

Here, the Catholic historian must be precise, for three readings coexist — and the article would be dishonest to present only one^[19]:

• Maximalist reading: Haec sancta is a dogmatic decree of an ecumenical council defining the superiority of the council. This is the reading of the Basel radicals, then of the Gallicans for their 2nd article of 1682.
• Minimalist reading: the decree is only an emergency disciplinary measure, valid for the 1415 crisis alone, with no permanent doctrinal scope. This is the reading of most Roman theologians after 1460.
• Nuanced reading (Tierney, Oakley): the decree affirms a real but limited truth — in case of schism with no certain pope, the totality of the assembled Church can note the emergency and restore unity — without settling the question of principle of a council facing a certain and legitimate pope^[20].

What is certain is that Martin V, elected on 11 November 1417, never solemnly confirmed Haec sancta as a definition of faith: he confirmed the council conciliariter — according to conciliar forms, that is, the decisions taken in matters of faith — a formula from which both camps would draw argument for a century^[21]. And what is equally certain is that the later Church, by Execrabilis then Lateran V, refused to make of it a permanent rule. The reader who wants the full narrative of events will read the article The Council of Constance (1414-1418).

A heresy does not live on decrees: it lives on doctors. Conciliarism had its own, and they were at first sincere churchmen, frightened by the schism — which makes their trajectory all the more instructive.

Gerson and d'Ailly: the Paris emergency

Jean Gerson (1363-1429), chancellor of the University of Paris, is the theological soul of Constance: sermons, treatises (De auferibilitate papae, 1409), constant pressure for the council to act without waiting for the popes^[22]. His colleague Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly (1351-1420) supplied the canonical arsenal: in case of extreme necessity, the Church can do without ordinary forms^[23]. Neither wanted to destroy the papacy — they wanted to save it in spite of itself, by deposing doubtful claimants. But their formulas, detached from the emergency of 1415, would become the slogans of Basel: the classic drama of crisis theologies, just in the exception, false once erected into a rule^[24].

Zabarella: the jurist of the emergency

Cardinal Francesco Zabarella (1360-1417), who died at Constance in the midst of his work, played a decisive and subtle role: it was he who drafted then softened the first versions of the decrees on the authority of the council — he wanted effectiveness without doctrinal schism^[25]. Historians (Morrissey, Decaluwe) show that he held back the most extreme formulations while making the vote of 6 April possible^[26]. His death, on 27 September 1417, deprived the moderate party of its best jurist, a few weeks before the election of Martin V^[27].

Panormitanus and Nicholas of Cusa: Basel and the reversal

At Basel, the learned spokesman is Nicholas of Tudeschi, called Panormitanus (1386-1445), Archbishop of Palermo: his Tractatus de concilio Basileensi is the canonical summa of radical conciliarism — the council, superior to the pope, can depose him^[28]. Facing him, the finest reversal of the century: Nicholas of Cusa, who had defended Basel in the De concordantia catholica (1433), went over to Pope Eugene IV as early as 1437 and became the theorist of reconciliation — living proof that one could be a conciliarist in good faith at Constance without being one at Basel^[29]. The contrast between the two Nicholases sums up the whole age: 1415 excused much; 1439 excused nothing more.

At Constance, conciliarism was a remedy; at Basel, it becomes a regime — then a schism. It is here that the doctrine is judged by its fruits: eighteen years of assembly which deposes a certain pope, elects an antipope, and ends in general indifference.

The Church did not answer with a single act, but with a series of bolts fitted over more than four centuries — proof that the conciliarist temptation was tenacious, and that Rome took it seriously.

Torquemada: the anti-conciliarist summa (1449)

The first bolt is theological: Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468), uncle of the future inquisitor, wrote his Summa de Ecclesia (1449), a massive reply to Panormitanus's Tractatus — the Church is a monarchy tempered by aristocracy, the pope its head instituted by Christ, the council without the pope a body without a head^[37]. The work would remain for two centuries the Roman arsenal against every conciliarist resurgence.

Execrabilis: Pius II closes the door (18 January 1460)

The second bolt is disciplinary, and its author is the most ironic in history: Pius II (Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini) had in his youth been secretary of the Council of Basel and a theorist of conciliarism — see the article Pope Pius II. Having become pope, he knew the doctrine from within, and it was he who struck it: by the bull Execrabilis (18 January 1460), promulgated at the congress of Mantua, he condemned as an "execrable abuse, unheard of" every appeal from the pope to the future council, and excommunicated those who engaged in it^[38].

"An execrable abuse, unheard of in ancient times, has grown up in our day: certain men, animated by a spirit of rebellion, dare to appeal from the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus Christ, to the future council. [...] We condemn such appeals, we reprove them as erroneous and detestable." — Pius II, bull Execrabilis, 18 January 1460 (Ignispedia translation)^[39]

The condemnation, renewed on 2 November 1460, would be taken up by Sixtus IV (1483), Julius II (1509) and Leo X (1520)^[40]. The favourite weapon of the discontented — paralysing Rome by appealing to a council that does not exist — was henceforth a fault punished by excommunication.

Lateran V: Pastor aeternus (19 December 1516)

The third bolt answers the last resurgence: in 1511, dissident cardinals assembled at Pisa a schismatic conventicle against Julius II, who riposted by convoking Lateran V (1512-1517) — see the article The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517). At the 11th session, on 19 December 1516, Leo X promulgated with the approval of the council the bull Pastor aeternus, which abrogated the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges and reaffirmed that the Roman Pontiff, superior to all councils, can be judged by no one^[41]. French conciliarism, deprived of its charter, would have to wait until 1682 to be reborn in another form.

Vatican I: the dogmatic full stop (18 July 1870)

The last bolt is dogmatic: the constitution Pastor aeternus of Vatican I (18 July 1870) defined the primacy of immediate, ordinary and truly episcopal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church, and his infallibility when he solemnly defines the faith^[42].

"We teach and declare that the Roman Church possesses, by the Lord's disposition, a primacy of ordinary power over all the others [...]. If therefore anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only an office of inspection or direction, and not a plenary and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church [...], let him be anathema." — Vatican I, constitution Pastor aeternus, ch. 3, 18 July 1870 (Ignispedia translation)^[43]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 880-882) gives the received formulation: the college of bishops has authority only "united to the Roman Pontiff as its head", and the pope, "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity", possesses over the Church a power that is "plenary, supreme, immediate, universal"^[44].

One might think it a mere conflict of power — Rome defending its own preserve. The Roman theologians, from Torquemada to the Fathers of Vatican I, give four properly theological reasons, which must be set out honestly^[45].

Christ founded a monarchy, not a republic

To Peter, and to him alone by name, Christ said: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Mt 16:18), "Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:17), "Strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32)^[46]. The power of the keys was given to a person before being given to a college: the council shares in the supreme authority, it does not possess it in its own right against the one who receives it from Christ. To make the pope the revocable executive agent of an assembly is to invert the institution itself^[47].

A council without a head is not the Church

Torquemada's argument, never refuted on substance: a council assembled against the pope or without the pope is not the totality of the Church, it is a part mistaking itself for the whole — exactly like a council of Arian bishops in the 4th century^[48]. Basel demonstrated it by absurdity: the more the serious bishops left for Ferrara, the more those remaining declared themselves "the Church", until they were but a handful electing a Duke of Savoy^[49]. Ecumenicity is not self-decreed: it is received, in union with the successor of Peter.

Appeal to the future council destroys all government

The most practical objection is that of Pius II himself: he argued that one cannot appeal to a non-existent tribunal, since the future council does not yet exist and might never exist^[50].

No society can live with a permanent right of appeal to a non-existent instance: it is anarchy disguised as procedure. Execrabilis does not punish recourse to the legitimate council — it punishes the sabotage of government by invocation of a phantom council.

The fruits: the system produces the very evil it denounces

Finally the evangelical criterion: "you will know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:16)^[51]. Conciliarism promised to heal the schism: applied to the end at Basel, it created a schism — deposition of a certain pope, election of an antipope, ten more years of division^[52]. A remedy that aggravates the disease to the point of reproducing it is no remedy: it is a false doctrine, refuted by history as much as by theology.

Radical conciliarism died in 1516-1517, but its ideas survived in disguise — and its adversaries have sometimes revived its ghost to discredit councils themselves. Both errors are to be avoided.

The French heir: from conciliarism to Gallicanism

The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438), abrogated in 1516, was reborn in softened form: the Four Articles of 1682, drafted by Bossuet, took up the superiority of the council in their 2nd article while affirming the independence of the king^[53]. This is Gallicanism: a domesticated conciliarism, with no antipope or deposition, but never received by Rome and condemned in its turn. See the article Gallicanism for this French second life.

The false heirs: not everything is conciliarism

Two precisions protect the article from anachronisms. On the one hand, later movements contesting Rome — the German Febronians of the 18th century around Febronius (De statu Ecclesiae, 1763), the Old Catholics after 1870 — took up conciliarist arguments, but in different doctrinal contexts: they are not to be filed under the label "radical conciliarism" without nuance^[54]. On the other hand, a Catholic who asks for a council, or who criticises a pontifical act, is not a conciliarist: conciliarism is a precise thesis on the habitual superiority of the council, not a synonym for disagreement^[55]. To confuse the two is to manufacture imaginary heretics — the opposite excess to that of Basel.

The lesson: the exception does not make the constitution

There remains the permanent lesson, valid far beyond the 15th century: an emergency measure justified by necessity never becomes a permanent rule without changing its nature^[56]. Constance in 1415 could depose doubtful claimants because there was no certain pope; Basel in 1439 could not depose a certain pope because Constance had done so in an emergency. Gerson and Zabarella were right in April 1415; Panormitanus was wrong in June 1439 — with the same sentences. That is why the Church, which venerates its twenty-one ecumenical councils, refuses to make the council a sovereign: it keeps the instrument and rejects the ideology^[57].

• The narrative of events: The Council of Constance (1414-1418) and The Great Western Schism.
• Those condemned at Constance: Jan Hus, Hussitism (1415-1436), John Wycliffe and Wycliffism.
• The rival council and its closure: The Council of Florence (1431-1449), The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517), Pope Pius II.
• The French heir: Gallicanism.
• The other medieval heresies: The Fraticelli, The Waldensians (1170-1532), Catharism, Radical Joachimism (13th-14th century), The Heresy of the Free Spirit, The Taborites.