Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T22:52:49.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conciliarism, Papalism, and Power, 1511-1518

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2016

J. H. Burns*
Affiliation:
University College, London
Get access

Extract

If ‘the later conciliar controversy’ may be regarded as having come to an end by the middle of the fifteenth century, the years considered here may perhaps be seen as the period of the last controversy of quite that kind. It is true that words like ‘first’ and ‘last’ are always hazardous in historical discourse, and perhaps nowhere more so than in the history of ideas. Clearly the argument about the place of general councils in the polity of the Church had not completely died away in the second half of the fifteenth century; nor did it come to a sudden end in 1518 (specified here as the year which saw the Concordat of 1516 reluctantly accepted by the University of Paris and also the publication of John Mair’s Commentary on St Matthew’s Gospel, with its strenuous assertion of conciliarist principles). Twenty years more were to pass before the posthumous publication of the longest single work generated by the entire conciliar controversy, Domenico Giacobazzi’s De concilio. And seven years later it was, of course, a council of the Church that faced the challenge of what had, from small beginnings within the period examined here, become a schism more fundamental and far-reaching than that which had precipitated the original conciliar movement. Even at Trent, moreover, there were those who were prepared to speak up for ‘conciliarist’ principles and policies. Yet it still seems true to say that the years of the Council (or what purported to be the Council) of Pisa and Milan, and of the Fifth Council of the Lateran, saw the last significant and direct confrontation between conciliarism and papalism as those positions had developed in the ecclesiology and ecclesiastical politics of the period inaugurated by the Great Schism. No doubt this last act was an anticlimax, a controversy over the dubious claims of a conciliabulum which was at least politically used if not originally inspired by purely political motives. In the history of ideas, however, and perhaps especially in the history of political ideas, the debate is not so easily dismissed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1987 

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

1 Black, A. J., Monarchy and Community: Politicai Ideas in the Later Conciliar Controversy 1430-1430 (Cambridge, 1970).Google Scholar

2 A notable instance is Robert de Ceneau (c.1483-1560), a pupil of John Mair: see Farge, J. K., Biographical Register oj Paris Doctors of Theology 1300-1336 (Toronto, 1980), pp. 7984.Google Scholar

3 Cf.Oakley, F., The Political Thought of Piene d’Ailly: the Voluntarist Tradition (New Haven and London, 1964), pp. 211ff.Google Scholar, together with his articles, cited below; and, on the canonistic aspect, Walter Ullmann, Law and Politics in the Middle Ages: an Introduction to the Sources of Medieval Political Ideas (London and Cambridge, 1975), pp. 188-9.

4 The last two of Hefele’s nine volumes, ed. J, Hergenröther, were published at Freiburg in, 1873—90. The relevant volume (8) of Leclercq’s translation was published in Paris in 1917.

5 Allen, J. W., A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1928), p. 108 n. and pp. 336–7Google Scholar (for Mair); Sir, R. W. and Carlyle, A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, 6 (Edinburgh and London, 1936), pp. 241–9Google Scholar (for Almain and Mair) and p. 156 (for Decius).

4 Cf., for example, P. Imbart de la Tour, Les origina de la Réforme, 2, L’Eglise Catholique: la Crise de la Renaissance (Paris, 1909; 2nd edn, Melun, 1946), I.i-ii (esp. pp. 169-74), IV.i-ii (esp. pp. 469-75); Renaudet, A., Préréforme et humanisme à Paris pendant les premières guerres d’Italie (1494-1517) (Paris, 1916; 2nd edn, 1953).Google Scholar

4 Jedin, H., Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, 1, (Freiburg 1949)Google Scholar; tr.Graf, E., A History of the Council of Trent, 1 (London, 1957).Google Scholar

8 Lumen Gentium (21 November 1964), the ‘Dogmatic Constitution’ on the Church, was one of the major conciliar documents.

9 Tierney, B., Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge, 1955).Google Scholar

10 Morrall, J. B., Gerson and the Great Schism (Manchester, 1960)Google Scholar; Sigmund, P. E., Nicholas of Cusa and Medieval Political Thought (Cambridge, Mass., 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oakley, Political Thought ofd’Ailly.

11 Monarchy and Community; Council and Commune: The Conciliar Movement and the Council of Basle (London and Shepherdstown, 1979).

12 ‘On the Road from Constance to 1688: the political thought of John Major and George Buchanan’, JBS, 2 (1062), pp. 1—31; ‘Almain and Major: Conciliar Theory on the eve of the Reformation’, AHR, 70 (1964-65), pp. 673-90; ‘Conciliarism in the sixteenth century: Jacques Almain again’, ARG, 68 (1977), pp. 111-32.

13 O. de la Brosse, Le Pape el le Concile: la comparaison de leurs pouvoirs à la veille de la Réforme (Paris, 1965).

14 Ullmann, W., ‘Julius II and the schismatic cardinals’, SCH, 9 (1972), pp. 177–93Google Scholar; Bâumer, R., Nachwirliungen des konziliaren Gedankens in der Theologie und Kanonistik desfrühen 16. Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1971).Google Scholar

15 Cf., for example, Sieben, H.J., Traktaten und Theorien zum Konzil: vom Beginn des grossen Schisma; bis zum Vorabend det Reformation (1378-1521) (Frankfurt, 1983)Google Scholar; Becker, H.-J., Die Appellation vom Papst an ein allgemeines Konzil: Historische Entwicklung uni kanonistische Diskussion im späten Mittelalter una in der frühen Neuzeit (Cologne and Vienna, 1988).Google Scholar

16 ‘Julius II and die schismatic cardinals’, pp. 177ff.

17 As Ullmann, ‘Julius II’, esp. pp. 191—3, seems inclined to do.

18 See Jedin, H., ‘Giovanni Gozzadini: ein Konziliarist am Hofe Julius’ II’, in Kirche des Glaubens, Kirche der Geschichie: Ausgewählte Aufsätze uni Vorträge, 2 vols (Freiburg, Basle, and Vienna, 1966), 2Google Scholar, Konzil und Kirchenreform, pp. 17-74, where part of Gozzadini’s treatise (which has never been published) is printed at pp. 27-30. A further extract is printed by Becker, Die Appellation vom Papst, pp. 442-7. A useful short account of Gozzadini’s position is given by Thomson, J. A. F., Popes and Princes 1417-1517Google Scholar: Politics and Polity in the Late Medieval Church (London, 1980), pp. 23—4.

19 Jedin, “Giovanni Gozzadini’, p. 28 (Conclusio X). The question of appeals is dealt with at length in the extract printed by Becker.

20 Becker, Die Appellation vom Papst, p. 447.

21 Jedin, ‘Giovanni Gozzadini’, p. 28 (Conclusio VII). Thomson, Popes and Princes, p. 24, renders the first phrase Vas not merely a political body, but also a mystical one’; but this misses the full force of Gozzadini’s words—’Ecclesia … se habet… ut corpus misricum, non autem ut corpus politicum …’.

22 Ibid., p. 19. Sangiorgio, however, seems to have taken a more restrictive view than Gozzadini of the right to appeal to a council: cf. Becker, Die Appellation vom Papst, p. 445.

23 Law and Politics, pp. 188-9.

24 Prepositus super titulum de Appellationibus (Venice, 1497), fol. [e vii] v.

25 Ioannis Franasti Pogii Fiorentini De Potatale Papae et Concilii (Rome?, 1512?). Briefly referred to by Bäumer, Nachwirkungen, p. 145, and by Becker, Die Appellation vom Papst, p. 356. See also Sieben, Traktaten und Theorien, pp. 211, 225, 249; Klotzner, J., Kardinal Dominicus Jacobazzi und sein Konzilswerk ein Beitrag zurGeschichte der konziliaren Idee (Rome, 1948), pp. 199ffGoogle Scholar. Black, in Monarchy ani Community, cites the treatise quite frequently, but mistakenly attributes it to Poggio Bracciolini.

26 Io. Poggio fiorentinus Ad. S.D.N. Iulium Papam II de officio Principis liber (Rome, 1504), fol. [a 6] v.

27 De Patestate Papae, fol. E 2 v.

28 Ibid. fol. F 1 v.

29 Ibid., fol. E 2 v.

30 Ibid., fols [H 4] v-I 1 r.

31 Ibid., fol. I 1 v.

32 Ibid., fol. [13] r: ‘… regimen ecclesiae est monarchicum non politicum…’.

33 Ibid., fols [Q 4] v—R 1 r; and for the question of resistance, fol. [F 4] v.

34 Ibid., fol. [H 4] v: ‘… ciuitas terrena est capax huiusmodi politiae. Fidclium uero ciuitas uel uniuersitas huiusmodi potestatis prorsus est incapax …’. (Here and elsewhere manifest misprints have been silently corrected.)

35 De Concilio Tractatus (Rome, 1538). Its compilation probably took up ten years of Giacobazzi’s long life (1443-1527). It was reprinted several rimes, most notably in Mansi.

36 De Concilio, p. 389 A: ‘… communitas ciuitatis bene est capax potestatis et regiminis ciuilis: sed vniuersalis ecclesia non est in omnibus suis membris capax potestatis ecclesiasticae…’.

37 Ibid., pp. 678-9.

38 For a detailed analysis of the ecclesiologies of Cajetan and Almain see La Brosse, Le Pape el le Concile; for Cajetan, also the earlier part of Hennig, G., Cajetan una Luther: Ein historischer Beitrag zur Begegnung von Thomismus una Reformation (Stuttgart, 1966)Google Scholar; and for Mair, Ganoczy, A., ‘Jean Major, exégète gallicain’, Recherches de Science Religieuse, 56 (1968), pp. 457—95.Google Scholar

39 Auctoritas Pape et Concilii siue Ecclesie comparata (Rome, 1511). I have been unable to locate a copy of the edition by V. M. J. Pollet (Rome, 1936), and have consulted, besides the first edition, the reprint in the first volume of Cajetan’s Opusculo Omnia, 3 vols (Turin, 1582).

40 Cf. Hennig, Cajetan una Luther, p. 19: ‘Es gibt… kaum ein Kapitel in der ganzen Schrift, in dem nicht der “divus Thomas” genannt würde.’

41 Auctorilas… comparala, 1511 fol. [A vi] v. For Cajetan’s Aquinas references in this context see 5. Thomae Aauinatis Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, ed. P. Cai, O.P., 2 vols (Turin and Rome, 1953). 1, p. 377 (I Cor. 12, III, 755); p. 582 (Gal. 2, III, 77). It is, however, by no means clear that Aquinas has in mind the distinction Cajetan is concerned to make.

42 Auctoritas… comparata, fols [A vi] v—[A vii] r.

43 Ibid., fol. B iii r.

44 Ibid., fol. B iiii r, where, however, the reference to ‘aristocracy’ may be a misprint: cf. Opuscula, 1582, vol. 1, p. 12, where the phrase reads ‘oportet secundum illos regimenecclesiae esse democraricum seu populare.’ This would accord better with the phrase referring to the location of authority in tota communitate.

45 Auctoritas… comparata, fol. B iii r: ‘licet uocabulo horrere videantur.’

46 Ibid. fol. E i r.

47 Ibid., fols C i v, C ii r.

48 Ibid., fol. C ii v.

49 Ibid., fol. [C viii] v: ‘… noua quedam imaginario Ioannis lerson in traccatu de potestate ecclesiastica & in traccatu de auferibilitate sponsi seu Pape.’

50 See La Brosse, Le Pape el le Concile, ch. 2; Imbart de la Tour, Origina de la Réforme, I.ii-iii; A. Renaudet, ed., Le Concile Gallican Je Pise-Milan: Documents Florentins (1510-1512) (Paris, 1922); Hefele/Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, VIII.1, pp. 239-620.

51 Both the council (on 22 January 1522) and Louis Xll (on 19 February) had pressed the University on the matter: cf. Renaudet, Concile Gallican, p. 591 n. 52. On Almain, see, in addition to La Brosse, Le Pape et le Concile; Farge, Biographical Register, pp. 15—18.

52 Libellas de Auctoritate Ecclesie … editus a magistro Iacobo Almain … contra Thomam de Vio … (Paris, 1512), fol. [E iv] r. This suggests that the tract was written in May 1512.

53 Almain’s Quesito in vesperiis habita …. virtually contemporary with the Libellas, and his Exposilio circa decisiones questionum M. Cuillermi Ockam, supra potestatem Summi Pontificis are both relevant.

54 Libellus, fol. A i r.

55 Cf.Burns, J. H., ‘ Jus gladii and jurisdictio: Jacques Almain and John Locke’, Hist J, 26 (1983), pp. 369–74, esp. 371–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Libellus, fol. A i v.

57 That theory perhaps still needs fuller analysis than it has yet received: in particular, Almain’s account of dominium in his commentary on part of book iv of Peter Lombard’s Sentences is crucial.

58 Libellus, fol. A iv.

59 In auanum Sententiarum, in Aurea … Iacobi Almain … opuscula … (Paris, 1518), fol. 29 v: ‘Nullus enim naturaliter nascicur rex.’

60 Libellus, fols A i v-A ii r.

61 Ibid., fol. A ii r.

62 Ibid., fol. A iii r.

63 Ibid., fols B i v-B ii r.

64 Ibid., fol. C u v.

65 Ibid., fol. C i v.

66 Cf. esp. Libellus, ch. VII, fols B iv r ff.

67 Ibid., fols A i v-A ii r.

68 Ibid., fol. C i v.

69 Ibid., fols C i v, [C iv] v.

70 Ibid., fol. E iii r.

71 Almain does ascribe to the Church as a whole what he calls the primaria potestas of appointing the pope and/or organizing papal elections, together with the power of removing an unsatisfactory pope from office (Libellus, fol. D ii r); but this falls short of the right of a ‘free community’ to choose a form of government for itself and to vary it.

72 Comparata authoritate Papae et Concila Apologia (Rome, 1512). I have been unable to see this edition. The text is included in the Pollet edition of 1936 (n. 39 above). I have used the reprint inCajetan’s Opuscula Omnia, 1 (Turin, 1582).

73 Apologia, in Opuscula, p. 45.

74 Ibid., p. 52 (ch. 3).

75 Ibid., p. 52 (ch. 4).

76 In the passage just cited Cajetan concludes explicitly that royal government is compatible with ‘popular’ supremacy: ‘… cum regimine medio regali stat supremum populare’.

77 Ibid., p. 54 (ch. 9).

78 Ibid., p. 64 (ch. 21).

79 For an attempt at a comprehensive analysis of Mair’s political thought see Burns, J. H., ‘ Politia regali; el optima: the political ideas of John Mair’, HPT, 2 (1983), pp. 3151Google Scholar. One point in that account, relevant here, calls for revision. I then suggested (p. 50, n. 90) that there was no obvious ‘precipitating cause’ for Mair’s having taken up in 1518 the conciliar issue he had set aside two years previously (ibid., n. 89). This however ignored the protracted controversy over the 1516 Concordat, which, in the University of Paris, reached its height in the spring of 1518 (cf. Knecht, R. J., ‘The Concordat of 1516: a reassessment’, UBHJ, 9 (1963), pp. 1632)Google Scholar. There is indeed no indication that Mair himself (who was soon to return to Scotland) took any direct part in the controversy; and in general the faculty of theology does not seem to have had an active role at that stage.

80 Johannis Maioris… in Mattheum ad literam expositio (Paris, 1518), fol. 71r-v.

81 Marci de Grandval… Codex Vesperiamm de optimapolilia tarn ecclesiastica quant ciuili (Paris, 1513). The book is somewhat rare, and I am indebted to the President and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, for access to the copy in their library, and to the College Librarian for his assistance. For Grandval (c. 1480—1520) see Farge, Biographical Register, pp. 206-7.

82 De optima politia, fol. [A vi] r.

83 lbid., fol. [A viii]r.

84 Ibid., fol. B iv.

85 Ibid., fol. B ii r.