WH2 Pre-Reformation 2: Multiple Popes, The Babylonian
Captivity of the Papacy, The Great Schism, Hus and the
Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil
Part 1: Essential Questions
1. How did the Church Crises of the 14th and 15th centuries
further establish the foundation for the Reformation?
2. How did the church attempt to resolve these crises? Were
these resolutions successful?
3. What happened to the power of the Pope during these
crises? How was the power of the papacy relative to the
church councils ultimately resolved?
Part II: Primary Source Material and Class Notes
Persecution of John Huss from Fox’s Book of Martyrs
John Huss was born at Hussenitz, a village in Bohemia, about the year 1380. His
parents gave him the best education their circumstances would admit, and having
acquired a tolerable knowledge of the classics at a private school, he was removed to
the university of Prague, where he soon gave strong proofs of his mental powers, and
was remarkable for his diligence and application to study. In 1398, Huss commenced
Bachelor of Divinity, and was after successively chosen pastor of the Church of
Bethlehem, in Prague, and Dean and Rector of the University. In these stations he
discharged his duty with great fidelity, and became, at length, so conspicuous for his
preaching, which was in conformity with the doctrines of Wyclif, that it was not likely
he could long escape notice of the pope and his adherents, against whom he inveighed
with no small degree of asperity. The English reformist, Wyclif, had so kindled the
light of reformation that it began to illuminate the darkest corners of popery and
ignorance. His doctrines spread to Bohemia, and were well-received by great numbers
of the people, but by none so particularly as John Huss, and his zealous friend and
fellow martyr, Jerome of Prague. The archbishop of Prague, finding the reformists
daily increasing, issued a decree to suppress the further spreading of Wyclif’s writings,
but this had an effect quite different to what he expected, for it stimulated the friends of
those doctrines to greater zeal, and almost the whole university united to propagate
them. Being strongly attached to the doctrines of Wyclif, Huss opposed the decree of
the archbishop who, however, at length obtained a bull from the pope, giving him
commission to prevent the publishing of Wyclif’s doctrines in his province. By virtue of
this bull, the archbishop condemned the writings of Wyclif; he also proceeded against
four doctors who had not given up copies of that divine, and prohibited them,
notwithstanding their privileges, to speak to any congregation. Dr. Huss, with some
other members of the congregation, protested against these proceedings, and entered
an appeal from the sentence of the archbishop. The affair being made known to the
pope, he granted a commission to Cardinal Colonna, to cite John Huss to appear
personally at the court of Rome, to answer the accusations laid against him, of
preaching both errors and heresies. Dr. Huss desired to be excused from a personal
appearance, and was so greatly favored in Bohemia, that King Wenceslaus, the queen,
the nobility, and the university desired the pope to dispense with such an appearance;
as also that he would not suffer the Kingdom of Bohemia to lie under the accusation of
heresy, but permit them to preach the Gospel with freedom in their places of worship.
Three proctors appeared for Dr. Huss before Cardinal Colonna. The endeavored to
excuse his absence, and said they were ready to answer in his behalf. But the cardinal
declared Huss contumacious, and excommunicated him accordingly. The proctors
appealed to the pope, who appointed four cardinals to examine the process; these
commissioners confirmed the former sentence, and extended the excommunication not
only to Huss but to all his friends and followers. From this unjust sentence Huss
appealed to a future council, but without success; and, notwithstanding sp severe a
decree, and an expulsion in consequence from his church in Prague, he retired to
Hussenitz, his native place, where he continued to promulgate his new doctrine, both
from the pulpit and with the pen. The letters which he wrote at this time were very
numerous; and he compiled a treatise in which he maintained that reading the books
of Protestants could not be absolutely forbidden. He wrote in defense of Wyclif’s boo
on the Trinity, and boldly declared against the vices of the pope, the cardinals and
clergy, of those corrupt times. He wrote also many other books, all of which were
penned with a strength of argument that greatly facilitated the spreading of his
doctrines. In the month of November, 1414, a general Council was assembled at
Constance, in Germany, in order, as was pretended, for the purpose of determining a
dispute then pending between three persons who contended for the papacy, but the real
motive was to crush the progress of the Reformation. John Huss was summoned to
appear at this Council; and, to encourage him, the emperor sent him a safe-conduct
pass; the civilities, and even reverence, which Huss met with on his journey were
beyond imagination. The streets, and sometimes the very roads, were lined with people,
whom respect, rather than curiosity, had brought together. He was ushered into the
town with great acclamations, and is may be said that he passed through Germany in a
kind of triumph. He could not help expressing his surprise at the treatment he
received: “I thought (said he) I had been an outcast. I now see my worst friends are in
Bohemia.” As soon as Huss arrived at Constance, he immediately took lodging at a
remote part of the city. A short time after his arrival came one Stephen Paletz, who was
employed by the clergy at Prague to manage the intended prosecution against him.
Paletz was afterwards joined by Michael de Cassis, on the part of the court of Rome.
These two declared themselves his accusers, and drew up a set of articles against him,
which they presented to the popes and the prelates of the council. When it was known
that he was in the city he was immediately arrested, and committed prisoner to a
chamber in the palace. This violation of common law and justice was particularly
noticed by one of Huss’s friends who had urged the imperial safe conduct, but the pope
replied that he had never granted any safe conduct, nor was he bound by that of the
emperor. While Huss was in confinement, the Council acted the part of inquisitors.
They condemned the doctrines of Wyclif, and even ordered his remains to be dug up
and burned to ashes; which orders were strictly complied with. In the meantime, the
nobility of Bohemia and Poland strongly interceded for Huss, and so far prevailed as to
his being condemned unheard, which had been resolved on by the commissioners
appointed to try him. When he was brought before the Council, the articles exhibited
against him were read: they were upwards of forty in number, and chiefly extracted
from his writings. John Huss’s answer was this: “I did appeal unto the pope, who,
being dead, and the cause of my matter remaining undetermined, I appealed likewise to
his successor, John XXIII, before whom when, by the space of two years, I could not
be admitted by my advocates to defend my cause, I appealed then unto the high judge
Christ.” When John Huss had spoken these words, it was demanded of him whether he
had received the absolution of the pope or no? He answered “no.” Then again,
whether it was lawful for him to appeal to Christ of no? Whereupon John Huss
answered “Verily I do affirm before you all, that there is no more just or eternal
appeal, than that appeal which is made unto Christ, forasmuch as the law does
determine, that to appeal is no other thing than in a cause of grief or wrong done by an
inferior judge, to implore and require aid at a higher judge’s hand. Who is then a
higher judge than Christ? Who, I say, can know or judge the matter more justly, or
with more equity? In him is found no deceit, neither can he be deceived; who is more
suited to help the miserable and the oppressed than he? While John Huss, with a
devout and sober countenance, was speaking and pronouncing these words, he was
derided and mocked by all the whole Council. These excellent sentences were esteemed
as so many expressions of treason, and tended to inflame his adversaries. Accordingly,
the bishops appointed by the council stripped him of his priestly garments, degraded
him, put a paper miter on his head, on which was painted devils, with this inscription:
“A Ringleader of Heretics.” Which when he saw, he said “My Lord Jesus Christ, for
my sake, did wear a crown a thorns; why should I not then, for his sake, wear this light
crown, be it ever so ignominious? Truly I will do it willingly.” When it was set upon his
head, the bishop said “Now we commit thy soul to the Devil.” “But I,” said John Huss,
lifting his eyes up toward heaven, “do commend into thy hands, O Lord Jesus Christ,
my spirit which thou hast redeemed.” When the chains were put about him on the
stake, he said, with a smiling countenance, “My Lord Jesus Christ was bound with a
harder chain than this for my sake, and why then should I be ashamed of this rust
one?” hen the fagots were piled up to his very neck, the Duke of Bavaria was so
officious as to desire him to abjure. “No” said Huss, “I never preached any doctrine of
an evil tendency, and what I taught with my lips I now seal with my blood.” He then
said to the executioner “You are now about to burn a goose, but in a century you will
have a swan that you can neither roast nor boil.” If he were prophetic, he must have
meant Martin Luther, who shone about a hundred years later, and who had a swan for
his arms. The flames were now applied to the fagots, when our martyr sung a hymn
with so loud and cheerful a voice that he was heard through the cracklings of the
combustibles and the noise of the multitude. At length his voice was interrupted by the
severity of the flames, which soon closed his existence. Then, with great diligence
gathering the ashes together, they cast them into the river Rhine that the last remnant
of that man should not be left upon the earth, whose memory, notwithstanding, cannot
be abolished out of the minds of the godly, neither by fire, neither by water, neither by
any kind of torment.
1) Surprisingly (perhaps!) the execution of John Hus took
place at the height of the CONCILIAR movement; this
very important period was PRECIPITATED by a series
of extreme events in the Roman Catholic PAPACY. In
1378 because of competing ALIANCES within the College
of Cardinals, TWO popes were elected and thus served
simultaneously; by 1409 there were actually THREE
popes serving simultaneously. Each pope demanded that
he be recognized as the sole heir to the throne of SAINT
PETER, and so it soon became evident that the only way
that a resolution to this SCHISM could occur was by
convening a general CHURCH COUNCIL consisting of
bishops and other high-ranking church authorities.
IMPLICIT here was the mandate that the authority of
the council SUPPLANTED that of the pope—i.e., for the
Catholic Church, legal SUPERIORITY resides with the
council, not with the pope.
2) Thus arose in 1414 the COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE; its
basic proclamation was that its authority superseded that
of any of the rival popes. The Council deposed two of
these popes and persuaded the third (JOHN XXIII) to
abdicate. In the place of the three popes, the Council
elected a single pontiff (Martin V: 1368-1431).
3) The implications for the subsequent REFORMATION
under Luther were huge, as the question of who had
supremacy—the pope or the ecclesiastical councils—
would again assume central status for Catholicism. In a
broader sense, this argument presaged
ENLIGHTENMENT political theory and debate—i.e.,
was the church an ABSOLUTIST or a
CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy? ABSOLUTISM defines
a form of government in which there are no alternative
institutionalized mechanisms of power and control (e.g.,
an ecclesiastical council, congress, or some similar
representative body of the people) to counterbalance
monarchical power.
4) In a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY, a ruler’s power
EMERGES from the society which he/she rules;
sovereignty lies with the PEOPLE, the ruler who rules by
the CONSENT of the people cannot be greater in
authority than the people themselves. And so, in a
constitutional monarchy the people’s sovereignty isn’t
FORFEITED; the ruler rules very much in the
PRINCEPS style that we so closely associate with
AUGUSTUS.
5) How did the papacy get to this point? By the 11th century,
ROME was barely a shadow of what it had been during
the 1st three centuries CE—remember that during the
early 4th century CE CONSTANTINE moved the capital
of the empire to BYZANTIUM which he renamed to
CONSTANTINOPLE. As the classical world yielded to
the MIDDLE AGES, imperial rule of the Roman world
declined and Europe fragmented into multiple small
feudal states. Despite being the center of
CHRISTENDOM, Rome wasn’t economically strong
enough to remain unaffected. AQUEDUCTS fell into
disuse and so the city had little fresh water, and
MALARIA ran rampant, thus decreasing the city’s
population. The ancient ruins (BUILDINGS, STATUES,
ETC.) served as sources of STONES for new structures
and burned to make LIME for plaster and fertilizing
fields, roads were ABANDONED and, by some estimates,
80% of the city was no longer inhabited.
6) Rome’s greatest strength was the presence of the
PAPACY in the city in which perhaps the two greatest
apostles, PETER and PAUL, had been martyred;
thousands of pilgrims and their MONEY therefore
flocked to Rome. Remember that, according to the forged
DONATION OF CONSTANTINE, the pope was also
viewed as being the successor to IMPERIAL RULE (e.g.,
the pope wore red shoes just like the emperor lived in the
Lateran Palace, also presumably a gift from Constantine).
Rome’s economy therefore became based on providing
SERVICES to these pilgrims; the application of applying
classical models to contemporary times was still far in the
future (i.e., the RENAISSANCE). The Pope sought to
place and support secular rulers who were sympathetic to
the HOLY SEE; he himself TYPICALLY came from one
of the many powerful Roman families. Violent civil wars
were often fought within Rome between these families;
pilgrims were robbed, and nobles from rival families
caused uncontrollable discord throughout the city over
which the church could exert no control. While SACRED
Rome was ruled effectively by the church, SECULAR
Rome existed in a state of near ANARCHY.
7) The church could not remain permanently unaffected by
this dangerous, unstable and SUBVERSIVE culture, and
the consequences were enormous both for Rome and for
the future of the papacy. In 1305, in order to escape the
VIOLENCE and CONFUSION of the city of Rome (most
likely combined with pressure and incentives from the
French KING) the Pope, Clement V, who was FRENCH
by birth, left Rome along with his PAPAL COURT for
the French town of AVIGNON. Thus began the
BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY of the Papacy (1305-1377);
that is, the period of time during which the Papacy was
viewed as being held hostage to French influence and
French power because the rule of the church became
centered in Avignon; the single most critical source of
ECONOMIC power had also been removed from Rome.
8) However, this was a double-edged sword, because the
pope, as a result of moving the seat of the papacy, had lost
the tax revenue from the Italian PAPAL STATES. These
were the personally controlled territories of the pope
running from ROME in the South to RAVENNA in the
north; the TAXES and REVENUES from these
territories general money to finance church operations.
Immediately after the pope moved to Avignon, the Papal
States declared their INDEPENDENCE and stopped
sending their tax money and revenues to the church. As a
result, the pope was forced to find new sources of revenue
to keep the church operating; these came in the forms of
(a) charging money to appoint people to church offices
(also known as SIMONY); (b) increasing the issuance of
INDULGENCES whereby some were told that they could
guarantee their own SALVATION by giving a large
amount of money to the church; (c) charging money for
papal blessings, and (d) charging common everyday
churchgoers for services (e.g., baptisms, funerals, etc.) for
which there had NEVER previously been a fee. Since the
vast majority of these people were PEASANTS living in
virtual POVERTY, the church itself fell into extreme
DISREPUTE, resulting in a massive ANTICLERICAL
movement sweeping throughout Europe.
9) The decision to move the papacy back to Rome in order
to restore its (i.e., the church’s) CREDIBILITY was made
in 1378 by Pope GREGORY XI, who died just a month or
so following the completion of the move. And so, in Rome
a new pope was elected; URBAN XI, who was also a
REFORMIST, although this hadn’t been recognized by
the cardinals when they elected him. This sat especially
badly with the FRENCH cardinals because they had no
desire for reformation. And so, to maintain the STATUS
QUO, the French cardinals convened, declared Urban
VI’s election INVALID, elected a FRENCH pope, and
returned with him to Avignon. This period of time, from
1378 until 1415, is known as the GREAT SCHISM; an
Italian Pope with his cardinals in Rome and a French
Pope with his cardinals in Avignon. But the schism went
much deeper than this; these became two entirely
different CATHOLIC CHURCHES; each with their
followers—each pope EXCOMMUNICATED the other
AND all of his followers—including KINGS and
UNIVERSITIES, meaning that the entire population of
Europe may have been destined for HELL!
10)
Hence the CONCILIAR movement alluded to
earlier; a CHURCH COUNCIL would meet and
determine who is the TRUE pope, thus RECONCILING
the institution of the papacy to the CHURCH. There was
PRECEDENT for this: during the middle ages, the
question had been asked about what would happen if a
pope became insane or otherwise unable to rule; the
answer was that a CHURCH COUNCIL would meet to
resolve the crisis; others argued for the general
SUPREMACY of councils over the pope, although during
the medieval period the pope basically ruled the church
as an absolutist monarch. Now with the crisis in the
papacy, the question was whether POPES or COUNCILS
were the best rulers of the ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH, and in the late 14th and early 15th centuries
history was making a very compelling argument for
COUNCILS.
11)
The Conciliar movement’s first attempt to resolve
the schism occurred in 1409 with the COUNCIL OF PISA
in Italy. And yet, Pisa was clearly NOT centrally located
in Europe; the result was that a DISPROPORTIONATE
number of Italian cardinals attended. A new pope was
elected—the other TWO were DEPOSED. However, they
refused to ABDICATE, and so the result of the Council of
Pisa was to add a third pope into the mix—popes now
ruled from PISA, ROME, and AVIGNON!
12)
A second attempt at a resolution was the COUNCIL
OF CONSTANCE (1414-1418) convened by the HOLY
ROMAN EMPEROR Sigismund. Constance is much
more CENTRALLY LOCATED (near Zurich) than Pisa,
and so the representation of Cardinals much more
varied—not only Italians attended! Almost immediately,
the council DEPOSED all three popes; MARTIN V was
then elected as the one true pope. The three popes
ACQUIESCED to the decision of the council, and for the
first time since 1378, Christendom had a single
PONTIFF. It was also at Constance that JOHN HUS was
martyred.
13)
However, the price paid by Martin for his PAPACY
was severe; it essentially ELIMINATED the authority of
the medieval popes. Relative to the church councils, as a
condition of his ELECTION, he was forced to accept a
position of SUBSERVIENCE; i.e., henceforth popes must
subject themselves to the authority of the COUNCILS
(which themselves would meet every 3-4 years) and agree
to be the ADMINISTRATOR whose responsibility it was
to enact the council’s agenda. And so, the Pope was no
longer the head of the church; this distinction now
belonged to the CHURCH COUNCILS.
14)
As we progress towards LUTHER, we see that the
popes struggle to recover their power by allying
themselves with Europe’s kings in a very CREATIVE
way. They essentially offered the following
“arrangement”---Kings could control the church within
their kingdoms (e.g., appoint bishops and other prelates and
keep a very large portion of church taxes and revenues) in
return for supporting the authority of the pope over the
authority of the councils. Kings readily agreed to do this
because of the power it gave them over
ECCLESIATSICAL appointments and the amount of
revenue that they could now generate for themselves. This
conflict came to a head at the Council of Basil (14411449), at which both POPE and COUNCIL claimed to be
the sole leader of the Roman Catholic Church. The
IMPASSE was recognized, the council deposed the pope,
and elected a new pope, Felix V, who is also known as the
ANTIPOPE.
15)
The schism was thus created anew, which cast the
Council, NOT the Pope, into extreme disrepute, thus
leading to the pope ultimately regaining authority as is
evidenced by the nature of the Renaissance Papacy.
Indeed, the view that there must be better ways to solve
problems than this was one of the key influences that
PRECIPITATED the Renaissance, since, because the
contemporary models for dealing with such social crisis
were so inadequate, great thinkers turned back to the
wisdom of classical Greece and Rome to help construct a
better society.