Jump to content

Talk:Council of Florence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Council of Basel)

Older comments

[edit]

At Goths, what is the actuality behind this, if any?

"This claim of Gothic origins led to a clash with the Swedish delegation at the Council of Basel, 1434, during which the Swedish delegation argued with the Spanish about who among them were the true Goths. The Spaniards argued that it was better to be descended from the heroic Visigoths than from stay-at-homers."

Can anyone with a brief quote perhaps make good history out of this text at Goths? --00:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is listed as the council of Basel. It is far more commonly known as the Coucil of Florence. Also, the second half of the Council of Basel was in schism, excommunicated and elected an anti-pope. This is why Basel is not used, but rather, Florence. Also, all of the most important events of the council took place in Florence. --Vaquero100 15:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have two articles, one on the Council of Basel, including the schismatic stuff, and another on the Council of Florence. Basel is certainly how the thing is best known in history textbooks that I'm familiar with. john k 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be even stranger. --Wetman 08:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Council of Basel" is a famous thing, and we ought to have an article entitled that. If we don't have two articles, we ought to move this back to Council of Basel. john k 12:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But having two separate articles is what the Catholic encyclopedia did back in whenever it was written. It might make sense just to have separate articles for Council of Basel, Council of Ferrara, and Council of Florence. But, at any rate, it doesn't make sense to have a discussion of the schismatic part of the Council of Basel here at Council of Florence. john k 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not true that all of the most important events of the council took place in Florence. The discussions with the Hussites and the debates over the orthodoxy of St. Bridget's immensely influential visions took place at Basel. Oh yeah, and the pope was deposed. Ichnography (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Council of Basel is subsumed in this way with the Council of Florence, then its significance, which was actually unrelated to the Council of Florence, would be obscured. The Council of Basel was an example of Western Conciliarism, and as already pointed out, it even deposed a Pope, as well as subjecting Popes to Ecumenical Councils 09:10, 28 December 2020

No Talk on the Russian Orthodox Church

[edit]

On the council of Florence, it only discusses of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic and the hopes of reunification, from the schism, however it makes no mention of how the Russian Orthodox rejected the idea and thought it wan attempt to convert the eastern orthodox. This soon led to the Creation of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the source of the division of the Vativan and the Russian Orthodox Church. Mn04 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Style and POV of the article

[edit]

This article is written in an unencyclopedic manner (e.g. "From Italy, France and Germany the fathers came late to Basel") and shows clear bias throughout both in content (e.g. the council is continually described as "intransigent") and in language (e.g. unnamed (!) condottieri are said to have acted "shamelessly"). Badly in need of cleanup. Salim555 11:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have User:Vaquero100 to thank for this obscure POV title for the Council of Basel. Very tiresome attitudinizing. A glance at the titles in the bibliography will show the ordinary name for this council, as used by historians and the literate in general. We may note the little quotation marks at "Deposition of Eugene IV" because the RCs are told that a council couldn't "really" depose a pope. But that's applying later doctrine to the Council of Basel, isn't it. --Wetman 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should clearly be at Council of Basel. Nobody ever calls it the Council of Florence. john k 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can we do about the naming of this article, afgter all these months? --Wetman 09:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a requested move is the way to go. john k 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ - it's a minor council for those who don't deal regularly with matters to do with the Eastern Churches, but for those of us involved in scholarship to do with the Eastern Churches, this council is regularly referred to as the Council of Florence. That's hardly 'nobody'. InfernoXV 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I would rather submit that the stuff that happened at Basel, particularly after the papally-acceptable council was moved to Italy, is certainly never referred to as the "Council of Florence", and that it's entirely odd to refer to it as such. john k 21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's standard among historians to consider the Council of Basel and the Council of Florence to be distinct entities (obviously with a relationship between them). Couldn't this be resolved by having two different pages, with largely distinct content, in which reference is made to differences of opinion about whether Florence is a continuation of Basel? Ichnography (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Church itself considers there to have been a single council successively meeting at Basel, Ferrara, Florence & Rome. This can be verified from numerous reference books. To treat some other view as factual, if permitted at all under WP policy, would presumably require pretty strong proof of your statement. Peter jackson (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was off the cuff. More precise thought now. What we have here is a council in Basel that split up into 2 councils, each claiming to be the true continuation of the original. It wouldn't be in accordance with NPOV for WP to take sides by treating 1 or other view as correct. Thus it would violate NPOV to have an article on the Council of Basel covering both phases. NPOV requires
If the Council of Basel is subsumed in this way with the Council of Florence, then its significance, which was actually unrelated to the Council of Florence, would be obscured. The Council of Basel was an example of Western Conciliarism, and as already pointed out, it even deposed a Pope, as well as subjecting Popes to Ecumenical Councils 09:10, 28 December 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.131.3 (talk)
  1. either a single article on the nth ecumenical council (I forget what n is)
  2. or @ least 3 articles:
    1. original Basel
    2. continuation Basel
    3. Ferrara/Florence/Rome (or this could be 3 articles itself
Decision between these options would presumably be based on amounts of material. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why there can't just be two. It should be possible to keep NPOV in the treatment of Basel. (Esp since, as was mentioned above, the Catholic Encyclopedia itself had separate articles!) If there can be one article for "Palestine," can't there be one article for "Council of Basel"? Ichnography (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen months later, the tag is still there. How can we reach an agreement to remove it? I agree with two articles. José Luiz disc 11:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that only one article is needed. I am fairly well informed, but have only today discovered that there even was a Council of Florence (Basel, who cares?). It is no longer important (if it ever was ...). Sorry, that's definitely a POV comment! Seriously though, Constance was important (murder of Hus - now you know where I am coming from) and Trent was obviously important. Just put in a redirect to Florence from Basel.

What is important is what is said in the article. The attitude of the Orthodox is really important (I have just put a link to Florence from the article on Biblical Apocrypha) since it confirms the agreement of both Roman and Eastern churches on the canon (even though Florence does not mention "canonical" explicitly). Provided the article content is not POV I think the title is secondary. Provided all the appropriate redirects are in place.

C.jeynes (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I just point out that Peter Jackson (15:56, 6 June 2009) made a strong argument for one article which has not been refuted. C.jeynes (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agnus Dei by Jan Van Eyck

[edit]

Jan Van Eyck made his great work of art, the Agnus Dei in Ghent as a probation to recon ciliate by stating that every party has to recognise the same object of worship namely the Eucharistic of the Holy Lamb. He probably was a member of a delegation coming from Burgundy but did not have enough weight in the Council itself where he probably was not even allowed to speak. But his work of art is one of the greatest expressions of a reconciliating mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.0.8 (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The layout of the page is not printer friendly. The first page, aside from the article title, is blank, among other layout problems on the print preview no matter the size adjustment, e.g., 100% or 70%, etc.

Yo YoMenashe (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Tag - Purgatory

[edit]

I added a disputed and dubious tag until I get a chance to fix the statement on purgatory, and other errors. The false statement that caught my eye was: "...reaching agreements on such matters as papal primacy, the insertion of the phrase "Filioque" to the Creed and purgatory, a novelty only recently a part of the Latin-speaking theological lexicon...". I'm not sure if this term 'novelty' is referring to the filioque or to purgatory, but either way it's wrong. --ChristianHistory (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That (surely purgatory was meant) has gone so I've removed the tag. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00366073/
    Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 07:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basel outside the Holy Roman Empire?

[edit]

The initial location at Basel reflected the desire among parties seeking reform to meet outside the territories of the Papacy, the Holy Roman Empire, or the kings of Aragon and France

... but surely, Basel was a member state of the Empire until 1501? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince-Bishopric of Basel was presumably less dependent on Sigismund; perhaps the sentence can be reworded. Sparafucil (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough, already!

[edit]

For various reasons (this time it's Oswald von Wolkenstein; previously the Fourth Crusade, Hieronymus Landus and Gemistos Plethon), I keep coming back to this dismal, inaccurate, biased and virtually unreferenced article year after year. Although there is some useful stuff, the article is still exceptionally bad, not least because it conflates the two overlapping Councils of Basel and Florence. They were composed of different people, assembled in different places at different times, and discussed different matters. There can be almost no question whatsoever that this article should be split into two articles. However, there is an almost overwhelming amount of history to get to grips with before even beginning to think about either Council, much of which is ignored in the article as it stands.

Many writers discussing Basel do so from a particular viewpoint, often that of the Roman papacy or the Conciliar movement. The Basel council had some stated aims, a historical beginning, a 'controversial' middle, and a historical ending, and therefore should have its own self-contained article, which should not include the goings-on in Ferrara/Florence except as a {{main article}}. In furtherance of this, I tentatively append the following three sections[1] as a proposed starting point: I have a million other things to do, so please don't all rush at once to section E...

A. Historical background up to 1431

[edit]
The Great Schism (since 1053)

The Eastern (Orthodox) churches, led by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Kiev, had broken with Rome from 1053, in response to the Papacy's closure of Greek churches in southern Italy. Plus, there were a few underlying theological differences. The split has never been healed, and events like the Massacre of the Latins and the retaliatory Fourth Crusade and Sack of Constantinople in 1204 didn't help. Notwithstanding, the threat of Islam had been steadily growing, and the tottering Byzantine empire and CNople itself had been under a growing threat of invasion for xxx years. [Needs backup:] The need to create a unified Christian defence against the Ottoman Empire may well have been a reason to attempt to heal the rift with the Eastern churches. The reconciliation was proposed and the Orthodox patriarchs and bishops were invited to the Council of Basel, although the considerable distance and its unreachability by sea was a problem.

Constitution of the College of Cardinals

The College of Cardinals used to consist of around 16-20 men, all Italians (see Size of the College of Cardinals); the cardinals acted as Papal Legates to the non-Italian nations. The Spanish, French, Germans and English wanted permanent representation in Rome by cardinals from their own countries. Successive popes were often in conflict with their cardinals and/or the ecumenical councils, and tended to ignore any unpalatable demands. The cardinals likewise jealously guarded their privileged positions as electors of the Pope; they were all potentially in the running to be popes themselves, and were unwilling for more cardinals to be created.[2]

The Avignon papacy (1309-1377), followed by the Papal Schism (1378-1417)

Papal palace in Avignon

The return of the much-vilified Avignon papacy to Rome in 1377 under Pope Gregory XI was followed by his death, and the election of his controversial successor, Pope Urban VI. When the 20 or so cardinals realised they had made a mistake in electing Urban VI, they voted in their own Antipope Clement VII instead and reestablished the papal court in Avignon.

This resulted in the Great Western Schism, with popes in Rome and antipopes in Avignon, and also (after the Council of Pisa in 1409), in ?Pisa from 1409-1415.

Council of Constance (1414–1418)
'Imperia' (1993) in Konstanz

The Western papal schism was mostly ended at the Council of Constance, which was convened at the behest of Emperor Sigismund by the Antipope John XXIII, elected by the unrecognised (ie non-ecumenical) Council of Pisa (1409). John and his counterpart in Rome pope Gregory XII both resigned, and Pope Martin V was elected Pope. He excommunicated the Avignon antipope Benedict XIII (originally from the Kingdom of Aragon, ruled by King Alfonso V of Aragon) who retreated to a castle in Peñíscola (kingdom of Valencia).

Benedict's successors, both named antipope Benedict XIV, continued to claim their title, and the second of them, the "hidden pope" (1430-1437), was still in the background when the Council of Basel was convoked in 1431. Johann II of Nassau, Archbishop of Mainz, assisted John XXIII to escape from the Council of Constance in 1415.[3] One of Johann's successors, Conrad III of Dhaun, was a founder in 1424 of the League of Bingen which opposed Emperor Sigismund.

The Constance council was also much concerned with the reformation of the entire church, starting with the Pope and the Curia, (the chief aim of the Conciliar movement) and also to end the proto-Protestant Hussite demands for communion under both kinds.

Jan Hus, a Bohemian, had been preaching religious reform since c1402, based on the teaching of the Englishman John Wyclif. The Hussites had been agitating over the right of communicants to receive both bread and wine at Mass (religion). Hus was inveigled into going to Constance to make some sort of peace, and was burned at the stake instead at the instigation of Martin V (and Sigismund's possible connivance) in July 1415 during the Council of Constance (not far away from Basel). Anyone skilled in the art of riot prediction could have seen what was going to happen, and it did.

The Hussites' bone of contention.
The Hussite wars (1419-c1434)

Martin V and Sigismund then began a series of crusades against the Hussites, in each of which Sigismund was soundly thrashed. The Hussites split into two camps, the moderate Utraquists and the hard-line Taborites. These factions were backed up by various people... Sigismund HRE (and later Emperor Frederick III) were also involved in a separate struggle for the Holy Crown of Hungary, and various other people like George Podebrady, Jan Jiskra, John Hunyadi, Matthias Corvinus, etc. and—I think—the Poles were also dragged in, although they were also battling the Teutonic Knights. Coronation in Rome of Sigismund as Holy Roman Emperor on May 31, 1433 (previously King of the Romans).

Annates (German tax woes)

Many of the bishoprics within the Holy Roman Empire, composed of many small independent German Kingdoms, Princedoms, Duchies, Counties, etc., had begun complaining about annates (annual ecclesiastical taxes) paid to Rome. England and France likewise wished to pay less, but they were still fighting the Hundred Years' War.

Three of the seven Prince-electors of the Holy Roman Empire were the archbishops of Mainz, Trier and Cologne). Although they were appointed by the popes, they voted entirely independently of the papacy in the Emperor's election. The rules concerning the election of the Emperor had been promulgated in 1338, and fixed by the Imperial Diet with the Golden Bull of 1356. This had led to a relatively stable coalition of independent states under an elected king. Electors drafted a Wahlkapitulation, or electoral capitulation, which was presented to the king-elect. The capitulation may be described as a contract between the princes and the king, the latter conceding rights and powers to the electors and other princes. Once an individual swore to abide by the electoral capitulation, he assumed the office of King of the Romans.

At the Papal conclave, 1431 at the election of Eugene IV, the cardinals issued the second ever Conclave capitulation; this demanded that half of the papal revenue was to be shared with the College of Cardinals, and that no major issues were to be decided without the consent of the College. This attempted to undo the reforms of Pope Martin V, which had deprived the College of control of church revenues.[4] Eugene IV issued a bull to put the capitulation into effect, but later withdrew it; this became the pattern of future capitulations.

One of Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini's friends from the University of Padua in 1423 was Nicholas of Bernkastel-Kues, (latinized as "Cusa"). He arbitrated in the conflict with the Hussites, along with Hieronymus Landus. While present at the council as a conciliarist he wrote his first work, De concordantia catholica (The Catholic Concordance), a synthesis of ideas on church and empire balancing hierarchy with consent. This work remained useful to critics of the papacy long after Nicholas left Basel.[5]

Wars in Lombardy

Pope Eugene IV - lots here about the Basel Council BTW. The Papal States were invaded in 1433 by some Italians. Eugene IV was forced to flee from Rome down the Tiber in 1434 and went to Bologna in 1436.

B. Time-/Outline of the Council of Basel, 1431-1449

[edit]

Council of Basel, from 1431 to 1437

[edit]
Basel and the River Rhine

Martin V finally convoked the Council in early 1431 as part of his statutory duties (Frequens), agreed upon during the preceding Council of Constance, and then died almost immediately on 20 February 1431, succeeded by Pope Eugene IV.

  1. The Council debated the annates paid by German bishops: the issue apparently was resolved, but Basel's decision was reversed by Eugene IV in 1437. Not finally resolved until 1448.
  2. After the previous ecumenical council of Constance (1414-1418), The Hussite Wars/crusades/civil war had began in 1419 with crusades against the Hussites by Sigismund KotR backed by pope Martin V. The Hussite demands for for religious freedom and communion under both kinds were stated in the Compact of Prague, November 1433. The moderate Utraquist Hussites defeated the radical Taborites at the battle of Lipany in May 1434; the 'Four Articles' were debated at the council, signed and accepted in the Compacts of Basel (or Treaty or Compact of Iglau) (Jihlava) in July 1436, and ratified by the council at Basel on 15 January, 1437.
  3. The council increased the number of cardinals in the College of Cardinals from 20 to 24.[6]
  4. With Pope Eugene IV (exiled from Rome since 1434 and living in Bologna) under fire on all sides, the Conciliar movement gained the upper hand in Basel and sought to further restrict the authority of the papacy.
  5. Sigismund, (?"Hammer of the Hussites"?) who five times had led the armies of Martin V's crusades in Bohemia to five sound defeats, died in December 1437.
  6. Faced with a council in open opposition, and with the Great Schism on the agenda and the Eastern delegates ready to attend, Eugene IV reconvened a/the council (with some of the Basel delegates) in Ferrara, and banned & excommunicated the council members who remained in Basel.

C. Two Councils, 1438-1445

[edit]

Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438-1445

[edit]
  1. The bishops and delegates of the Orthodox churches arrived in ?Ferrara in 1438 to debate the theological issues surrounding a 'rapprochement', including the role of Jesus as understood by the phrase "Filioque". These were agreed upon in Florence with 'Latentur Coeli' in 1439, but the death of Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople a few days later and the lack of underlying consent by the laity meant that the agreement was invalid according to Eastern rules: the schism remained unhealed, a state which still obtains in the 21st century.
  2. Eugene IV declared the united Christian Crusade of Varna (1443-1444) against the Ottomans, which ended in a terrible defeat for the Western forces at the battle of Varna in November 1444, not helped by the Ottoman victory in the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448; Constantinople fell in 1453.
  3. The 'minor' Eastern churches were reconciled with Rome (where the last sessions actually took place), and the Council of Ferrara-Florence-Rome ended in 1445. The End. Not.

Council of Basel, 1438-1445

[edit]
  1. In Ferrara in 1438, Eugene IV declared most/all of Basel's previous decisions null and void, and excommunicated the remaining council members in Basel. In retaliation they elected the very last antipope, their own antipope Felix V, who enjoyed the support of the countries which had backed the Avignon popes during the papal schism, and also the German princes within the HRE which was backed by the papacy in Rome.
  2. France adopted most of the Basel council's resolutions at the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges in July 1438. The Lateran Council V declared it null and void in 1512, and in 1516, accepted Leo X's bull, Pastor aeternus, which definitively abrogated the Pragmatic Sanction. The Concordat of 1516 between France and the Holy See, which abrogated the Pragmatic Sanction, regulated Church-State relations thereafter.[7]

D. Council of Basel, from 1445-1449

[edit]
  1. The Basel council continued to sit while the German bishops etc. under pressure from their princely rulers convened various Diets in Germany. These matters were ultimately resolved at the Diet of Frankfurt (1446); and the Concordat of the Princes in 1447 and the Concordat of Vienna[8] in 1448 defined the relationship between the papacy and the Hapsburg Empire for 350 years until the latter's collapse in 1805.
  2. Enea Silvio Piccolomini (later pope Pius II), originally a leading light in the pro-conciliar movement at Basel and then the private secretary of emperor Frederick III, helped to reconcile the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire.
  3. Eugene IV died in February 1447, succeeded by pope Nicholas V.
  4. Attendance at the Basel council was banned by most countries, which moved to Lausanne. Antipope Felix V resigned in favour of Nicholas V and, having successfully seen at least one of its original aims to its conclusion, the council dissolved itself on 25 April 1449.

E. Proposed summary of sections

[edit]

The Council of Basel (1431-1449) was an ecumenical council which sat in Basel (with varying levels of papal approval) from 1431 until its own dissolution in Lausanne 1449. The council of Basel attempted to continue the work of the previous Council of Constance (1414-1418) which had ended the Papal Schism, and had limited the power of the elected pope (Martin V) by making him and the curia subject to a general council.

Whereas the Council of Constance was organised by nations, each dominated by the high clergy of that country who were mostly opposed to reform, Basel was split up into deputations each dealing with a particular issue; the university-educated lesser clergy had more say in the deliberations. The Vth session of Constance (in "Haec Sancta") had defined the power of a general council over all Christians, including the pope, and exercised that power in forcing the resignation of three rival popes and the subsequent election of Martin V. The Constance council also decreed the frequency of subsequent councils; although he dissolved Pavia-Siena (1423-1424) because of poor attendance, Martin V - under the conditions (Frequens) of his election at Constance - was compelled to set the place and date of the next council, which was Basel in 1431.[9] Basel can thus be seen as a test of the Constance council's attempt to transform the papacy into a constitutional monarchy (in 15th century terms) as opposed to the absolute rule of one man (pace Pope Joan).

The Council of Basel was convoked by Pope Martin V a few months before his death in February 1431, at a time of major political and religious upheaval both throughout Europe and within the Christian churches. Martin had appointed Giuliano Cesarini to act as his legate, and published the aims of the council in a bull:[10]

  • Reform of the clergy and of the entire ecclesiastical estate
  • The reductionem or leading back of the eastern churches under the umbrella of Rome
  • To preserve religious freedom
  • The preservation of the general peace and quiet of the Latin churches
  • To take measures concerning the 'heresies' and other errors in Bohemia and elsewhere.

From the start, the Council of Basel was in conflict with the papacy in the shape of Martin V's successor, Pope Eugene IV. He first banned the council in December 1431. Nevertheless, the Council continued to sit, and during the early part of its course debated and resolved two main issues: the annates (or ecclesiastical taxes) paid to Rome by the German bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire; and the settling of the Hussite wars (1419-c1434) which had broken out between the Holy Roman Empire and the Bohemian Hussites, after the death by burning at the stake of their leader Jan Hus in July 1415 during the previous Council of Constance. The Hussites desired general religious reform, and particularly to partake of both bread and wine at communion, as stated in the 'Four Articles of Prague'; but the two Hussite factions had fallen into civil war. After the victory of the moderate Utraquists over the hard-boiled Taborites at the Battle of Lipany, both of these issues had been resolved and agreed upon by all parties by 1433? and Sigismund was crowned Emperor in 1433. Eugene unbanned the Council by December 1433 and approved most of its actions as ecumenical, but probably not the bits about the German tax problems.

Although Basel's efforts to bring an end to the Hussite Wars resulted with the Compact of Prague and the coronation of Sigismund HRE in 1433, the Conciliar movement gained ground within the council, including Cardinals Louis Aleman and Julian Cesarini, and Enea Silvio Piccolomini (later Pius II). These and others were influential at the Basel council in opposition to Pope Eugene IV who had his own problems as well.

Although the separate deputation from Basel to the Hussites had considerable success, the charged conciliar atmosphere in Basel was not conducive to Rome's concluding a important treaty with the Orthodox churches.

Eugene resurgens, now supported by Cesarini, therefore convoked the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445) to attempt to resolve the Great Schism. Eugene banned/excommunicated? the Basel council again in September 1437, declared most of its findings null and void, and reconvened another council in Ferrara. Sigismund HRE died in December 1437. The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445) opened in January 1438. This pro-papal gathering in Ferrara and Florence was regarded by the Roman Curia as a counter-council, where the doctrine of the supreme authority of the general councils - as practiced in Constance and Basel - could be overturned.[11] One small by-product of the Florence council was the exposition by the Greek polytheist Plethon of his teachings about Plato and Aristotle at the Academy of Florence of Lorenzo de Medici and Pico della Mirandola.

France adopted most of the Basel council's resolutions at the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges in July 1438. The Council in Basel continued to sit, and elected the very last antipope, Felix V, while the council in Ferrara/Florence attempted to resolve its only subject of debate, the East-West Schism. Despite a surface agreement in Florence (Latentur Coeli, July 1439) the reconciliation on paper failed on the ground, with only the lesser churches gaining ecumenical union [and for how long???] by 1445, when the Council of Florence ended.

The Basel council continued to receive the tacit support of Emperor Frederick III and other European powers, while the German issues were debated at various Diets. Enea Silvio Piccolomini, a libertine poet and a leader of the Conciliar faction at Basel, became Frederick III's personal secretary. He took holy orders, went to Rome, effected a compromise and was later elected pope Pius II in 1458. King Alfonso V of Aragon had a claim to Naples, which Eugene recognised in 1442 (Treaty of Terracina.) The growing power of the German states allowed them to force Frederick's hand; the Diet of Frankfurt (1446), the Concordat of the Princes in 1447 and the Concordat of Vienna in 1448 put an end to the rumblings of the Holy Roman Empire, which continued as an ally of Rome until 1805. Bans on attending the Basel council were effected in France and England?. Frederick banned the council from HRE territory, and it transferred to Lausanne in June 1448. Lausanne had been ruled since the end of the Roman Empire by the Dukes of Savoy: Duke Amadeus VIII was also antipope Felix V. After acknowledging Pope Nicholas V (also the name of an antipope in 1328), the Council of Basel dissolved itself on 25 April 1449. The End. Not. But that's another {{see also}}.

The outcome of the Basel conciliar attempt to reform the papacy left the German clergy particularly dissatisfied. This has been linked to the future success of the Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther in the Empire in the sixteenth century.[12]

References

References

  1. ^ [EDIT: even the simplest mathematical propositions are usually beyond me, as in: count to five]
  2. ^ Broderick (1987), pp. 38-39
  3. ^ Johann II. von Nassau. Deutsche Biographie (in German). Retrieved 19 November 2015
  4. ^ Walsh, Michael. 2003. The Conclave: A Sometimes Secret and Occasionally Bloody History of Papal Elections. Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 1-58051-135-X, p. 107.
  5. ^ Paul E. Sigmund, Nicholas of Cusa and Medieval Political Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.
  6. ^ John F. Broderick SJ (1987) The Sacred College of Cardinals: Size and Composition (1099-1986), pp. 40ff. Archivum Historiae Pontificae, vol. 25.
  7. ^ Broderick 1987 pp 42-43
  8. ^ Toews, J.B. (1965) Pope Eugenius IV and the Concordat of Vienna (1448) JSTOR.
  9. ^ Stieber 1978, pp. 7–8.
  10. ^ Stieber 1978, pp. 10–11.
  11. ^ Stieber 1978, p. 198.
  12. ^ Stieber 1978, p. 9.
Sources
  • Stieber, Joachim W. (1978). Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities in the Empire: The Conflict Over Supreme Authority and Power in the Church. Studies in the history of Christian thought, Volume 13. E. J. Brill. ISBN 9789004052406. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Outdent, although there are no indents... :>MinorProphet (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

F. Comments on sections A-E

[edit]

I forgot about St Bridget of Sweden, who was canonized in 1391 by Pope Boniface IX and this was confirmed by the Council of Constance in 1415. Because of new discussions about her works, the Council of Basel confirmed the orthodoxy of the revelations in 1436. >MinorProphet (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Council of Florence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move Request

[edit]

requested move Council of Florence → Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence – The existing title does not appear to meet the criteria for Precision (Deciding on an article title). There is much discussion of this issue here. I agree with those who note that historians almost always refer to BASEL and there exists much great scholarly work under that heading, including 8 volumes in German. By hyphenating the 3 places together, I hope we may reach a compromise on this issue. I am submitting this as a move request.Lewismr (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much discussion where exactlly (I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Current_discussions)? Do any reliable sources use the triple-hyphenated name (which in any case is not a single Council)? Sparafucil (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They were, officially, a single council; Eugenius translated the Council of Basel to Ferrara rather than summoning a council de novo. The difficulty is that not all of the fathers of Basel accepted this move, a rump council continued to exist for a time at Basel, and the translated council had a significantly different character. Historiographically it also makes sense to treat Florence and Basel separately. Francis Oakley, The Conciliarist Tradition (2003) uses "Basel–Ferrara–Florence" (e.g. page 23, section header on page 32), but usually discusses them separately as a point of historiography. This distinction is elided in the current article, which currently just says the pope convened a new council at Ferrara. Al-Muqanna (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also have WP:Common concerns. How many people are likely to enter Basel-Ferrara-Florence into a search engine? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree. Has anyone read my above summary, and if so, what do they think? Were there two councils? Yes. One (Basel) was pro-conciliar and sought to limit the power of the papcy and curia: the other (Florence) sought to extend the Roman papacy's power and ignored the German and and the Hussite questions which Basel had successfully resolved. Thus there should be two entirely separate articles. The entire subject is riven with contradiction and strife. The Council of Pisa favoured neither the Avignon nor the Roman faction, and elected two Pisan antipopes, Alexander V (1409–1410), and John XXIII (1410–1415). According to the article, "In fact the Pisan pope was acknowledged by the majority of the Church, i.e. by France, England, Portugal, Bohemia, Prussia, a few parts of Germany, Italy, and the County of Venaissin, while Naples, Poland, Bavaria, and part of Germany continued to obey Gregory, and Spain and Scotland remained subject to Benedict." (Unreffed). John called the Council of Constance, at which he, and Gregory XII at Rome, and Benedict XIII at Avignon all resigned in order to heal the papal schism. Martin V was later elected and NB Later edit to make sense of what I wrote earlier in a hurry [ (eventually, reluctantly, after the failure of the Council of Siena) called the Council of Basel in accordance with the conciliar request at Constance (i.e. Frequens) ] MinorProphet (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC) He died not long after, and his successor Pope Eugene IV was not in favour of Basel, or its aims at all. Council of Constance#Decrees and doctrinal status discusses whether it was even canonical: if not, Basel probably wouldn't have been seen as legitimate either. The article's current title (Council of Florence) and content shows this pro-papal bias very clearly. I have no axe to grind, I'm an Olympian. As I wrote above, "Basel can thus be seen as a test of the Constance council's attempt to transform the papacy into a constitutional monarchy (in 15th century terms) as opposed to the absolute rule of one man." (hmm, unreffed, but I didn't invent it myself.) So Basel was banned and its members excommunicated, and a new council at Florence-Ferrara was convened, mostly to attempt to heal the Great Schism. Which didn't work either, and its only 'success' was to bring back the lesser eastern churches back into the Roman fold: and of course, the re-introduction of Plato's work by Plethon. As I suggested many moons ago, there should be definitely two separate articles: my outline above was not meant to suggest a triple-named article, just a timeline which the two separate articles could perhaps be based on. Sadly, unless anyone else is hugely interested and dedicated enough in helping me splitting the two, I'm probably not going to be able to help. MinorProphet (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigismund and Laetentur Caeli

[edit]

The article states: "The union was proclaimed in the document Laetentur Caeli ("Let the Heavens Rejoice") on 6 July 1439, composed by Pope Eugene and signed by Emperor Sigismund". Now, our article Bull of Union with the Greeks doesn't mention Emperor Sigismund anywhere which is not too surprising as he had died in December 1437. Maybe there was some early draft that he may have approved? Or are we talking about Albert II? Something doesn't add up here. Proofreader (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or was it John VIII Palaiologos who was attending the Council and who was in favour of the Union and who was an actual Emperor in contrast to Albert who was only Roman King?
Hi, Proofreader: Yes, the pic of the document in the Bull of Union article shows the bi-lingual text: Eugene's name appears in the lower left quarter in the circular device on the left, and 'Palaiologos' (Παλαιολόγος) appears in the signature under the right hand text, with the leaden papal and golden imperial bulls attached. Someone may have mis-read either the German or Italian descriptions and fancifully inserted Sigismund's name without checking. Fixed, well spotted: thanks for your query, sorry for the slow response. The section of this current article is still almost deliberately misleading: quite frankly the whole article is a genuine disgrace and really needs blowing up and starting over. MinorProphet (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now it makes sense. By the way, splitting the whole thing into an article on the Basel council and one on the Ferrara/Florence council seems fine for me and would have my approval - de WP also has separate articles on the two (other Wikipedias follow this concept here, though, calling their articles the Council of Florence yet include Basel, so one would also have to sort out how to handle the interwiki links). --Proofreader (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Proofreader: I only just realised a few hours ago that conciliarism is actually viewed as a heresy by the Roman Catholic church. A concerted pro-papal Ultramontane effort (as opposed to Gallicanism) would thus tend to explain the heavily biased focus on Florence as the more important council, and the corresponding mealy-mouthed dissing of Basel. This article suffers IMO from the sort of abysmal interference that articles about Palestine and Serbia receive. I just hadn't understood it properly until now. MinorProphet (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great piece of detective work. Thanks to all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This - and the above query - was all occasioned by a query on the Humanities Ref Desk about Martin V here, where I discovered some more stuff. MinorProphet (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, Laurel Lodged, you now are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, along with BrownHairedGirl over the same matter, already known for certain intemperate remarks. That takes some doing, you must have both really screwed up. Thanks for the above encouragement, anyway. MinorProphet (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are books by professional historians, some of them Roman Catholics, about the Council of Basel, meaning the council that was convoked in 1431 and completely dissolved in 1449. If there is a God, and if that God supports the line of the Roman Catholic Church in 2023, then there is a theological justification for excluding a separate entry on the Council of Basel. Since, however, professional historians should not appeal to theological justifications, and since there was a "Council of Basel" until 1449, there is no excuse for blocking a Wikipedia entry on the Council of Basel. If there is an entry about "Pope Joan," how can there not be an article about the "Council of Basel"? 77.132.165.55 (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would need a load of reliable sources and some considerable time and trouble of probably one person to make a decent, worthwhile article. There is certainly no 'block' on creating a 'Council of Basel' article, (see my suggested outline above, feel free to adapt it). But you will be up against Ultramontane forces who will seek to disparage it at every opportunity because conciliarism is forbidden by Papal decree (ie heretical) and doesn't fit in with their beliefs. MinorProphet (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Council_of_Florence&oldid=1222336657"