A comprehensive introduction to conciliarism, decision-making and conflict-resolution in the history of the Christian church.

The general councils of the fifteenth century constituted a remarkable political experiment, which used collective decision-making to tackle important problems facing the church. Such problems had hitherto received rigid top-down management from Rome. However, at Constance and Basle, they were debated by delegates of different ranks from across Europe and resolved through majority voting. Fusing the history of political thought with the study of institutional practices, this innovative study relates the procedural innovations of the general councils and their anti-heretical activities to wider trends in corporate politics, intellectual culture and pastoral reform. Alexander Russell argues that the acceptance of collective decision-making at the councils was predicated upon the prevalence of group participation and deliberation in small-scale corporate culture. Conciliarism and Heresy in Fifteenth-Century England offers a fundamental reassessment of England's relationship with the general councils, revealing how political thought, heresy, and collective politics were connected.

In 1611 Edmond Richer, the syndic of the Faculty of Theology of Paris, published a short but incisive defence of the conciliarist doctrine under the title De ecclesiastica et politica potestate. He claimed that this doctrine had been almost uninterruptedly followed by the University of the Paris since the time of the Council of Constance in the early 15th century. Within two years, at least six Latin, French or bilingual editions of the treatise saw the light as well as an English and a Dutch translation. The book was condemned at a meeting of the French bishops in March 1612 and its author was dismissed from his position of syndic of the Faculty of Theology a few months later. He withdrew from public life but remained influential. He continued to write in defence of the conciliarist doctrine and the so-called liberties of the Gallican Church until his death in 1631. He vehemently opposed Cardinal Bellarmine's doctrine of the indirect power of popes in temporal matters but never subscribed to the doctrine of the divine power of kings. Most of his books were published posthumously. Philippe Denis retraces Edmond Richer's career and examines his ecclesiological and political thinking. Without taking all the syndic's opinions at face value, this volume commits itself to taking seriously Richer's declared intention, which was to vindicate the teaching of the School of Paris and that of Jean Gerson in particular. Philippe Denis places the heated, sometimes aggressive, debates between Richer and his adversaries in the context of a double progression: that of the doctrine of an absolute monarchy, a form of government which had been developing since the troubles of the League, and that of the Ultramontane ideas, often disputed but supported with growing vigour, in France and elsewhere, in the context of the reception of the Council of Trent. Philippe Denis presents the English translation of his book originally published in French (Editions du Cerf in Paris, 2014).

Almost on the eve of the sixteenth-century Reformation, the long-running debate over the respective authority of popes and councils in the Catholic Church was vigorously resumed. In this collection the editors bring together the first English translation of four major contributions to that debate. In these texts, complex arguments derived from Scripture, theology, and canon law are deployed. The issues that emerge, however, prove to have a broader significance. What is foreshadowed here is the confrontation between 'absolutism' and 'constitutionalism' which was to be a dominant theme in the politics of early-modern Europe and beyond. Even on the threshold of the twenty-first century the concerns that underlie and animate the scholastic disputations in these pages retain their force. This 1997 volume includes introductory material which elucidates the context of the debate, as well as a comprehensive bibliography.

In this volume, Francis Oakley provides an historical examination of the fundamental constitution of the Catholic Church.

Crises are never the best of times and the era of the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) easily qualifies as one of the worst of times. As a professor of canon law at the University of Padua and later cardinal, and as a major theorist in the conciliarist movement, Franciscus Zabarella (1360-1417) tried to do what a good legal mind does: find and explicate a viable and legal solution to the crises of his time, a solution that would stand up in his own era and for the generations that followed. In this volume Thomas Morrissey looks at what he said, wrote and did, and places him and his thought in the context of the late medieval and early modern era, how he reflected that world and how he influenced it. Particular studies elucidate what he wrote on the authority and on the duty of the people in power, what they could do and should do, as well as what they should not do. They also show how he explored the area of early constitution law and human rights in civil and religious society and that his work leads down the road to our modern constitutional democratic societies. The volume includes two previously unpublished studies, on the situation in Padua c. 1400 and on a sermon from 1407, together with an introduction contextualizing the articles.

How was power justified in late medieval Europe? What justifications did people find convincing, and why? Based around the two key intellectual movements of the fifteenth century, conciliarism in the church and humanism, this study explores the justifications for the distribution of power and authority in fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Europe. By examining the arguments that convinced people in this period, Joseph Canning demonstrates that it was almost universally assumed that power had to be justified but that there were fundamentally different kinds of justification employed. Against the background of juristic thought, Canning presents a new interpretative approach to the justifications of power through the lenses of conciliarism, humanism and law, throwing fresh light on our understanding of both conciliarists' ideas and the contribution of Italian Renaissance humanists.