Gli hussiti come (mancata) minoranza conciliare al Concilio di Basilea (1431–1433)
In: Annuarium Historiae ConciliorumAbstract
In 1433 the hussite delegation in Basle wanted to discuss the Four Articles according to the pacts of Eger (the “judge of Eger”), i.e. primarily according to the Bible. The delegates insisted on persuading the other party or on being persuaded by it; they weren’t willing to become a conciliar minority because the decision-making processes were based on the majority-principle. Furthermore, the Council offered a different “judge”: It was the Council itself, because the infallible Church beheld the “monopoly” of the Bible exegesis and transmitted this monopoly to the Synod. In this way it became less relevant to discuss the specific topics of the Four Articles. The Hussites, however, remained outside this doctrine, which was fundamental for the legitimacy of the conciliar decision-making process: they didn’t recognize this new judge and didn’t subdue to him.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 291 | 46 | 6 |
| Full Text Views | 16 | 0 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 21 | 4 | 1 |
Gli hussiti come (mancata) minoranza conciliare al Concilio di Basilea (1431–1433)
In: Annuarium Historiae ConciliorumAbstract
In 1433 the hussite delegation in Basle wanted to discuss the Four Articles according to the pacts of Eger (the “judge of Eger”), i.e. primarily according to the Bible. The delegates insisted on persuading the other party or on being persuaded by it; they weren’t willing to become a conciliar minority because the decision-making processes were based on the majority-principle. Furthermore, the Council offered a different “judge”: It was the Council itself, because the infallible Church beheld the “monopoly” of the Bible exegesis and transmitted this monopoly to the Synod. In this way it became less relevant to discuss the specific topics of the Four Articles. The Hussites, however, remained outside this doctrine, which was fundamental for the legitimacy of the conciliar decision-making process: they didn’t recognize this new judge and didn’t subdue to him.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 291 | 46 | 6 |
| Full Text Views | 16 | 0 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 21 | 4 | 1 |