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.
This paper analyzes canon 3 of the council of Pisa of 1135, with which the trade in persons is prohibited, pointing out that this prohibition must be considered valid also for the sale of inhabitants of Corsica, be they men or women. After having drawn up a general overview of the council, it will focus on the text of the third canon to understand the reasons that led the council fathers to deal with the subject of slavery, firmly defending the Corsican population, considered as a “minority” victim of a political and economic system. As we will try to show, the text of this canon is a unicum of its kind and is fully inserted within the panorama of the Church’s teaching on the subject of slavery, adding a new piece to the mosaic of what was already known about the work of the ecclesiastical institution on this subject.
The aim of this text is to analyze how the debates Jean Petit’s Justification about the Tyrannicide of Louis of Orléans gave rise to minority and majority positions at in Council of Constance (1414–1418) within the context of the French nation, the general congregations and the general sessions. In order to understand the consolidation of majorities and minorities on this matter it is essential to explain the role played by the emperor Sigismund and his political alliances at the Council. Finally, we explain how Jean Gerson who tried relentlessly to condemn Jean Petit´s thesis, rationalized his failure and justified the Council’s actions.
In order to approach the Origenist crises through the category of “minority”, some remarks are needed. It is necessary to avoid any anachronistic projection of modern understanding on the past. But, at the same time, the epistemological challenge could be useful to go beyond historicism in contemporary Dogmengeschichte. The condemnation of Origenism in the mark of the 2nd Council of Constantinople, in fact, presents a deep difference with respect to the Three Chapters issue. The main question at stake was not merely the Emperor’s ecclesiastical politics in view of the unity of the Empire and of the Church. Having recourse to Christian Gnilka’s categories, it can be shown that the 6th century condemnations were the krisis of a chrêsis, that is a judgement on the use of Origen in (Evagrian) monasticism of that time.
This article intends to prove that the first constitution of the IVth Lateran Council, Firmiter, is a direct source for Peire de Corbian’s Tesaur. This allows establishing a more sicure terminus post quem for this Provençal enyclopaedic poem (1215). The references in question affirm the trinitarian faith in One God, Creator ex nihilo of the material and the immaterial world and hence oppose contrary Cathar teachings. As is shown by the character of the manuscript tradition, this intentional antiheretic bias of the text was determining for the poem’s fortune. Still, the simultaneous presence of the idea of man as a remplacement for fallen angels demonstrates that Peire did not rely consistently on the Council’s promulgations: rejected opinions could persist in generally orthodox texts.