The original version of this paper was read at a joint session of the American Catholic Historical Association and of the American Historical Association in San Francisco on 28 December 1983. The research was funded by Saint Louis University and by the Newberry Library. Its conclusions were discussed with Charles Ermatinger, Saint Louis University, Alan Bernstein, University of Arizona, and Gerald Christianson, Lutheran Theological Seminary.

1. Vooght, Paul de, “Le Cardinal Cesarini et le Concile de Constance” in Das Konzil von Konstonz, ed. Granzen, August and Mtiller, Wolfgang (Freiburg, 1964), pp. 361–362Google Scholar.

2. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo et al. (Basel, 1962), pp. 431–432.Google Scholar

3. For example, Frank, Isnard, Der antikonziliarische Dominikaner Leonard Huntpichler (Vienna, 1976), pp. 319–324.Google ScholarFrequens was a source of scandal according to Cataldinus de Boncompagnis, Tractatus de translatione sacri concilii Basiliae, in Pereleda, Johannes Thomas de Rocaberti de, Bibliotheca Maxima Pontificia, 21 vols. (Rome, 1697–1699), 6:19.Google Scholar Although Eugenius IV could accept Frequens, it remained popular with critics of the Roman curia; see Congar, Yves, L'église de saint Augustin a l'époque moderne (Paris, 1970), p. 326;Google ScholarSchoeck, Richard J., “The Fifth Lateran Council: its Partial Successes and its Larger Failures” in Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church, ed. Lytle, Guy Fitch (Washington D.C., 1981), p. 101;Google ScholarJedin, Hubery, A History of the Council of Trent, trans. Graf, Ernest, 2 vols. (London, 1957), 1: 45, 51, 56–57, 59, 61, 67–68.Google Scholar

4. Christian, Gerald, Cesarini: the Conciliar Cardinal (Saint Ottilien, 1979), pp. 46, 59–60.Google Scholar Even in the later sessions at Constance, Haec Sancta rarely was mentioned; see Alberigo, Giuseppe, Chiesa conciliare (Bologna, 1981), pp. 187–205.Google Scholar

5. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, pp. 432–436, 453; Mansi, J. D., Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, 53 vols. (Paris, 1901–1927),Google Scholar vol. 29, col. 178–179 (hereafter cited as Mansi); Congar, , L'église, p. 327.Google Scholar According to Panormitanus, Haec Sancta settled all canonistic debates on conciliar and papal power; see Black, Antony, Council and Commune (London, 1979), p. 100.Google Scholar

6. Haller, Johannes, Piero da Monte (Rome, 1941), p. 258;Google ScholarThomson, John A. F., “Papalism and Conciliarism in Antonio Roselli's Monarchia,” Medieval studies 37 (1975): 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Some of these apologists argued that the pope could err only as a private person; see Mirus, Jeffry A., “On The Deposition of the Pope for Heresy,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 13 (1975): 231–248.Google Scholar

7. Both arguments appear in Gerardus de Chavareyo, Tractatus de unitate ecclesiae sub uno principatu unius summi hierarchae, Vat. lat. 4134 fol. 92^v. This passage was copied verbatim into Laurentius de Aretio, Liber de potestate ecclestastica, bk. 5, Vat. lat. 4114 at fol. 208^r-v. Miethke, Jurgen, “Eine Unbekannte Handschrift vom Petrus de Paludes Traktat De potestate papae aus dem Besitz Juan de Torquemadas in der Vatikanischen Bibliothek,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 59 (1979): 470;Google ScholarChroust, Anton Hermann and Corbett, James A., “The Fifteenth Century ‘Review of Politics’ of Laurentius of Arezzo,” Medieval Studies 11 (1949): 62–76;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMorrisey, Thomas E., “The Decree Haec Sancta and Cardinal Zabarella” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 10 (1978): 169.Google Scholar Ambrogio Traversari suggested revocation of the Constance decrees by a propapal council; see Stieber, Joachim, Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities in the Empire (Leiden, 1978), pp. 23–25.Google Scholar The relationship of this suggestion to later actions of the pope is discussed at ibid., pp. 43–44.

8. lzbicki, Thomas M., Protector of the Faith: Cardinal Johannes de Turrecremata and the Defense of the Institutional Church (Washington, D.C., 1981), pp. 1–30.Google Scholar

8. lzbicki, Thomas M., Protector of the Faith: Cardinal Johannes de Turrecremata and the Defense of the Institutional Church (Washington, D.C., 1981), pp. 1–30.Google Scholar

9. Turrecremata, Johannes de, Quaesiio de decrelo irritante, Mansi,Google Scholar vol. 30, col. 587; Votum contra advisamentum quod non liceat appeatlare a concilio ad papam, Mansi, vol. 30 col. 1976; and Votum super advisamento quod papa debeat jurare servare decreta conciliorum, Mansi, vol. 30, col. 604. Kaeppeli, T., Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, 3 vols. (Rome, 1980),Google Scholar vol. 3, p. 27, no. 2706, p. 29, no. 2710, pp. 28–29, no. 2709. This argument first appears in a work written at the time of the Council of Pavia-Siena, the Disputatio of Petrus Donatus, Vat. Ottob., lat. 641, fol. 157^r-v.

10. Gill, Joseph, The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 310–311.Google Scholar Both Constance and Florence are contrasted with Basel in Augustinus Patritius, Summarium Concilii Basiliensis, Mansi, vol. 31B, col. 1813–15, 1880–82.

11. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, pp. 505–510; Crowder, Christopher M. D., Unity, Heresy and Reform, 1378–1460 (New York, 1977), p. 174.Google Scholar Eugenius, like Torquemada, also charged the Council of Basel with ignoring the propapal decrees of Constance. For a later example of this argument, see Thoma, Johannes de Sancto, De auctoritate summi pontificis, ed. Matthieu, Armand and Gagné, Hervé (Quebec, 1947), pp. 219–220, 222.Google Scholar

12. Remigius Bäumer, “Die Stellungnahme Eugens IV zum Konstanzer Superioritätsdekret in der Bulle Etsi non dubitemus,” in Das Konzil von Konstanz, pp. 348, 352.

13. Turrecremata, Johannes de, Oratio Synodalis de Primatu, ed. Candal, Emmanuel (Rome, 1954), pp. 66–67,72;Google ScholarKaeppeli, , Scriptores, 3: 33–34,Google Scholar no. 2721; Gill, , Council of Florence, pp. 313–314.Google Scholar

14. Johannes de Turrecremata, Responsio in blasphemam et sacrilegam invectivam ad sanctissimum canonem iustissimae condemnationis damnalissmae congregationis Basiliensium, Mansi, vol. 31A, cols. 69–75; Kaeppeli, , Scriptores, 23:33,Google Scholar no. 2719.

15. Turrecremata, Johannes de, Responsio, p. 71.Google Scholar This argument is misstated in Izbicki, , Protector, p. 97.Google Scholar

16. Turrecremata, Johannes de, Summa de Ecciesia (Venice, 1561),Google Scholar fol. 235^v-240^r: bk. 2, chap. 99–100; Kaeppeli, , Scriptores, 3: 37,Google Scholar no. 2730. We can not pursue in this essay Torquemada's argument, later used by Bellarmine, that Haec Sancta was explainable as a product of uncertain times.

17. Smolinsky, Heribert, Domenico de' Domenichi und seine Schrift “De potestate papae et termino eius”(Münster, 1976), pp. 134–135, 390, 395.Google Scholar For Rodrigo Sánchez de Arévalo's use of this argument, see Bäumer, Remigius, Nachwirkungen des Konziliaren Gedankens in der Theologie und Kanonistik des frühen 16.Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1971), pp. 208–209.Google Scholar

18. Bernardus de Rosergio, Accesus veri luminis regis et regni Francorum contra tenorem Pragmaticae Sanctionis, Vat, lat. 3997, fol. 16^r-^v.

19. Bäumer, , “Die Stellungnahme Eugens IV,”p. 340.Google Scholar Cusanus also used the example of Constance against Basel in his dialog against the Amadeists; see Alberigo, Giuseppe, “II movimento conciliare (xiv-xv sec.) nella ricerca storica recente,” Studi medievali, ser. 3, vol. 19 (1978): 946.Google Scholar

20. Antonius de Cannario, Tractatus de potestate papae supra conciliurm, Vat, lat. 4186, fol. 344^ra-b A version of Torquemada's argument appears in ibid., fol 354^ra.

21. Vio, Thomas de (Caietanus), De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, ed. Pollet, Vincente Marie Jacques (Rome, 1938), pp. 3–4, 56, 186, 258–260.Google Scholar Similarly see Bäumer, Remigius, “Silvester Prierias und seine Ansichtenüber das ökumenische Konzil,” in Konzil und Papst: Festgabe für Hermann Tüchle, ed. Schwaiger, Georg (Munich, 1975), pp. 296–297.Google Scholar

22. Bäumer, , Nackwirungen, pp. 216–223,Google Scholar and “Die Konstanzer Dekrete Haec sancta und Frequens in Urtweil katholischer Kontroverstheologen des 16. Jahrunderts,” in Von Konstanz nach Trient: Festgabe für August Franzen, ed. Remigius Bäumer (Paderborn, 1972), pp. 547–574.Google ScholarHaec sancta was discussed briefly at Trent; see Jedin, , Trent, 1:23.Google Scholar

23. Bellarminus, Robertus, De controuersiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, 6 vols. (Prague, 1721)2: 7,61.Google Scholar See also Sylvius, Franciscus, Controversiae, in Opera Omnie, 6 vols. (Venice, 1726), 5:275, 280, 299–300.Google Scholar Neither entirely excluded Constance from the list of general councils; Fenton, Joseph C., “The Theology of the General Council,” in The General Council, ed. McDonald, William Joseph (Washington, D.C., 1962), pp. 175–176.Google ScholarBroderick, James, Robert Bellarmine, Saint and Scholar (Westminster, Md., 1961), pp. 41, 53–54, 87.Google Scholar

24. Cano, Melchior, De locis theologicis, in Opera, 3 vols. (Rome, 1890), 1:257, 265, 277, 297–299, 315–316.Google ScholarBroderick, , Bellarmine, pp. 66–90;Google ScholarBiciunas, Johannes Baptista, Doctrina ecclesiologica S. Roberti Bellarmini com illa joannis Card. de Turrecremata comparata (Rome, 1963).Google Scholar

25. Schelstrate, Emmanuel, Antiquitas illustrata circa concilia generalia et provincilia decreta et gesta pontificum et praecipua totius historiae ecclesiasticae capitula, in Rocaberti, Bibliotheca, 12: 102, 111–124, 143–144, 152–159, 163–168, 174–181;Google Scholar and La correspondence d'Emmanuel Schelstrate préfet de la Bibliotheque Vaticaine (1683–1692), ed. Lucien Ceyssens (Brussels, 1949), pp. 29, 51, 191–192, 276.Google Scholar We cannot explore in this essay Schelstrate's argument that Basel tampered with the text of the acts of Constance or with the rejoinders of Gallican scholars. See also Pereleda, Johannes Thomas de Rocaberti de, De Rornani pontificis in temporalibus auctoritate (Valencia, 1691), p. 194.Google Scholar

26. Duvalius, Andreas, Tractatus de suprema summi pontificis potestate, in Rocaberti, Bibliotheca, 3: 562–565;Google Scholar and De concilis eoramque cum pontifice comparatione, in ibid, 3: 562–565.

27. Raynaldus, Odericus, Annales ecclesiastici ab anno MCXCVIII ubi desinit Cardinalis Baronius, ed. Mansi, J. D., 15 vols. (Lucca, 1747–1756), 8: 389 and 389,Google Scholar n. 1; Natalis, Alexander, Historia ecclesiastica veteris novique testamenti ab urbe condito ad annum post Christum natum millesimum sexcentesimum, ed. Roncaglia, Constantinus, 18 vols. (Ferrara, 1762),9: 377–395.Google Scholar Natalis attacked both Bellarmine and Schelstrate; see ibid., 9: 320–360. Natalis, despite such critiques, had a strong influence in English Catholic circles, where his account of Constance caused John Lingard to reject papal infallibility; see Chinnici, Joseph P., The English Catholic Enlightenment (Shepherdstown, 1980), pp. 89–90.Google ScholarPullapilly, Cyriac, Caesar Baronius, Counter-Reformation Historian (Notre Dame, 1975), pp. 49–66, 144–177;Google ScholarPetrocchi, Massimo, “Profilo de Odorico Rinaldi,”in Problemi di storia della chiesa nei secoli XVII-XVIII (Naples, 1982), pp. 39–43.Google Scholar The Jansenists were ambivalent about conciliarism, eventually giving it up in fear that a council would uphold the bull Unigenitus; Hudson, David, “The Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques, Jansenism and Conciliarism,”The Catholic Historical Review 70 (1984): 389–406.Google Scholar

28. Müller, Heribert, “L'érudition gallicane et le concile de Bâle (Baluze, Mabillon, Daguesseau, Iselin, Bignon),“; Francia 9 (1981 ): 531–555;Google ScholarBäumer, Remigius, “Die Erforschung des Konstanzer Konzils,”in Das Konstanzer Konzil, ed. Bäumer, Remigius (Darmstadt, 1977), pp. 21–23.Google Scholar

29. Zaccaria, Franciscus Antonius, Breviculus modernarum controversiarum seu compendium Febronii abbreviati cum notis eodem authore (Trudonopoli, 1791), pp. 201–226;Google ScholarMamachius, Thomas, Epistolarum ad Iustinum Febronium … liber primus (Rome, 1776), pp. 359–360.Google Scholar See also Sharrock, David John, The Theological Defense of Papal Power by St. Alphonsus Liguori (Washington, D.C., 1961), p.87.Google ScholarPottmeyer, Hermann-Josef, Unfehlbarkeit und Souveranität (Mainz, 1975), p. 45;Google ScholarBäumer, , “Die Erforschung des Konstanzer Konzils,” pp. 21–23.Google Scholar

30. Ballerinus, Petrus, De potestate summorum pontificum et conciliorum generalium liber una cum vindiciis auctoritatis pontificiae contra Iustinum Febronium (Rome, 1810), pp. 110, 113.Google Scholar

31. Bouix, Dominique, Tractatus de papa, 3 vols. (Paris, 1869–1870), 1: 523.Google Scholar

32. Maistre, Joseph Marie de, The Pope Considered in His Relations with the Church, Temporal Sovereignties, Separated Churches and the Cause of Civilization, trans. Dawson, Aeneas McD. (London, 1810), pp. 63–66;Google ScholarPottmeyer, , Unfehlbarkeit, pp. 61–73;Google ScholarHolmes, J. Derek, Triumph of the Holy See (London, 1978), pp. 15–56, 62–98, 137–141.Google Scholar A very different approach to Constance was that of Guéranger, a former follower of Lamennais, who argued that the church was more free of lay control under papal monarchy than it would have been under the decrees of Constance; see Guéranger, Prosper, De la monarchie pontificale à propos du livre de Monsigneur L'éveque de Sura, 3d ed. (Paris, 1870), pp. 122–123;Google ScholarVidler, Alexander Roper, Prophecy and Papacy: A Study of Lamennais, the Church and the Revolution (New York, 1954), p. 69.Google Scholar

33. Pise, Charles Constantine, A History of the Church, 5 vols. (Baltimore, 1830), 5: 261,Google Scholar n. 2. For Spondanus's actual opinion, based on Torquemada's, see Spondanus, Henricus, Annalium eminentissimi cardinalis Caesaris Baronii continuatio ab anna MCXVII quo is desiit ad finem MDCXLVI, 2 vols. (Paris, 1641), 2: 205, 213–214, 239;Google ScholarBrownson, Henry Francis, ed., The Works of Orestes Brownson, 20 vols. (New York, 1966), 10: 501–507;Google Scholaribid. (New York, 1966), 13: 462, 473.

34. Schneider, HansDer Konziliarismus als Problem der neueren katholischen Theologie (Berlin, 1976), pp. 120–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Alberigo, , “II movimento coniliare,” pp. 914, 917;Google ScholarHolmes, , Triumph of the Holy See, p. 166.Google Scholar

36. Baronius, Caesar et al. , Annales ecclesiastici denuo excusi et ad nostra usque tempora perducti ab Augustino Theiner, 37 vols. (Bar-le-Duc, 1880), 27:374.Google Scholar Older arguments are cited at ibid., 27:374, 384. Hughes, Philip, A History of the Church, 3 vols. (New York, 1947), 3:289, 291.Google ScholarPastor, Ludwig, Geschichte der Päpste, 16 vols. (Freiburg, 1901), 1:199.Google Scholar Other citations could be multiplied; for example, Raab, Clement, The Twenty Ecumenical Councils of the Church (London, 1937), p. 127.Google ScholarFiggis, John Neville, Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius: 1414–1625 (New York, 1960), pp. 41, 46.Google Scholar

37. Salembier, Louis, Le Grand Schisme d'Occident (Paris, 1900), p. 317.Google Scholar Constance was valid but awaiting confirmation between Gregory XII's abdication and the election of Martin V, according to Cristiani, L., “Constance, Concile de,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, 7 vols. (Paris, 1949), 4:419;Google ScholarSchneider, , Der Konziliarismus, p. 222.Google Scholar Luigi Tosti could treat Gregory XII as an anti-pope and yet dismiss Haec sancta as not pertinent to faith; see Tosti, Luigi, Storia del Concilio de Costanza, 2 vols. (Naples, 1853), 1:261–263, 2:47–49.Google Scholar

38. Hefele, Karl Joseph von and Leclerq, Henri, Histoire de conciles, 8 vols. (Paris, 1916), 8:571;Google ScholarTierney, Brian, “Constance, Council of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York, 1967), 4:222:Google ScholarBäumer, , “Die Erforschung des Konstanzer Konzils,” pp. 30–32.Google Scholar This was also the opinion of Baudrillart; see Schneider, , Der Konziliarismus, p. 233.Google Scholar

39. Cicognani, Amietto, Canon Law, trans. O'Hara, Joseph M. and Brennan, Francis J., 2d ed. (Philadelphia, 1935), p. 168.Google Scholar

40. Philips, Georg, Compendium luris Canonici, ed. Vering, Friedrich Heinrich, 3d ed. (Ratisbon, 1875), pp. xv, 76–77;Google ScholarHergenrother, Joseph Adam, Anti-Janus, trans. Robertson, James Burton (Dublin, 1870), pp. 196–201.Google ScholarPottmeyer, , Unfehlbarkeit, pp. 152–172;Google ScholarSchneider, , Der Kooziliarismus, pp. 141–142, 173.Google Scholar

41. Döllinger, Johann Joseph Ignaz von, Der Papst und das Concil von Janus (Leipzig, 1869;Frankfurt, 1968), pp. 323, 325;Google Scholar Döllinger regarded Basel as a continuation of Constance; see Aldenhoven, Hervig, “Das Konzil von Basel in altkatholischer Sicht,” Theologische Zeitschrift 38 (1982): 274–308.Google Scholar

42. Hasler, August Bernard, How the Pope Became Infallible, trans. Heinegg, Peter (New York, 1981), pp. 157, 167;Google ScholarManning, Henry, The Vatican Council and its Definition (New York, 1869), pp. 62, 76–77, 81.Google Scholar This form of selective citation of general councils is criticized in Sheldon, Henry Clay, Sacerdotalism in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1909), pp. 114–115, 199.Google Scholar

43. Newman's silence has led to a recent suggestion that this convert from Anglicanism was unaware of the materials on which the argument about the value of Constance decrees was founded. It is more likely that Newman was being prudently silent, having himself—while still an Oxford don—attacked the Romanists for their selective use of historical evidence from the medieval councils. He had cited specifically Bellasmine's partial acceptance of Constance and Basel, together with that Jesuit theologian's doubts about the validity of the Council of Pisa. Newman, John Henry, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church Viewed Relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism, 2d ed. (London, 1838), p. 151.Google ScholarMisner, Paul, Papacy and Development, Newman and the Primacy of the Pope (Leiden, 1976), pp. 35, 174.Google Scholar Anglicans continued to attack Bellarmine on this point; see Stillingfleet, Edward, The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Truly Represented, ed. Cunningham, William (Edinburgh, 1845), pp. 201–203.Google Scholar For an argument that the Romans will use any weapon against the Council of Constance except an admission that it only was an assembly of the Western patriarchate, see Jervis, William Henley, The Gallican Church: A History of the Church of France, 2 vols. (London, 1872), 1:92.Google Scholar

44. Shahan, Thomas J., “Constance, Council of,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, 16 vols. (New York, 1908), 4:289;Google ScholarStickler, Alfons, Historia luris Canonici (Turin, 1950), 1:286.Google Scholar

45. Vooght, Paul de, Les pouvoirs du concile el l'autorité du pape (Paris, 1965), pp. 137–162;Google ScholarKüng, Hans, Structures of the Church, trans. Attanasio, Salvator (New York, 1964), pp. 303–307.Google ScholarOakley, Francis, Council Over Pope? (New York, 1969), pp. 105–111;Google ScholarSchneider, , Der Konziliarismus, p. 261.Google Scholar

46. Tierney, Brian, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 240, 246–247;Google ScholarCongar, , L'église, p. 324;Google Scholar Alberigo, Chiesa conciliare, pp. 10–11; Handbook of Church History, ed. Hubert Jedin et al. 8 vols. (New York, 1960), 4:466–468.Google Scholar This rehabilitation of conciliarism is contemporary with the deletion of the Pisan popes from Annuario Pontificio; see Oakley, , Council Over Pope?, pp. 122–128.Google Scholar

47. Gill, Joseph, “The Fifth Session of the Council of Constance,” Heythrop Journal 5 (1964):131–143;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBäumer, Remigius, “Das Verbot der Konzilsappellation Martins V,” in Das Konzil von Konstanz, pp. 187–213.Google Scholar See also Pichler, Isfried H., Die Verbindlichkeit der Konstanzer Dekrete (Vienna, 1966), pp. 69, 71–127, 132–133.Google ScholarHaec Sancta is dismissed as a reformable statement of positive law in Riedlinger, Helmut, “Hermaneutische Ueberlieferung zu den Konstanzer Dekreten,” in Das Konzil von Konstanz, pp. 214–238.Google ScholarOakley, , Council Over Pope?, pp. 111–113;Google ScholarSchneider, , Der Konziliarismus, pp. 282, 332.Google Scholar

48. Franzen, August, ” Concilium 7 (1965):46, 58–60;Google ScholarJedin, Hubert, Bishchöfliches Konzil oder Kirchenparlament (Basel, 1962);Google ScholarOakley, , Council Over Pope?, pp. 113–118.Google Scholar For opinions similar to Jedin's, see Fois, Mario, “II valore ecclesiologico del decreto Haec Sancta del Concilio di Costanza,” La Civilta Cattolica 126, Pt. 2 (1975):141;Google ScholarBrandmüller, Walter, “Besitz das Konstanzer Dekret Haec Sancta dogmatische Verbindlichkeit?”, Römische Quartalschrift 62 (1967): 1–17.Google Scholar Jedin originally believed that Gregory XII's convocation had legitimized the Constance Assembly; see Jedin, Hubert, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, trans. Graf, Ernest (New York, 1960), pp. 116–117.Google Scholar Conciliarism is described as an expedient made dogma in Schroeder, Henry Joseph, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils (Saint Louis, 1937), p. 445,Google Scholar n. 1. On Constance as an unrepeatable abnormality, see Costanzo, Joseph F., The Historical Credibility of Hans Küng (North Quincy Mass., 1979), p. 201.Google Scholar The work of the Council of Constance was continued at Basel according to Stieber, Pope Eugenius IV, p. 6. But according to Black, Antony, Monarchy and Community (Cambridge, 1970), p. 16,Google Scholar the two councils were not continuous; Basel took a novel course.

49. Baum, Gregory, “Suenens Crying in the Wilderness,” Catholic World 210 (1969):107.Google Scholar See also Granfield, Patrick, The Papacy in Transition (Garden City, N.Y., 1980), pp. 71,82;Google ScholarMeuthen, Erich, “Das Basler Konzil in römisch-katholischer Sicht,” Theologische Zeitschrift 38 (1982): 307–308,Google Scholar citing Yves Congar.

50. Alberigo, , Chiesa conciliare, pp. 340–354.Google Scholar Alberigo has included Haec Sancta among the decrees of Constance; see Concitiorurn Oecumenzcorum Decreta, p. 385. Another subtle interpretation of Constance is that of Tierney, Brian in “Hermeneutics and History: the Problem of Haec Sancta,” in Essays in Medieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson, ed. Sandquist, T. A. and Powicke, Michael R. (Toronto, 1968), pp. 354–370,Google Scholar and Tierney, , “Divided Sovereignty at Constance: a Problem of Medieval and Early Modern Political Theory,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 7 (1975):238–256.Google Scholar