Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 June 11

= June 11 =

Pope Martin V
The introduction to Pope Sixtus IV, and its "Foreign policy" section, note that Sixtus annulled the decrees of the Council of Constance. The Council of Constance article notes that its activities included electing Pope Martin V. Why isn't he considered an antipope? Ditto with Antipope John XXIII and Antipope Benedict XIII, whom the council deposed; why aren't they considered legitimate popes? Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems likely he was making a decree opposing conciliarism and not declaring Martin V illegitimate, but struggling to find anything which states that. fiveby(zero) 01:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * tho i wonder what Deceptus fuit papa Johannes in this hard to decode footnote could mean. fiveby(zero) 02:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It means, "Pope John was cheated". Not only was the poor man deposed by the Council, but also put on trial, found guilty of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest, and imprisoned. --Lambiam 06:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Long before Sixtus IV, Martin V had already refused to recognize the decrees of the Council of Constance. Clearly, he did not mean to refuse to recognize his own position as supreme pontiff. The solution is simple: a papal election is not by decree. Somewhat in general, who is a genuine authentic pope and who is an usurping antipope is decided by the winning faction, which gets to (re)write history. Martin V himself considered the Council of Pisa, in which he participated, legitimate and hence the first John XXIII as authentic, but the powers that be in the Vatican later decided otherwise. --Lambiam 06:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Ahh, the scales fall from mine eyes, and now I see why the Council of Florence article is so mealy-mouthed about Basel: conciliarism is actually a heresy in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church. See my much earlier proposed re-write at Talk:Council of Florence. The article is a load of pro-papal propaganda which completely minimise the importance of Basel... Most popes must have been anti-conciliar: but was even Martin V, who reluctantly called the Council of Basel because of Frequens, legitimate? "...the binding character of the decrees of Constance is not to be evaded," and that "the (traditionally understood) legitimacy of Martin V and all other subsequent popes up to the present day depends on the legitimacy of the Council of Constance and its procedure in the question of the popes." ("Constance and its Aftermath: The Legacy of Conciliar Theory" by Francis Oakley), a most interesting and diverting read, with such gems as "As...Harold J. Laski put it later on, "the road from Constance" to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England was therefore, "a direct one." "And so at one clappe, at the counseil holden at Constaunce. . . were three popes popped out of their places." So the distinctly French conciliarism at Constance and Basel seems to lead to the French Revolution and the ousting of Charles I and James II. Wow. MinorProphet (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Lambiam's cite above of Ludwig von Pastor's History of the Popes, Vol 4. made me seek out Volume 1 which includes the lives and deeds of Martin V and Eugene IV. Although the entire series apparently qualifies as something like an official history (since Pastor had access to the 'secret Vatican library') and is therefore consistently and ardently pro-papal, the first [translated] volume (with copious refs) reads remarkably smoothly and cogently for all its bias, and includes a number of interesting details which I hadn't previously picked up on. According to Pistor, Rome and the Vatican were in a total state of collapse when Martin acceded to the papacy, and despite his nepotism he certainly made huge improvements to the city, its buildings and to the church in general. Lots to consider. MinorProphet (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)