Lesson Plan: Friars Date: 18.03.

18
Length of Session: 50 minutes

Seminar Aims To think about the ideological roots of conciliarism: how far back do
they go, what are the ideas, where do they come from?

To consider the Papacy during the Great Schism and conciliarism in

action: what did it do and were the criticisms addressed?

To look at the aftermath of the schism and conciliarism: did it

change the behaviour of the Papacy?

Supporting Power-point.
Materials /
Handouts
Room Equipment / Projector.
Arrangement

Timing Subject/Heading Activity/Notes PP slides

0-3 Introduction & - Ask for any questions on the lecture 1-3
minutes housekeeping - Remind them of assessment deadlines.
- Explain seminar aims
3-20 Roots of - 2-5 minutes to look at Marsilius of Padua, 15 minutes to 4
minutes Conciliarism discuss as a class or in groups.
- What are the criticisms he lays at the Church’s door?
- Where does he get the ideas from?
- What’s the Church’s response?
- Do we see the roots of conciliarism?

20-40 The Great - 2-5 mins to look at Gregory XI & John Wycliff, 15 5
minutes Schism & minutes to discuss as a class or in groups
Conciliarism in - What are Wycliff’s views to the Church, and the Pope
action on Wycliff?
- How similar are they to Marsilius’ example?
- Does the Pope, despite the schism, still act in a similar
way – why?
- More widely, how far do Church councils try to affect
change?
40-50 Post Schism - 10 minutes, class discussion. 6
minutes Papacy - How far is the Pope’s power curtailed post-Schism?
- Was conciliarism a successful movement, in that
respect?
- What did it achieve?

1
Issues to cover

Slide 4: What criticisms does Marsilius make of the Church? Where does he get these ideas from? What is
the Church’s response? Is it the roots of conciliarism?

- Makes the claim that only a representative body that derives its authority from the consent of the
governed can wield the authority to make law, and that such law is at its best when derived from
deliberation among the public. Implies therefore that the Church and the Pope does not have this
authority derived from the consent of Christians, and thus that their rulings are
illegitimate.
- Also accuses the Popes of being too worldly and of requiring discipline, if necessary by
secular leaders, and also of trying to usurp legitimate secular power, particularly in the
empire but with an eye on all other secular rulers as well.
- Further, denies the right of the Pope and Bishops to a whole host of spiritual and temporal
powers as derived from hierarchy, for example, the power to strip bishops of their office.
He argues for instance that the Pope should be subject to removal by Bishops if they feel
he is acting poorly.
- In short: the Popes are too worldly and ambitious for their position, seek an authority over
the church to which they are not entitled and from which there isn’t biblical precedent,
and make rules which are not legitimate because they do not derive from the
consent/deliberation of the governed.
- Ideas largely stem from reading of Aristotle and Greek philosophy, which he mentions on
numerous occasions his ideas being derived on their authority.
- Church’s response is to declare him a heretic and force him to flee his position in Paris
University, and even in the late 14thC he is referred to negatively in Pope Gregory XI’s
letter. It’s telling his pamphlet was initially published under a pseudonym.
- Arguably it has the building blocks of conciliarism in it, since it places such emphasis on
the importance of laws derived from the deliberations of the many, and of curtailment of
the Pope’s power. It’s not an explicit articulation of conciliarism as an ideology, but has
some of the foundations in there, some 50 years before the schism.

Slide 5: What are Wycliff’s views on the Church, and of the Church on Wycliff? How similar are they to the
example of Marsilius (both in terms of ideas and response)? Does the Pope, despite the schism, act in a
similar way? More generally, how far do Church Councils try to affect change?

- In terms of views, the situation is quite similar to Marsilius really. For Wycliff the Church/Pope is
still too worldy and ambitious, particularly the Pope who he denounces as an anti Christ and
emphasises that he is not exalted above other bishops. In addition he also believes the state should
be superior to the Church under its jurisdiction, and also that many spiritual roles performed by the
Church are not as important as the belief itself. For the Pope’s part, Wycliff is a dangerous heretic
in the mould of Marsilius (who Gregory mentions in the letter), whose teachings threaten the
spiritual safety of all Christendom, thus revealing the idea of the Pope and Church and orthodoxy as
the protectors and gateway to salvation.
- The Pope, for his part, seems to be acting in a similar way to earlier Popes/Church in that he is
pursuing heretics and trying to defend orthodoxy, even despite the fact that Gregory XI is only the
Pope of Avignon at this time. In that respect, the Church/Pope hasn’t really changed in their ideas.
It’s less about theology and more about process.
- More widely, Councils do try to affect change, for e.g. the Councils of Padua (1409) & Constance
(1415), starting with the removal of various Popes and their replacement with a single one to

2
 restore unity, but also with the involvement of ‘national’ votes within them, and the rules
concerning church taxation and their jurisdictions/involvements with secular powers. In the end
they are successful in bringing the schism to an end, and installing Martin V as Pope, who was quite
successful in rebuilding the Papacy despite its more limited income and powers.

Slide 6: How far is the Pope’s power curtailed post schism? Was conciliarism successful in resolving the
disputes which led to it? What did it achieve?

- Overall seems like a qualified victory for the Papacy. Although Martin V is quite a successful Pope
with diminished resources in a post schism world, he manages to rebuild Papal lands and finances
in central Italy during the 1410s and 20s, and his successors are able to operate despite subsequent
councils at Basle in the 1430s and 40s attempting to bring real checks on their power. Conciliarism
it seemed had petered out, with the Papacy somewhat rebuilt as a powerful force.
- Despite that, you could argue the very fact the councils in the 1430s and 40s were trying, albeit
unsuccessfully, to extensively curb papal power shows a sea change, in that both the ideological
and very real power had been built up by earlier precedent to show how councils could wield
power over the Church, as well as the Pope. More so given Martin’s pontificate. In that respect, the
conciliar movement did indeed achieve a degree of success in curbing papal power, and resolving
some of, albeit not all the criticisms about the Church.

Reflections: