Author Topic: Councils of Basle and Constance. (Read 546 times)

roscoe · « **on:** May 09, 2009, 10:34:54 PM »

It has been my impression that these Councils took place as the result of the judaizing of Pope Martin IV. Also that they were later discredited and not recognised as General or Ecuмenical Councils. At the same time, some of the decrees of these councils were implemented. Fr Laux's History lists them as fully recognised General Councils. Does anyone know if he is correct?

I believe Fr Laux to be wrong when he acquits the Templars, claiming them to have been framed.

CM · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2009, 11:11:28 PM »

Here is a link to the Council of Constance with a brief intro that may help answer your questions.

Here is a link to the Council of Basel and the rejected sessions are noted and their text omitted.

roscoe · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2009, 11:48:03 PM »

Thank you for the links. I believe the term anti-popes to be technically incorrect when applied to either faction of the GWS. Acc to von Pastor, one of the terms of setteling the schism was that since there was no heresy or homos involved one was left free to call either faction the true Pope-- although it is my opinion that the despicable Urban 6 lost his office and qualifies as one. Like the dilema with Boniface this needs to be taken care of once and for all when a true Pope is restored.

CM · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2009, 05:26:15 PM »

Wait a minute- ...technically incorrect?

So 'technically' there were two popes? Roscoe why does that sound so wrong to me?

Lateran IV: We altogether forbid one and the same city or diocese to have more than one bishop, as if it were a body with several heads like a monster.

Same thing isn't it?