define in matters of faith. Constance possessed exceptional power in an exceptional time. For a doubtful Pope is no Pope at all.
With regard to the ecumenical character of the Council of Constance, Bossuet replied to Bellarmine that his criticism upon it did not go far enough. For the Council described itself as a general Synod assembled in the Holy Spirit, rightly and justly summoned, opened, and enacted. Now this account of itself is either a simple truth, or a blasphemous assumption. Its opponents dare not venture to call it the latter.
It is also quite misleading to say, as Bellarmine does, that the Council of Constance represented only one out of three obediences. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Christendom was represented there. The adherents of Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII. had by that time dwindled to relative insignificance. The great nationalities, the theological faculties, the religious orders, were all on the Council's side. If insignificant fractions, with Popes of doubtful claims, still remained for a period aloof, this did not seriously affect the claims of Constance to a representative character in Christendom. Still less is it possible that their claim to authority as assembled in the Holy Ghost, and constituting a General Council, can be condemned as a falsehood and a blasphemy.
Bellarmine himself admitted that the Council of Basle decided with the Legate's consent that the Council is above the Pope, which is certainly now considered erroneous. Now! echoes Bossuet: that is a sign of novelty. And by whom ? By a private theologian. Is, then, the opinion of a private teacher to be set above the unanimous decree of a Universal Council presided over by the Legates of the Apostolic See?[1]
- ↑ Bossuet, t. xxi. p. 57.
