The Council
of Constance (1414-1418) is problematic to Roman Catholicism, as (1) it thought
the supremacy of General Ecumenical Councils over the papacy and (2) its 1415
decree, Haec Sancta, would be later
condemned as heretical by the Catholic Church. On this and related issues, see,
for e.g.:
"Orthodoxidation" (Eastern Orthodox), Haec Sancta: The Forgotten Hypocrisy
Historian
Denys Hay, in a volume published as part of “A General History of Europe,”
wrote the following about the ecclesiology of Constance:
Conciliar supremacy over a pope was implied
by the cardinals’ proceedings at Pisa. A Constance it was stated in as many
words, in the exciting days after John XXIII’s flight. There was much anxious
and indeed stormy debate, but in the fifth session, in 6 April 1415, five
decrees dealing with the crisis were duly passed, of which the first, Sacrosancta, ran: ‘The Council of
Constance, an oecumenical council, derives its power direct from God and all
men, including the people, are bound to obey it in matters of faith, of ending
the Schism and of reforming the Church in head and members.’ This was completed
at the thirty-ninth session in October 1417 by the decree Frequens which laid down that general councils were to be held more
often, the next in five years, then another seven years later, and thereafter
every ten years. The pope and cardinals together could shorten these intervals,
but not lengthen them. (Denys Hay, Europe
in the Fourteen and Fifteenth Centuries [London: Longman, 1966], 287-88)
Elsewhere,
when discussing Huss (who was condemned by Constance), Hay notes the following
irony:
There is no doubt that Wycliffe by disputing
the doctrine of transubstantiation was in conflict with the teaching of the
Church. Huss consistently in his writing and preaching disowned this side of
Wycliffe’s doctrine and his whole practice was to exalt communion and emphasize
its effects. Was Huss a heretic? The Benedictine scholar Dom Paul De Vooght has
recently tried to answer that question in his warm and generous book. There is no doubt that Huss erred in his
denial of papacy supremacy, yet, as Dom De Vooght points out, the Council that
condemned him had itself declared popes subject to councils. (Ibid., 325;
the book referenced is Paul De Vooght, L'Hérésie
de Jean Huss)
