Talk:Council of Constance

message: While I agree that Catholics have the right to call whoever they want "antipope" is it really fitting for an encyclopedia?  To me (not a catholic) all three were Popes, and I to see "antipope" makes me feel like I'm reading a religious document.  And as I recall, weren't all the Popes calling eachother the Antichrist?  Perhaps we should call him  Antichrist John XXIII. Citizen Premier 13:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (I know this was from 2005, but still... I laughed at the ironic humor of this, but for no negative or sectarian reason, I hope.) Misty MH (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I too (and not long ago) read something on Wikipedia (I think) where it stated that some who were backing multiple popes were calling others "antichrist". I don't recall what that was that I read. Nor do I recall all the histories I've read of the various churches, or Roman Catholic, to know whether there was a different multiple-pope claim situation where that was done. The article on Antipope does NOT (at the moment) mention the word "antichrist". Neither do List of popes, Avignon Papacy, Western Schism, East–West Schism, or Pope, though the latter mentions Protestant claims about such. I also didn't find reference to this in Antichrist or References to the Antichrist in ecclesiastical writings. I also checked my computer Hard Disk Drives, and found nothing related. So now I don't know where I read it. Misty MH (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the second Pope John XXIII declared the first one to be an antipope in 1958. This has been considered definitive. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He did not "declare" anything definitive on the subject as far as I know, it's just his adoption of the number XXIII that renders the Pisan one an antipope by implication. His declaration of adopting the name itself apparently makes clear that intervening on this was not actually what he had in mind (cf.), but presumably he had to pick one number or another. —Al-Muqanna (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  antipope? 

message: Restored deleted information by anon and added references.--Molobo (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated 

message: This article needs a lot of cleanup, as it does not give the full background of Avignon and Pisa clearly, and is almost just a big hodgepodge of blue links.  It is also almost unreadable, IMO.  I'll have a go soon.  Jubilee♫clipman 02:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: While the infobox gives the attendance at the Council as 600, it would seem that this is only the number of principal participants. Toby Lester's The Fourth Part of the World (London: Profile Books, 2009) says (p.167):
:"Estimates of the size of the Council of Constance vary dramatically, but all sources agree that it was huge. Between 40,000 and 150,000 people are thought to have converged on the city for the event, which dragged on for more than three years. Some seven hundred high-ranking Church officials from all over Europe and Byzantium attended the council, among them one pope, three patriarchs, twenty-nine cardinals, and an extended assortment of important archbishops, bishops, and abbots. Accompanying them came a sprawling retinue of close to eighteen thousand personal assistants, secretaries, copyists, scholars, legal advisers, servants, and others. The archbishop of Mainz alone arrived with an escort of five hundred people. Almost every city and feudal state in Europe was represented at the council, either by its ruler or by a high-level delegation. Eighteen dukes and archdukes, eighty-three counts, seventy-one barons, and 1,500 knights turned up for the event, and they, too, brought thousands along with them. Europe's major universities and schools sent representatives, and poets, artisans, laborers, and merchants all poured into the city to serve the needs of the gathering – as did Florentine bankers' Cosimo de' Medici himself set up shop in Constance. The town had to absorb more than just people, or [sic] course. By one estimate, some thirty thousand horses had to be fed and stabled during the council."
Which does raise the question of how on earth the city managed to house and feed this multitude for several years. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could add a section on the physical Council, rather than just on its deliberations? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's amazing. And great question(s). :) Misty MH (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the meeting 

message: ----
The top second paragraph had the word "and" as "ANDDDDDD." It is now corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.166.60 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling and CAPS of "and" 

message: In the section "Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic conflict", it shows that the Council of Constance was involved in discussing the conflict, but what the the Council's conclusions were seems vague to me. It says it didn't make any "political decisions" (which statement may be overstated), and says a "Cardinal... published an independent opinion that attempted to somewhat balance both Polish and Teutonic positions" but I don't see it saying more than this. If the Council was involved in discussing the "Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic conflict", what were the Council's conclusions and statements about it? Someone who knows about this, please add that, because it almost seemed like a story that had no clear end to it, other than that the Polish and Teutonic continued to fight for another hundred years. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic conflict - Council's conclusions? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Council of Constance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822154435/http://www.vincenter.org:80/98/cassar.htm to http://www.vincenter.org/98/cassar.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Council of Constance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101090223/http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm to http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101090223/http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm to http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vincenter.org/98/cassar.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Council of Constance's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Pastor":
From 1572 papal conclave: L. Pastor, p. 15
From Communion under both kinds: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first ref (From 1572 papal conclave: L. Pastor, p. 15) almost certainly refers to Ludwig von Pastor's History of the Popes in 40 volumes, perhaps Vol XX, 1572–1585, Gregory XIII - (or perhaps another work): Manuel U. Pastor in the 2nd ref seems to be a more recent commentator. Maybe I'll have a look soon and see what I can do. MinorProphet (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Council of Constance]] 

message: The lede states: "...and Frequens was never put into practice." So what was Pope Martin V  doing when he called the Council of Pavia-Siena and after some delay, the Council of Basel? And yes, the latter article is a disgrace. MinorProphet (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Frequens''