The Questionable Legality of Utraquism in Bohemia and Moravia after 1436 ADAM PÁLKA The Basel Compactata of 1436 are often perceived as a legal basis of communion in both kinds in the territory of Bohemia and Moravia. This notion may lead to a belief that as soon as the Compactata were concluded in the city of Jihlava, the practice of the lay chalice became automatically valid for those inhabitants of the two regions who were accustomed to this rite. However, if one closely examines the wording of the 1436 treaty, there is hardly any doubt that for the Bohemians and Moravians to receive the communion sub utraque specie (Utraquism), certain conditions were to be fulfilled first. Thus, a number of (mostly Catholic) contemporaries came to the logical conclusion that it was not the sealing and proclamation of the Compactata in July 1436, but the proper fulfilment of their key provisions which legalized Utraquism as such. Consequently, these people could pose a simple yet provocative question: what if such conditions have actually never been fulfilled and as a result, communion in both kinds has never become a permitted practice in the Bohemian Kingdom and Moravian Margravate? As with many other bones of contention related to the interpretation of the Basel Compactata, the question of their legality in relation to the lay chalice has been addressed insufficiently by historians,1 in spite of the various late medieval Catholic writings openly discussing it. Therefore, the aim of this contribution is to shed more light on the legal status of Utraquism after 1436. Attention is also paid to the Utraquists’ argumentation which polemizes against the Catholic objections, whether explicitly or implicitly. All in all, the study aims to deepen our understanding of how the Compactata turned out to be an imperfect peace treaty as they did not truly eliminate the long-lasting tension between Catholics and Utraquists due to their ambiguous and compromise wording.2 1 This question is not unknown, but there has been no real attempt to analyze it and demonstrate its scope. See Adam Pálka, “The Compactata of Basel in Enea Silvio Piccolomini’s Letters, Speeches and Official Documents,” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 11 (2019): 198; Thomas Woelki, “Theological Diplomacy? Cusanus and the Hussites,” in Wycliffism and Hussitism: Methods of Thinking, Writing, and Persuasion, eds. Kantik Gosh and Pavel Soukup, Medieval Church Studies, 47 (Turnhout, 2021), 423; see also below, the chapter by Dušan Coufal in this volume, 112–14. For the Compactata in general, see František Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten mit den Hussiten (1436). Untersuchung und Edition, MGH Studien und Texte, 65 (Wiesbaden, 2019); Rudolf Říčan, “Georg von Poděbrad und die Kompaktaten,” Communio viatorum 8 (1965): 43–52; Winfried Eberhard, “Der Weg zur Koexistenz: Kaiser Sigmund und das Ende der hussitischen Revolution,” Bohemia 33 (1992): 1–43; Thomas Prügl, “Die Verhandlungen des Basler Konzils mit den Böhmen und die Prager Kompaktaten als Friedensvertrag,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 48 (2016/2017): 253–57; Thomas A. Fudge, “The Hussites and the Council,” in A Companion to the Council of Basel, eds. Michiel Decaluwé, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 74 (Leiden, 2017), 274–79; Adam Pálka, “The Basel Compactata and the Limits of Religious Coexistence in the Age of Conciliarism and Beyond,” Church history 92 (2023): 534–58. 2 Cf. Woelki, “Theological Diplomacy,” 413: “The Compactata [...] merely represented an essentially politically motivated, formulaic compromise. They were phrased so vaguely that both parties were able to read their own interpretations
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1