The Questionable Legality of Utraquism in Bohemia and Moravia after 1436 25 I (1) Nicholas of Cusa, a letter to the Bohemian estates (1452): “These priests [i.e. Bohemian clergy] never achieved or observed those things which were to be done for the permission of that communion; on the contrary, regardless of the Compactata, they continued with things that were to be dismissed. Thus, due to their negligence, the permission for people having the custom never came into effect.”8 (2) Nicholas of Cusa, a reply to Utraquist priest Martin Lupáč (1452): “The Compactata prove that you were not allowed to receive communion by the authority of the Church if you previously were not in the Catholic Church by means of conformity to faith and rite. Thus, the Compactata, from which you can not deviate any further after their sealing, statements and your various writings prove that you usurped communion in both kinds illicitly without the authority of the Church. For the Compactata do not state that ‘by the authority of Christ and the Church, his wife, you received communion in the past or receive communion at present’, but provided there is conformity to faith and rite with the Catholic Church ‘those (men) and those (women) will receive communion’ in the future.”9 (3) Thomas Ebendorfer, Contra indultum Sigismundi (1455): “The Bohemians have continuously refused (to accept unity and peace), which is especially known about the Taborites [...]. From these it is evident that they are to be regarded not as conforming to the rites of the universal Church, but rather as persisting steadfastly in their inventions, and they are not capable, worthy, and deserving of the concession and permission of the Church, but contrarily, they are to be deprived of such grace and favor due to their ingratitude, indiscipline caused by many scandals, and the aforesaid singularity, as well as the schism awakened by them in the middle of the Church.”10 (4) Nicholas Tempelfeld, a treatise on obedience to king George (1459?): “Had the Bohemians and Moravians accepted peace, unity, and Catholic faith, and conformed to the rites of the general Church, those having such a custom would have been allowed to receive communion in both kinds by the authority of Christ and his Church. However, the Bohemians 8 Nicolai de Cusa Opera omnia, vol. 15, Opuscula III. Fasciculus I. Opuscula Bohemica, eds. Stephan Nottelmann and Hans G. Senger, (Hamburg, 2014), 63: “Illi tales sacerdotes nunquam ea, quae fieri debebant ad permissionem illius communionis, procurarunt aut observarunt, sed non obstantibus compactatis continuarunt illa, quae dimittere tenebantur. Ideo ex eorum neglegentia permissio etiam quoad personas, quae usum habebant, non est sortita effectum.” 9 Ibid., 66: “Compactata docent vos auctoritate ecclesiae non communicare potuisse, nisi prius fuissetis in ecclesia catholica per conformitate fidei et rituum. Docent itaque compactata, quae amplius declinare non potestis post sigillationes, allegationes et varia scripta vestra, quod sine auctoritate ecclesiae illicite communionem duplici specie usurpastis. Nam non dicunt compactata, quod ‘auctoritate Christi et ecclesiae sponsae eius communicastis in praeteritum aut communicatis in praesens’, sed praemissa conformitate fidei et rituum cum catholica ecclesia ‘communicabunt’ in futurum ‘illi et illae.’” For Cusanus’ Bohemian mission and polemic against Lupáč, see František Michálek Bartoš, “Cusanus and the Hussite bishop M. Lupáč,” Communio viatorum 5 (1962): 35–46; Hermann Hallauer, “Das Glaubengespräch mit den Hussiten,” Mitteilungen und Forschungsbeiträge der Cusanus-Gesellschaft 9 (1971): 53–75; Woelki, “Theological diplomacy,” 420–24. 10 Vienna, Austrian National Library, MS Cod. 4704, f. 292r: “Quod Boemi facere usque detractarunt, ut notum est de Thaboritis precipue [...] Ex quibus patet, quod huiusmodi non ut ritibus universalis se ecclesie conformales, sed in suis adinvencionibus pertinaciter persistentes verius sunt arbitrandi nec indulgencie aut permissionis ecclesie capaces, digni aut meriti, sed econtrario huiusmodi gracia et favore privandi propter eorum ingratitudinem, scandalosis permultis abusum et singularitatem predictam ac scisma in medio ecclesie per eos suscitatum.“ See also below, the chapter by Dušan Coufal in this volume, 112–14.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1