1

Nicolas of Cusa wrote De Concordantia Catholica in 1433/34, and it contained pretty revolutionary political ideas:

Going beyond tradition and canon law, he argues on the basis of people’s natural freedom (“men are by nature equal in power and equally free”) that all governance comes from the consent of the subjects. This argument to explicitly institutionalize consent is Nicholas’ original contribution. He follows it with proposals on representation that move from representation as virtual impersonation to representation as delegation based on those represented selecting their representatives. This is one of the first explicit statements in the West of the institutional limits to be placed on rulers and of the idea that people must consent to their representative institutions. Even after he changed allegiance to the side of papal supremacy, Nicholas used his ideas to argue in later brief writings that Basel was not truly representative and that consent was embodied in the college of cardinals.

Why did he change such modern concept of representative government to papal supremacy? Did he write about it in any philosophical work, or does the SEP refer just to political deeds?

  • So, he had a later view that the church needed less or no representation and consent compared to government? Perhaps because in government we are discovering what to do and what people want, but in religion it is all already decided? "*There's no I in Baseball*", or in religion either. – Scott Rowe Mar 02 '23 at 11:16
  • 1
    "Nicholas's own thought on the church changed with his departure from Basel. He tried arguing that the Basel assembly lacked the consent of the church throughout the world, especially the princes. Then he tried arguing that the church was unfolded from Peter (explicatio Petri).[18] This allowed him to support the pope without abandoning ideas of reform." Probably, his change of mind is due to failure of [Basel Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence) and the reaffirmation of dogma of papal primacy – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 02 '23 at 12:10
  • What is the philosophical angle on this interesting history thread? – Frank Mar 02 '23 at 16:23
  • 1
    @Frank Precisely that's the answer, it seems from Mauro's links that the motivation was historical/circunstancial, not philosophical. But I couldn't knew until asked, should I delete the question? –  Mar 02 '23 at 16:25
  • @eirene Don't delete the question - in fact you could post your own answer to the question, explaining that the motivation was not philosophical :-) – Frank Mar 02 '23 at 16:40
  • 1
    @MauroALLEGRANZA If you post your comments as an answer I would gladly accept it. –  Mar 02 '23 at 16:49

1 Answers1

1

For the historical context, see Conciliarism: "Conciliarism reached its apex with the Council of Basel (1431–1449), which ultimately fell apart. The eventual victor in the conflict was the institution of the papacy, confirmed by the condemnation of conciliarism at the Fifth Lateran Council, 1512–17. The final gesture, the doctrine of papal infallibility, was not promulgated until the First Vatican Council of 1870"

"In 1432 Nicholas of Cusa attended the Council of Basel. [...] Nicholas's pleadings earned him a great reputation as an intermediary and diplomat. While present at the council, he wrote his first work, De concordantia catholica (The Catholic Concordance), a synthesis of ideas on church and empire balancing hierarchy with consent. This work remained useful to critics of the papacy long after Nicholas left Basel."

"Nicholas's own thought on the church changed with his departure from Basel. He tried arguing that the Basel assembly lacked the consent of the church throughout the world, especially the princes. [...] This allowed him to support the pope without abandoning ideas of reform."

In conclusion, it is likely that Nicholas changed his mind due to failure of Basel Council and the reaffirmation of the dogma of papal primacy.

Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  • 35,764
  • 3
  • 35
  • 79