Council of Constance

==Later status==
Although [[Pope Martin V]] did not directly challenge the decrees of the council, his successor [[Eugenius IV]] repudiated an attempt by a faction at the [[Council of Basel]] to declare the provisions of ''Haec sancta'' and ''Frequens'' a matter of faith. His 1439 bull on the matter, ''Moyses vir Dei'', was underwritten by the [[Council of Florence]].{{sfn|Oakley|2003|p=49}} In convening the [[Fifth Lateran Council]] (1512–17), [[Pope Julius II]] further pronounced that ''Frequens'' had lost its force;{{sfn|Oakley|2003|p=56}} Lateran V is sometimes seen as having itself abrogated ''Haec sancta'', though the reading is controversial.{{sfn|Oakley|2003|p=214}} Either way, while Rome itself came to reject the provisions made by the council, significant parts of the Church, notably in France, continued to uphold the validity of its decisions long after the event: ''Haec sancta'' was reaffirmed in the [[Declaration of the Clergy of France|Gallican Articles]] of 1682, and even during the [[First Vatican Council]] of 1869–70 the French-American bishop of [[Diocese of St. Augustine|St. Augustine, Florida]], [[Augustin Vérot]], attempted to read ''Haec sancta'' into the record of deliberations.{{sfn|Oakley|2003|p=215}}

Despite the apparently definitive rejection of conciliarism at the First Vatican Council, the debate over the status of Constance was renewed in the 20th century. In the 1960s, in the context of the [[Second Vatican Council]], the reformist Catholic theologian [[Hans Küng]] and the historian {{ill|Paul de Vooght|cs}} argued in defense of the dogmatic character of ''Haec sancta'', suggesting that its terms could be reconciled with the definition of papal supremacy at Vatican I.{{sfn|Collins|2000|p=182}} Küng's argument received support from prelates such as Cardinal [[Franz König]].{{sfn|Tierney|2008|p=319}} Other Catholic historians adopted different views: [[Hubert Jedin]] considered ''Haec sancta'' to be an emergency measure with no binding validity beyond its immediate context, while Joseph Gill rejected the validity of the session that passed the decree altogether.{{sfn|McNally|1970|p=29}} The debate over ''Haec sancta'' subsided in the 1970s, however, without resolution.{{sfn|Oakley|2003|pp=257–60}}