The Church of St. Vitus in Česky Krumlov was built around 1400 and is rightfully considered one of the finest examples of beautiful architecture. The adaptations of the church, which originated in the Late Middle Ages, have been unjustly overlooked until today; they are not too extensive, yet the analysis of their morphology reveals that the sanctuary and the gallery rank among the best masonry work under the rule of the Rožmberks. Same as in other towns and estates, the construction work in Český Krumlov was financed particularly by the burghers and the gentry, with the contribution of priests who, due to their education, personal ties and authority, undoubtedly influenced the selection of projects and masters called to work at the construction site. In our case, this is validated by the names of donors, preserved testaments and references, formal morphology and occurrence of mason marks in the region as well as by the priests in Krumlov and the surrounding areas. and Roman Lavička.
The Schism from 1378 evoked an essential need for a redefinition of doctrinal authority within the church. One of the aims of this study is to show that the Council of Constance did not condemn Hus’ theses only from the doctrinal perspective but also endeavoured to consolidate a certain modus procedendi in relation to the scholar’s heresy. In the context of Hus’ cause, it is evident that the doctrinal questions had great gravity in the eyes of the council fathers. Most likely for the reason of this great attention being paid to the theological aspects, attention was not paid to the fact that in parallel with the condemnation of Hus’ theses some of the main representatives of the council endeavoured for the consolidation of a certain modus procedendi in the cases of the processes whose beginning can be found within the universities. Both in the case of Wycliffe and in the case of Hus, the council confirmed the previous condemnation of university instances in accord with ecclesiastical power. The promise of a public hearing of Hus aroused great disorder, because in that two entirely opposing evidential principles clashed, the theological and legal. The basic problem was in the question of how to define the relation between the two authorities: the Holy Scripture and the Church. The schism from 1378 and general inquiry about the principles in the instances of ecclesiastical power aroused a renewed interest in this problem. Nevertheless, in the thought of some significant council fathers, the principle appeared that auctoritas ecclesiae should serve as a guarantee of the proper interpretation of the Bible. Besides the ambiguity between the two evidential principles (legal and theological), the core of the dispute between Hus and the council fathers lay precisely in this ecclesiological problem. A significant role in the legal course of Hus’ process was analogically played also by the question of the infallibility of the council. and Sebastián Provvidente.