Condemnation and Execution of John Hus [600 years ago today]

Great Site ^

[vladimir998]

Very well said.

[HarleyD]

I did not see post #68 on Hus' alleged heresies as it was not address to me. Neither did you probably see my post #92 on how Hus (based on Fudge's work) was not allowed to address his accussers nor was it considered a legal trial as there was no pope who resided over the proceedings (among other things) since I did not address you in on that post.

I did noticed that one of Hus' heresy charges that you posted was that he did not believe the pope to be Peter's successor. This brings an interesting question to mind. Since many of us Protestants here do not believe that the pope is Peter's successor, does that mean we are heretics worthy of burning at the stake?

[HarleyD]

Thomas Fudge - and many other historians - attest to the fact that Huss was a heretic. It seems that you are personally upset about this.

It seems to me heretics are in the eye of the beholder. My personal feeling is that we all hold heretical views. I've said this on several other threads. We are called to search for these items in our lives comparing them to the scripture which we know is our true measuring stick.

Many of the early church fathers held views that we would agree would be heretical today. Some things were simply because of their way they looked at God. I wouldn't call Luther a heretic any more than I would call you a heretic. I would say that Luther, you, I and a number of other Christians hold heretical views. But I don't go crazy if Luther states something weird. Nor if he stated one thing and ten years later seemingly contradict himself. It shows maturity-just like Augustine.

What point he is at in his writings doesn't make him any less of a Christian anymore than any one of us. And, if he is a Christian, God the Father loves him with every spiritual blessing on this earth. This should give us pause of how we treat other Christians.

On the other hand there are those who claim to be Christians but do not appear to follow scripture.

So I look at Luther and if I feel he was right on a matter, then I have to accept his view. If I feel that he has interpreted scripture incorrectly, then I need to make sure that I have my ducks in a row and correct his views as a brother.

I rarely get upset about anything and when I do it's mostly about the government-not theology. I'm not upset about Fudge's book. I'm only interested in what is true.

[vladimir998]

“So I look at Luther and if I feel he was right on a matter, then I have to accept his view. If I feel that he has interpreted scripture incorrectly, then I need to make sure that I have my ducks in a row and correct his views as a brother.”

So, ultimately, it’s all about your feelings. There’s no actual truth. No, no, no, it’s just your feelings. If you eat an “undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato” someone might be a heretic, but if you liked your steak and fries and dessert someone might be hunky-dory to you. You’ve reduced the Truth to feelings. How sad.

[dangus]

>> Since many of us Protestants here do not believe that the pope is Peter’s successor, does that mean we are heretics worthy of burning at the stake? <<

You say you hadn’t seen post #68. Have you still not read it? If so, how could you ask such a question? How about post #100?

[dangus]

>> Many of the early church fathers held views that we would agree would be heretical today. <<

Ahh, that’s the great thing about being Catholic. If by “church fathers” you mean those who remained in union with the Church of their day, no, I wouldn’t regard a single one of them as holding heretical views. Some may have expressed themselves poorly, perhaps using the term “transformation” where Aquinas later uses the neologism, “transubstantiation” to emphasize that the *form* remains the same, but it’s rather the substance that is changed.

So when you say “heretics are in the eye of the beholder,” well, certainly we consider different assertions to be heretical. But the whole “ology” of Catholic theology is that it isn’t mere feelings, opinions or conjecture, but just like the laws of math, the laws of Catholic theology are based on logic, confirmed in the scripture and tested against history. Feelings are irrelevant.

(Please understand that not every theological assertion in the Catholic catechism is a doctrine, and that saintly Catholics can disagree with each other. St Charles Borromeo and Pope John Paul II caused to be publish catechisms which nearly contradict each other on the matter of the death penalty, for instance. But both acknowledged their assertions to be prudential, not dogmatic.)

>> My personal feeling is that we all hold heretical views. I wouldn’t call Luther a heretic any more than I would call you a heretic. <<

I’m concerned that you’re imbuing “heretic” with a modern sense of horror and scorn that is not proper to its original meaning. The word simply means someone who holds a heretical viewpoint. And no, it does not suggest that one should be burned at the stake.

Just about all Christians — and even nearly all Catholics — are heretics. But it’s true you typically don’t call someone a heretic unless they’ve publicly declared their heresy, had their heresy defined dogmatically as a heresy, had it identified to them by someone authoritatively, and continued to obstinately continued to proclaim their heresy. But the proper word, in that case, is actually “heresiarch.” You’ll notice that’s the term used in the trial of Hus to describe Wycliffe.

Other terms worth knowing:

Apostate: Protestants aren’t heretics. Heretics have to insist their false dogma is the Catholic faith. Once you acknowledge that you no longer adhere to the Catholic faith, you are no longer a heretic, but an apostate.

Schismatic: Most Protestants still aren’t apostates. An apostate is someone who was raised and intellectually and consciously formed as a Catholic, and renounced that Catholic faith. If you weren’t a Catholic to begin with, you aren’t an apostate. It’s worth noting that schismatics don’t necessarily hold heretical viewpoints; the Orthodox are schismatic, but there is no doctrinal error that any Orthodox Christian necessarily holds.

As an historical note, the Council of Trent infallibly declared that Protestants were anathema, but the Second Vatican Council called them merely “separated brethren” with a merely “deficient” faith. This apparent contradiction is based on a shift of what it meant to be Protestant. Protestants in 1521 were apostates, whereas Protestants in 1965 were mostly mere schismatics, likely with “indefeatable ignorance.”

[dangus]

I wrote “consciously formed.” I meant, “conscientiously formed.”

[Diamond]

Rather than declare victory and go home triumphantly, Hus instead turned to slander. He was deemed a heretic, stripped of his Church protection, and handed to State authorities to face charges of the SECULAR crime of sedition.

You keep saying that he was handed over to the State authorities to face charges of the secular crime of sedition but EVERY source I have seen thus far says that he was tried by the CHURCH COUNCIL of CONSTANCE for contumacy and heresy, etc, found guilty and THEN handed over to the secular authorities AS A CONVICTED FELON FOR EXECUTION, not to face further charges. For example, Thomas Fudge, the source provided by vladimir998, says on page 336:

_____________________________

Hus claimed the Church's legal case against him was a "sack of lies." Do you asssert, then, that Hus affirmed every one of the 30 Catholic doctrines he was accused of denying? If this is true, then he is no Protestant at all. More likely, he "felt" he was innocent of the crime of sedition.

"Of the final thirty charges brought against him, Hus's replies sought to modify twenty-six. Only Articles 16, 20, 25, and 27 were left as originally stated."
Fudge, p. 273

Cordially,

[HarleyD]

So, ultimately, it’s all about your feelings.

My how my words can be twisted. Perhaps a more clearer explanation is in order.

Protestants, like the early church fathers, measure things according to what the scriptures specifically tells us. Thus we don't believe things like Mary was sinless, the Eucharist becomes the actual blood and body of Christ, or the pope is the direct decedent of Peter, among other things. It is because none of these are supported by the word of God. The early church fathers felt so strongly about the inerrancy of God's word that they separated the holy word of God from other writings. Hence we have the Bible today.

But people like to add to or ignore what is written by God. They like to argue about text, context and attack the word of God itself all in the order to boaster their argument. It's no different then the Pharisees who created their own traditions, Joseph Smith who claim to have additional sources other than the scriptures, or the Seventh Day Adventist who believe things were handed down to them. Our Lord Jesus often would tell those "learned" people that they did not know the scriptures.

Now those who hold such views are not following the total revelation of God through His word. They add to or delete from scripture. Protestants would considered this as holding heretical views. But, on some occasions, it is simply a misunderstanding of what scripture is teaching and Protestants can be equally guilty.

Now if someone knows they are in error and are willing to conform to the scriptures, then they have the opportunity to understand God more in instruction, reproof, and correction. If they refuse to ignore what the scripture teaches (like Jimmy Carter on homosexuality), then they are 1) off in la-la land, and/or 2) are not really a Christian. Christians are to try to bring them back to the scriptures but, if they refuse, we are to ignore them.

The only way to understand if you are holding heretic views is to understand the scriptures. Instead, many times some want to reduce theological understanding down to disingenuous arguments. They need to search their hearts for the heart is deceitful. But many times people don't, wanting to maintain their attitudes and arguments. That is really the sad point.

I hope this helps clarify the matter.

[vladimir998]

"My how my words can be twisted. Perhaps a more clearer explanation is in order."

Really? Let's look at your words then:

“So I look at Luther and if I feel he was right on a matter, then I have to accept his view. If I feel that he has interpreted scripture incorrectly, then I need to make sure that I have my ducks in a row and correct his views as a brother.”

Feel. You chose the word, not me.

You also wrote: "My personal feeling is that we all hold heretical views."

Personal feeling.

Your words, not mine.

[HarleyD]

The sources that I have read (even on the Catholic website NewAdvent) does not support this view. But that is besides the point.

Do you think Hus should have been burned at the stake? Do you think Rome was right in burning Hus at the stake?

Protestants have their dark side as well (including John Calvin). However, we look at the world through a different prism then our past leaders. Today we would argue that our leaders were wrong in their approach to the heresy problem. Protestants find it easy to forgive the past since we all have many sins that we harbor.

Understandably it is difficult for Catholics to argue the same thing. Their leaders are suppose to be infallible and frequently tells us so. That leaves today's Catholics with one of two choices; 1) either they must admit that their leaders are not infallible and that the burning of Hus was a mistake, or 2) they should start immediately burning people at the stake to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy with what is tradition.

I understand that this is a quandary.

[HarleyD]

Oh, you're right. Poor choice of wording on my part. I should have said: "My personal feeling is that we all hold heretical views."

It isn't a feeling. It is based upon what God tells us.

[vladimir998]

“It isn’t a feeling.”

For you it seems to be. It is entirely subjective to your whims. That is the lesson of sola scriptura.

[HarleyD]

The lesson of sola scriptura is that we don’t say Mary was sinless when it states that “all have sinned”. Some cannot understand such a simple concept.

[vladimir998]

“The lesson of sola scriptura is that we don’t say Mary was sinless when it states that “all have sinned”. Some cannot understand such a simple concept.”

But as you already explained it’s really all about what you feel. Thus, if you felt this or that, then this or that would be so.

[HarleyD]

I said a number of things, some of which simply is ignored. It goes back to our heretic discussion and whether one is seriously trying to understand God or they are seeking something else.