Posted on 07/06/2015 2:23:38 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
“Unfortunately no one knows according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. So much for oral tradition and it’s accuracy.”
That would have nothing to do with oral tradition in the Church or its accuracy.
“One cannot change history.”
Exactly! There was ONE pope. All other claimants were not popes. There can only be one holder of the office at a time.
“Much to the consternation of many.”
Add yourself to that number then. Popes come and go, but there is never more than one at a time.
Exactly zero of the 30 articles of Jan Hus’ heresies had anything to do with the Council of Orange. And he was executed by secular authorities for sedition. In fact, while the Council of Orange is not an ecumenical council, and therefore not a repository of the Catholic Magisterium, its canons are absolutely Catholic theology:
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).
CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.
CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.
CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, “Of thy own have we given thee” (1 Chron. 29:14).
CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.
CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).
CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, “Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us” (Ps. 79:8), and again, “My God in his steadfast love will meet me” (Ps. 59:10).
CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).
CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, “For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 2:21); and “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men” (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else “even what he has will be taken away” (Matt. 25:29).
CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which “has been poured into our hearts” not by freedom of will from our own side but “through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5).
CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.
CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?
CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.
CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, “If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: “If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose.” Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, “I have come not to abolish them, but to fulfil them” (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come “to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10).
CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.
CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.
CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).
CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).
The Catholic Encyclopedia you keep citing is a work of English-speaking, mid-western laity in 1919 who lacked any access to any Latin-language library. It’s not heretical, but it hardly serves as the final word in Catholic belief.
It is quite true that often the electors of anti-popes believed themselves to be validly electing a pope. It is NOT true that the anti-pope simply lost some power struggle and was later deemed not a pope. In fact, in a couple of instances, to heal schisms, the valid pope resigned in favor of an anti-pope who then became valid. Nor have popes been declared anti-popes to cover up for some heresy they have promulgated. In fact, the first major anti-pope was declared a saint (Hippolytus).
The most common cause of an anti-pope is that an election was found to be irregular, either because it was without genuine cause. In the case of the Western Schism, the Avignon line, while perhaps more virtuous, was regarded as anti-popes because there was quite plainly no legitimate basis for selecting a new pope.
Ironically, it was the Western Schism that made Hus a pacifist, but it was the Council of Constance which peacefully healed the Western Schism that condemned Hus. Apparently, once his grand cause was resolved, he only increased the severity of his attacks.
The Western Schism resolved that the Avignon papacy was plainly legally baseless, but the Roman pope resigned to bring peace.
>> But, it’s rather odd that a work by a Pentacostal is considered evidence to support the Catholic Church’s position. <<
If it’s from a Catholic, you dismiss it as a cover-up; if it’s from a non-Catholic, it’s “rather odd” that it is evidence to support the Catholic position. For the record, Fudge simply is a historian who realized a surprising gap in the English-speaking world’s knowledge of a very important episode in history, and sought to discover what really happened.
And are you seriously using Amazon reviewers as evidence? Especially when one plainly didn’t read the book (he claims the Catholic Church executed Hus).
Doesn’t the very title, “The Martyr of Bohemia” sound hagiographical, even polemical to you? (Yes, Schwartze was a Moravian apologist.)
MANY volumes have been written on the life and times of John Hus. They deal with various phases of the activity of the Bohemian lie- former and the conditions of his day. Not a few of them are exhaustive treatises that have brought to light a mass of valuable detail found in a variety of documentary sources. They give more clear and distinct outline to the person of John Hus and make possible a more just esti mate of his activity. All Hus literature is invested with new interest, in view of the five hundredth anniversary of the martyr death of this reformer on July 6, 1415. Arrangements are being very generally made to signalize that occasion with worthy observance. Hence, the call for a book that, written concisely and in popular style, will give the general reader or the member of study class or group a clear conception of the life and ministry of Hus and the great issues with which his life-work was bound up.In these pages the attempt is made to sketch briefly the life, character and work of the Martyr of Bohemia, as these appear to be related to the significant ideas and tendencies of his day. I have endeavoured to write with historical accuracy, yet without suppressing judgment of the facts presented concerning the careers and proceedings of the characters and councils that are passed in review. In working out the narrative on this plan, I have con sulted all the best known authorities on the subject as well as various volumes dealing with conditions and events connected with the subject. Most useful among the authorities studied have been the following : " Ge- schichte von Bohmen," F. Palacky ; " The Life and Times of John Hus," E. H. Gillett; "The Life and Times of Master John Hus," Count Liitzow ; " Bohemia," Count Liitzow ; "The Letters of John Hus," Herbert B. Work man and A. Martin Pope; " Heroes of Bohemia," John W. Mears; "History of the Unitas Fratrum," Edmund de Schweinitz ; " A History of the Moravian Church," J. E. Hutton.
[emphasis mine]
It is certainly written from a Moravian point of view, but I consider it valuable for its wealth of historical detail.
Cordially,
So you're basing your assessment on what someone else has stated that Fudge stated? I have found that to be a very dangerous practice. I've looked on the Internet but have not found very much on Fudge, his doctrinal beliefs, or what he thinks of Hus. His books are very expensive and right now I have over 40 books on my shelf that I'm trying to read through.
In Diamond's article it states the following:
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself (Predestination-Our will is cleansed to follow Christ through the Holy Spirit).
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith.
2) Do you confess that your will had nothing to do with coming to God and that it was only the will of the Holy Spirit?
3) Do you believe that it is God's Spirit that keeps you in His care?
4) Do you believe that others come to Christ through their free will?
All I hear is what Fudge has SUPPOSEDLY stated. I'm trying to find information on what he ACTUALLY stated.
Using reviews who have not read the book is no different than reading posters' writings who have not read the book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199988080?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_3&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER Here are two blurbs about the book:
Can you presently specifically name one of Hus's heresies?
Cordially,
This does not sound like the objective trial nor does Hus sound like a heretic.
I haven’t gotten my hands on Fudge’s book, but there are plenty of REAL, academic reviewers on the internet.
“Can you presently specifically name one of Hus’s heresies?”
“41. Noel Alexander enumerates the errors of Huss under thirty heads (3). We will only take a succinct view of the most important ones. The Church, he said, was composed of the predestined alone (Art. 1, 3, 5, 6); and the two natures, the Divinity and the humanity, are one Christ (Art. 4). Peter neither was nor is the head of the Catholic Church (Art. 7, 10, 11); and civil and ecclesiastical lords, as prelates and bishops, are no longer so while in mortal sin (Art. 30); and he says the same of the Pope (Art. 20, 22, 24, 26). The Papal dignity is derived from the power of the Emperor (Art. 9); and ecclesiastical obedience is an invention of the priests (Art. 15). Everything the wicked man does is wicked, and everything the virtuous man does is virtuous (Art. 16). Good priests ought to preach, though they be excommunicated (A rt. 17, 18); and in Art. 19, he reprobates ecclesiastical censures. It was an act of iniquity to condemn the forty-five articles of Wickliff’e (Art. 25). There is no necessity of a head to rule the Church, for the apostles and other priests governed it very well before the office of Pope was introduced (Art. 27, 28, 29). These are, in substance, the errors of John Huss. Van Ranst (p. 275) remarks, that it appears from his own works, that he always held the belief of the Real Presence, and when, in the fifteenth Session of the Council, he was accused of teaching that, after the consecration, the substance of bread remained in the Eucharist, he denied that he ever either taught or believed so. He also admitted sacramental confession, with its three parts, as we do—Extreme Unction, and all the other sacraments—prayers for the dead—the invocation and intercession of saints. How unjustly, then, says the same author, do the Lutherans and Calvinists condemn in the Church of Rome these dogmas held by Huss himself, whom they venerate as a witness of the truth, and through whom they boast that they have derived the original succession of their churches!”
The History of Heresies, and their Refutation by Alphonsus Liguori, Translated by Dr. Mullock, 1857. 251-252.
Are you able to do any research for yourself?
Your problem is that you have a straw man of the Catholic Church, and whenever the real theology of the Catholic Church fails to match the straw man, you invent in your own mind other reasons why the Catholic Church must oppose some true point of theology.
None of the Canons of Orange have anything to do with what Hus was charged with. Yet you somehow imagine they must.
The canons you list are all corollaries to the doctrine of Sola Gratis. The Catholic Church holds this doctrine absolutely. In fact, the reason that they opposed Luther’s Sola Fide is because Luther claimed that works were futile, whereas the Catholic Church argues that GENUINE works were necessarily the product of grace.
So to answer your questions:
1) Yes. Absolutely.
2) Not exactly. My will DID have something to do with it. But even my will to be cleansed comes to me through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit. Thus canon 4 is more than merely “predestination” (a doctrine Catholicism concurs with), but is actually “prevening grace,” (a doctrine at odds with many Calvinists.) I think part of the difficulty between Calvinists and Catholics is that Calvinists suppose grace must be the working of a supernatural miracle, whereas Catholics see it at work in mundane things. Suppose a man is frequently exposed to Christian assertions and testimonies, but continually rejects them until one day he is “saved.” Catholics see the faith of those who made the assertions and testimonies as being a product of grace, and so say he received “prevening” grace which indirectly made his conversion possible when he received “salvific” grace. Calvinists see them all as having failed, and so recognize only the salvific grace as being grace at all.
3) Yes. Absolutely.
4) That depends on your definition of free will. Catholics interpret “free will” as a will that, having been purified by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and through that grace having received faith in Christ, also receives the grace of willing to serve Christ. This is as opposed to being enslaved to sin through the Fall of Adam. So no, I reject the notion that one can to salvation in Christ by their own, impaired will, and I reject the notion that absent Faith and the Counsel of the Holy Spirit, one can choose through free will to follow Christ (see Canon 8). However, even my will is perfected in Christ, so that when it is completely perfected, I shall desire nothing apart from what Christ seeks to grant to me (see Canon 3).
I had already posted in #68 all 30 of Hus’ heresies in the (translated) original text. I can’t imagine any good purpose in trying to get you to do the research again.
"I've found a place on Goggle books where you can review at least some of the pages on The Trial of Jan Hus. There is nothing in this section that would support your claim that Hus was a heretic."
I feel sorry for you. I really do. It isn't my claim. Thomas Fudge - and many other historians - attest to the fact that Huss was a heretic. It seems that you are personally upset about this. You're going to have to get used to reality. There's nothing you, I, or anyone else can do about it.
As a Protestant you can't even believe in orthodox Christianity so what do you care if Huss was a heretic? There was a French scholar who 300 years ago showed that Huss was very orthodox on some things - such as veneration of the saints - so wouldn't you AS A PROTESTANT consider him a heretic for that? Do you venerate the saints?
No matter how you look at it Huss is a heretic to everyone for something. Don't you guys ever think this stuff through? If you're a Presbyterian, you MUST believe Luther is a heretic because he believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - which no Presbyterian would ever believe in. If you're a Lutheran, you MUST believe Calvin and Knox were heretics because they denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And on it goes. Do you not realize this? Seriously, has that never occurred to you before?
"On the contary, the book states that Hus was refused the opportunity to debate his points, his supporters were threaten, Hus was denied justice for wanting his accusers punished for bringing false accusations against him, and Hus claimed the legal case against him was "a sack of lies", etc. The verdict which was handed down without papal input was illegal. This does not sound like the objective trial nor does Hus sound like a heretic."
Sorry, you're wrong - he was a heretic. There's no doubt that Huss' trial was problematic to say the least. No trial should have been held at the council at all most likely. But - again - procedure was followed. This has been known for years. This was already shown by the Czech scholar Jiří Kejř 15 years ago in his book Husův proces. I already mentioned this fact.
You seem to be unduly upset about Thomas Fudge's book. I suggest you either buy and refute it (which isn't possible anyway) or simply read it and come to grips with reality. If it bothers you as much as it seems to, then maybe it should come before those 40 other books on your shelf that you mentioned.
Well, he might not have seen it. I saw that you posted it, but completely forgot! Thanks for posting the list! :)
"The Trial" was actually an ecumenical council gathering explicitly to resolve the theological disagreements and misunderstandings between Rome and the East and to heal the Great Western Schism. In the end, the reigning Pope agreed to step down for the cause of unity, Rome recognized the validity of Eastern praxis and affirmed the efficacy of Eastern sacraments, and the East recognized the orthodoxy of Western theology.
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.
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 30 charges of heresy, only the final one supported the charge of sedition, which was what cost him his life. But the Church only needed one of the 30 heresy charges to stick to hand him over to the State.
Knowing that the 30th charge would mean his neck, its regrettable that the Church failed to show mercy, and instead forced the issue to the State. The Catholic Church has chosen to emphasize this issue in issuing its apologies. Even back then, it charged him with NONE of the heresies he had stated in support of Eastern Christianity, even though he assented to none of the theological positions that the Churches had arrived at in reconciliation.
But you want it both ways: Either Hus was innocent, and therefore a faithful Catholic who was wrongly accused of sedition, and in no way represented a Protestant notion of "the True Church" in pre-Reformation times or he was, in fact, guilty of heresy, and the Church was legitimate (although peraps imprudent) in allowing him to face charges by the State.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.