Replies

>> When Teddy Kennedy, Daschle, Gephardt, and the rest of the Democraps begin spouting the exact same "talking points" it is a reasonable assumption they are working together. No?

So because Wenceslas agreed with the Chuch, he must've been ordered to act by the church?

First, that statement is invalid. My housemate's girlfriend spouts the same talking points as the Dem leaders, but if she tells me that the judges will be approved if I let her sleep over, I'm not going to believe her.

Second, it's built on flase presumptions. Wenceslas was all but condemned as a heretic. He was probably saved from that because of the political situation. For all I know, he could have handed Hus over to save his own hide. So he's not using the same talking points... His talking points were Hus'!

>>The Church then turns the convicted person over to the civil authorities to perform the execution.

Yup!

>> "Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death." >>

Well, if this passage addressed what you were talking about, then what you're saying is that any damn idiot in Hus' place would know he was going to be killed if convicted.

But doesn't this hurt my first case about the Jesuits? Not in the slightest! Yes, they did risk death if they lost. Or, as in the case of Hus, even if they won. And it sounds harsh to suggest that the reformers should've risked death, but only when you realize the alternative they chose was war.

Understand, though, Aquinas does not write of people ignorant of Church teachings, nor of those who stand corrected of the Church teachings, nor of those who teach from outside the Church, but rather of those who represent their own teachings as the Church's!

Hus acknowledged the doctrine he was accused of spreading was wrong ("impanation", not receiving in two species), but denied the actions he was accused of. In this way, in the finding of the court, he was like the theives Aquinas wrote of: a liar who leads people into evil.

In fact, this now causes me to wonder about our dear prince. Did he knowingly deceive Hus, or was he mistaken? Did he wrongly presume the worst Hus would accept he was wrong, plead ignorance, and be censured?

I now think of a cop from an episode of Law and Order: Druggie shoots a lady, realizes what he's done, panics, and takes the lady's kid hostage. The cops talk him into releasing the kid, assuring him that given the circumstance, the worst he'd face is aggravated assault, 1-3 years. The lady, howver, had a few complicating health conditions and dies, so the shooter gets convicted of intentional manslaugher, instead. Was there any corruption? I ask that because now I really wonder if our dear prince expected the trial to be over simply whether Hus' teachings were heretical (in which case Hus *would*'ve gotten off if convicted), not expecting Hus would deny ever teaching them (in which case his heresies would be considered lies, and result in his death).

Well, if this passage addressed what you were talking about, then what you're saying is that any damn idiot in Hus' place would know he was going to be killed if convicted.

Understand, though, Aquinas does not write of people ignorant of Church teachings, nor of those who stand corrected of the Church teachings, nor of those who teach from outside the Church, but rather of those who represent their own teachings as the Church's!

Will you go on record as saying the execution of "heretics" was ever justified?

Do you disagree with John Paul II?

* The Vatican Information Service (VIS) reported that on Dec 17th, 1999, Pope John Paul II made the following apology regarding the burning at the stake of Hus, while speaking before an international symposium on Jan Hus held at the Vatican:

"Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on Jan Hus and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people."

I now think of a cop from an episode of Law and Order:

We are not speaking of fantasy land. The RCC was responsible for the torture and execution of so called "heretics". Do you justify it.

For the record, I don't believe this practice was ever justified whether by Protestants or Catholics, so it isn't necessary for you to throw the "look what the **** did" dirt.