The History of the Reformation…The Goose That Became a Swan…John Huss

Arlington Presbyterian Church ^ | November 7, 2004 | Tom Browning

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Wasn't my question. Just my reply.

[Between the Lines]

In any case, that is not what the original citation claimed, which was that the official teaching of the Church at the time was that lay people were not members.

You are thinking with a modern mind. That the laity could be members of the church was a totally alien idea to the Medieval mind.

Unlike today the Medieval mindset was one of subjugation. Everyone was subjugate to someone, it was just matter of fact and accepted by all. Just as one who was subjugated to a king or nobleman was not part of the kingdom, but instead property of the kingdom, one who subjugated himself to the Church was not a member, but was instead subservient to the Church.

I do doubt that this was the "official teaching" of the Church being that it would not have to be taught, it just was. But again calling it an "official teaching" is just a modern mind trying to convey Medieval ideas with modern words.

[Between the Lines]

So sorry, I am trying to keep up with too many threads. Please forgive me.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

It does get that way at times!

[markomalley]

---

Jan Hus

(Also spelled John).

Born at Husinetz in Southern Bohemia, 1369; died at Constance 6 July, 1415.

At an early age he went to Prague where he supported himself by singing and serving in the churches. His conduct was exemplary and his devotion to study remarkable. In 1393 he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts from the University of Prague and in 1396 the master's degree. He was ordained a priest in 1400 and became rector of the university 1402-03. About the same time he was appointed preacher in the newly erected Bethlehem chapel. Hus was a strong partisan on the side of the Czechs, and hence of the Realists, and he was greatly influenced by the writings of Wyclif. Though forty five propositions of the latter were proscribed in 1403 by ecclesiastical authority, Hus translated Wyclif's "Trialogus" into Czech and helped to circulate it. From the pulpit he inveighed against the morals of clergy, episcopate, and papacy, thus taking an active part in the movement for reform. Archbishop Zbynek (Sbinco), however was not only lenient with Hus, but favoured him with an appointment as preacher to the biennial synod. On the other hand Innocent VII directed the archbishop (24 June, 1405) to take measures against the heretical teachings of Wyclif, especially the doctrine of impanation in the Eucharist. The archbishop complied by issuing a synodal decree against these errors -- at the same time he forbade any further attacks on the clergy. In the following year (1406) a document bearing the seal of the University of Oxford and eulogizing Wyclif was brought by two Bohemian students to Prague; Hus read it in triumph from the pulpit. In 1408 Sbinco received a letter from Gregory XII stating that the Holy See had been informed of the spread of the Wycliffite heresy and especially of King Wenceslaus's sympathy with the sectaries. This stirred up the king to measures of prosecution and aroused the university to clear itself of the suspicion of heresy. At the June synod it was ordered that all writings of Wyclif should be handed over to the archdiocesan chancery for correction. Hus obeyed the order, declaring that he condemned whatever errors these writings contained.

About the same time a new conflict broke out on national lines. The king agreed to the "neutrality" plan proposed by the secessionist cardinals at the Council of Pisa and endeavoured to have it recognized by the university. The Czechs fell in with his wishes but the three other "nations" refused. The king then decreed (18 January, 1409) that in the university congregations the Czechs should have three votes, and the other "nations" should have only one vote between them. In consequence the German masters and students in great numbers (5,000 to 20,000) left Prague and went to Leipzig, Erfurt, and other universities in the North. The king now forbade communication with Gregory XII and proceeded against those of the clergy who disregarded his prohibition. In consequence the archbishop placed Prague and the vicinity under interdict, a measure which cost many of the loyal clergy their position and property. Hus, who had become once more rector of the university, was called to account by the archbishop for his Wycliffite tendencies and was reported to Rome with the result that Alexander V, in a Bull of 20 December 1409, directed the archbishop to forbid any preaching except in cathedral, collegiate, parish, and cloister churches, and to see that Wyclif's writings were withdrawn from circulation. In accordance with the Bull the archbishop at the June synod of 1410, ordered Wyclif's writings to be burned and restricted preaching to the churches named above. Against these measures Hus declaimed from the pulpit and, with his sympathizers in the university, sent a protest to John XXIII. The archbishop, 16 July, 1410, excommunicated Hus and his adherents. Secure of the royal protection, Hus continued the agitation in favour of Wyclif, but at the end of August he was summoned to appear in person before the pope. He begged the pope to dispense with the personal visit and sent in his stead representatives to plead his case. In February 1411, sentence of excommunication was pronounced against him and published on 15 March in all the churches of Prague. This led to further difficulties between the king and the archbishop, in consequence of which the latter left Prague to take refuge with the Hungarian King Sigismund. But he died on the journey, 23 September.

Hus meanwhile openly defended Wyclif, and this position he maintained especially against John Stokes, a licentiate of Cambridge, who had come to Prague and declared that in England Wyclif was regarded as a heretic. With no less vehemence Hus attacked the Bulls (9 September and 2 December 1411) in which John XXIII proclaimed indulgences to all who would supply funds for the crusade against Ladislaus of Naples. Both Hus and Jerome of Prague aroused the university and the populace against the papal commission which had been sent to announce the indulgences, and its members in consequence were treated with every sort of indignity. The report of these doings led the Roman authorities to take more vigorous action. Not only was the former excommunication against Hus reiterated, but his residence was placed under interdict. Finally the pope ordered Hus to be imprisoned and the Bethlehem chapel destroyed. The order was not obeyed, but Hus towards the end of 1412 left Prague and took refuge at Austi in the south. Here he wrote his principal work, "De ecclesiâ". As the king took no steps to carry out the papal edict, Hus was back again at Prague by the end of April, 1414, and posted on the walls of the Bethlehem Chapel his treatise "De sex erroribus". Out of this and the "De ecclesiâ" Gerson extracted a number of propositions which he submitted to Archbishop Konrad von Vechta (formerly Bishop of Olmütz) with a warning against their heretical character. In November following the Council of Constance assembled, and Hus, urged by King Sigismund, decided to appear before that body and give an account of his doctrine. At Constance he was tried, condemned, and burnt at the stake, 6 July, 1415. The same fate befell Jerome of Prague 30 May, 1416. (For details see COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE.)

Cath. Encycl.

---

Thus by 1380 Wyclif had set himself in open opposition to the property and government of the Church, he had attacked the pope in most unmeasured terms, he had begun to treat the Bible as the chief and almost the only test of orthodoxy, and to lay more and more stress on preaching. Yet he would have protested against an accusation of heresy. Great freedom was allowed to speculation in the schools, and there was much uncertainty about clerical property. Even the exclusive use of Scripture as a standard of faith was comprehensible at a time when the allegiance of Christendom was being claimed by two popes. It must be added that Wyclif frequently inserted qualifying or explanatory clauses in his propositions, and that, in form at least, he would declare his readiness to submit his opinions to the judgment of the Church. It seems to have been a time of much uncertainty in matters of faith, and the Lollard movement in its earlier stages is remarkable for a readiness of recantation. Wyclif's heretical position became, however, much more pronounced when he denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation. His own position is not quite clear or consistent, but it seems to approach the Lutheran "consubstantiation", for he applied to the Blessed Eucharist his metaphysical principle that annihilation is impossible. To attack so fundamental a doctrine tended to define the position of Wyclif and his followers. Henceforth they tend to become a people apart. The friars, with whom the "reformer" had once been on friendly terms, became their chief enemies, and the State turned against them.

Wyclif entry in Cath. Encycl.

---

So it seems to me if this Hus character was allied with the heretic Wyclif, then excommunication would be the proper course of action for him...particularly considering the ample opportunities he was given to repent of his heresy.

However, there is one little minor point that you protestants never seem to get right. The Church does not execute people. The Church excommunicates people. The State executes people. There is a difference.

---

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

Maybe that caution expressed by St. Peter should apply to those who ignorantly attempt to apply history, as well.

[Campion]

You are thinking with a modern mind. That the laity could be members of the church was a totally alien idea to the Medieval mind.

???

Okay. Beyond asserting that I'm "thinking with a modern mind," can you provide any proof for this assertion?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thanks, Harley, for Reformation! Part Deux. 8~)

THE NECESSITY OF REFORMING THE CHURCH...

"...the restoration of the church is the work of God, and no more depends on the hopes and opinions of men, than the resurrection of the dead, or any other miracle of that description. Here, therefore, we are not to wait for facility of action, either from the will of men, or the temper of the times, but must rush forward through the midst of despair. It is the will of our Master that his gospel be preached. Let us obey his command, and follow whithersoever he calls. What the success will be it is not ours to inquire. Our only duty is to wish for what is best, and beseech it of the Lord in prayer; to strive with all zeal, solicitude, and diligence, to bring about the desired result, and, at the same time, to submit with patience to whatever that result may be." -- John Calvin

[HarleyD]

The history of Wycliff is for tomorrow....

[Between the Lines]

Okay. Beyond asserting that I'm "thinking with a modern mind," can you provide any proof for this assertion?

Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.
Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff.

Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis.
It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.

[HarleyD]

What is the purpose of bringing up this mess, ...What is sad is that the DEVIL is behind ANY movements of disunion and disunity among the Body.

I'm continuously reminded of how we look back to traditions-as long as they are the "right" traditions. We need to understand how these traditions were formed and if we are in sinc with scripture.

[HarleyD]

However, there is one little minor point that you protestants never seem to get right. The Church does not execute people. The Church excommunicates people. The State executes people. There is a difference.

600 years ago the State and the Church throughout Europe was virtually synonymous.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

This is utter and absolute nonsense. The sentence you highlight involves a halftruth that, in this context, becomes a total falsehood. But several earlier posters are right. This was not posted to seek truth, it was posted to inflame. It's not worth the time to explain exactly what the Church taught at the time about the nature of the hierarchy of the Church and of the laity. The article is a tissue of misrepresentations, half-truths and whole-falsehoods.

[Between the Lines]

However, there is one little minor point that you protestants never seem to get right. The Church does not execute people. The Church excommunicates people. The State executes people. There is a difference.

One of the heresies that both Wycliffe and Huss were excommunicated for was that of rejecting the "theory of two swords." The theory of two swords is best described in the Bull 'Unam Sanctam' by Pope Boniface VIII November 18, 1302:

In the power of the Church are "two swords," the spiritual and the temporal, to be used by and for the Church. The first is in the hand of priests; the second is in the hand of kings and knights, but is to be used at the direction and permission of the priest (ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis).

It is fitting that the temporal power be subject to the spiritual since the latter excels the former in dignity and nobility as spiritual things are superior to temporal things. The spiritual power can establish the temporal power and judge it if it is "not good". If the supreme spiritual power errs, it will be judged not by man but by God alone since the authority although given to men and exercised by them, is not human but divine. Unlike the Manichean heretics who argue for two original principles of power, there is only one.

So you see that even though the power to execute Huss was in the hand of kings and knights, it could only be used at "the direction and permission of the priest."

Just as the entire city of Prague was placed under an interdict just because one man lived there, so could the entire kingdom be placed under an interdict if the state did not abide by the Church's wishes. No state would dare execute a Priest even if he had been excommunicated without permission from the Church.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

You know, you know so little about medieval history it's embarrassing. Does subjugation make one not a member? You are confusing distinction and higher and lower levels, non-equality with non-membership.

Even worse, you know so little about reasoning it's frightening.

If being a subordinate means your are not a member, then no employee of a corporation is a member of the corporation, he's merely a subordinate (which means exactly the same thing as subjugation the way you are using it because subjects had rights and status, just a lower status than those who ruled). If being subordinate means not being a member, then no citizen of the United States who is not a government official is a member of the citizenry of the United States.

Your argument is absurd because nowhere has subordination and inequality ever failed to exist, hence by your reasoning, nowhere has membership for all ever existed.

Do you actually believe this stuff or do you make it up to get us going?

[Between the Lines]

It's not worth the time to explain ...

If it is not worth the time, why all the squawking?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

All this says is that the bishop of Rome has ultimate responsibility for the Church on earth, that he's chief pastor (pontifex). It specifies "necessitas salutis"--in matters pertaining to salvation, the pope has the last word. Which is just another way of saying what Catholics have always said about the office of Peter: for the sake of unity, there needs to be an authority to decide controverted issues; if someone deliberately rejects the Church's teaching (as ultimately governed by the pope on earth) he removes himself from the Church which is Christ's Mystical Body which is the means of salvation.

Now just a little question? If everyone who is subject to the pope is not a member of the church, on what basis does the pope claim authority to govern them? How can he be governing non-members? In the very principle of "subordination" and "subjection" lies the presupposition of membership.

Your whole notion is incoherent and self-contradictory.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Exasperation. The stuff you guys post is so false, incoherent, embarrassingly foolish that the possibility that any explanation could get through to you is remote. I have exchanged posts with HarleyD again and again and no matter what argument one makes, he and his fellow Reformed never respond to the counterargument. They always shift to another outrageous claim. That you would post such nonsense about subjugation meaning non-membership indicates you are incapable of even thinking about these matters clearly.

So there, are you satisfied? That's my explanation. I went ahead and gave you a brief argument as to why what you wrote cannot be accurate. If you actually read it and come back with an intelligent response I'll retract the "not worth the time" assertion. Surprise me, please.

[Between the Lines]

You know, you know so little about medieval history it's embarrassing.

I thought you were going to give me a history lesson, but you went off into subordination to corporations and modern governments.

Subordination is not the same thing as subjugation. In Medieval time when someone subjugated himself to a king or nobleman he literally became that man's property. The king was not his boss, but his owner.

It is no wonder why so few understand making Jesus their Lord. Jesus is not your boss, He owns you, you are His.

subjects had rights and status, just a lower status than those who ruled

The only rights or status a subject has is that which is granted him by his lord. Or if you will, granted him through the grace of his lord.

[annalex]

In Medieval time when someone subjugated himself to a king or nobleman he literally became that man's property

You describe serfdom, not vassaldom. Both were present in the Middle Ages, but vassaldom was its defining characteristic and serfdom -- a declining holdover from antiquity. Vassals retained well-defined rights and could themselves be suzerains for others.

Feudal society, then, was a society dominated by a vast network of mutual relationships based almost entirely on personal loyalty and service.

[...]

In the sixth and seventh centuries there involved the custom of individual freemen, who did not belong to any protecting group, to place themselves under the protection of a more powerful freeman. In this way stronger men were able to build up armies and become local political and judicial powers, and the lesser men were able to solve the problem of security and protection. Men who entrusted themselves to others were known as ingenui in obsequio, or "freemen in a contractual relation of dependence." Those who gave themselves to the king were called antrustiones. All men of this type came to be described collectively as vassals.

Feudalism and the Feudal Relationship

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Serfs were not property. This statement is so absurd. Serfs were personally unfree, that is they had to have their lord's permission to marry etc. and had to remain on the land to work it. But they owned property, had rights, could not be forced to marry any more than anyone else could. Serfs were not slaves and were not comparable to slaves in Greek or Roman antiquity and certainly nothing close to the chattel slavery of the modern era.