Posted on 11/30/2005 5:58:13 AM PST by HarleyD
I want to speak to you this morning about the Goose that became a swan. But before I do I want to put your mind at ease. I am not going to tell you a fairy tale or a fable or a parable or anything like that.
No, I am going to tell you a true story…or at least a story that is mostly true. But doing that, I am also going to tell you a sad story…or at least a story that’s partly sad.
Still… it’s a great story.
It’s a story about a man whose name was “Goose.” Honestly, that was really his name. He often referred to himself in his notes and letters to his friends as “the Goose.” Now this man, was a man that thousands of people came to despise….he became a man whose name was rarely spoken out loud in mixed company…a man whose name was most often spoken in whispers, in the darkness of shadows. His name came to represent all things evil, all things forbidden, all things black and foul.
Now the way the story goes is that this man, this man named “Goose” was eventually arrested, imprisoned, tortured and killed because of faith and his ideas and, in a very real sense, simply because he would not shut up. But his story is complicated. He lived in complicated times. Still I don’t want to excuse the way he was treated or to make his story other than what it was. His arrest was the cunning and foul work of cunning and foul men. His arrest was marked by unbelievable treachery and deceit. It was a reprehensible act.
Now, that part of his story is true and it’s not just true; it is undeniably and unquestionably true, and it is something that even his enemies admitted and bragged about. The men, who arrested him, some of them quite famous and powerful, broke their written and public promise of safe passage in order to get their hands on him and when they did they turned on him like wild dogs, like vicious wolves and tore him to pieces.
But they weren’t content just to kill him. That is what makes his story so remarkable.
They weren’t content just to burn his body and dump his ashes into the Rhine River. No, they wanted to destroy the very thought of him. They wanted to destroy his reputation. They wanted to destroy people’s memory of him. They wanted to destroy whatever impact he had made on his followers. They wanted to destroy the very idea of him. So they tortured him and mistreated him and misrepresented him. They did their best to turn his memory into something monstrous. They slandered him and told terrible lies about him even after they had already killed him and for a while it looked as if their efforts were going to be mostly successful. For a while, as a result of their slanders and vilification…men and women…men and women that knew him and knew better…came to speak of him as something of a medieval boogeyman. Men and women and boys and girls came to be fearful to whisper his name on dark and rainy nights. Moms and dads frightened their disobedient children with his name. They even warned their children that if they persisted in their disobedience the same fate awaited them that overtook the goose.
Anyway, the powerful men that hated him…burned his books. They burned his friends. They even burned him.
But geese are noisy birds. They are almost impossible to herd. They are obstinate and untamable. They’re hard to cook.
At least, that’s the way it was with this particular goose.
Over time his enemies learned that they simply could not make his incessant cackling go away. They learned that his voice, his singing still echoed in the hills and countryside surrounding the city of Prague. They learned that his voice and his preaching still echoed in his beloved Bethlehem Chapel and in the corridors of the University of Prague. They were yet to learn that his martyrdom, stemming from his shameful, deceitful, senseless murder, would turn into a dreadful, festering wound…would take two hundred years to heal and would eventually lead to a terrible war and to a deep and abiding hatred between the Czechs and the Germans that still exists somewhat even to this day. They were yet to learn that his murder would galvanize three generations of Czechs to hate and loath the Germans and three generations of Germans to hate and loath the Czechs.
Still that is what happened but that is not all that happened.
It is perhaps one of the great ironies of providence that a hundred years after his death, the Goose’s name came to be associated most closely with a German…a particular German.
Now it is strange that that would happen.
It is strange because at the time the Germans and the Czechs hated each other. It is stranger still because the German that came to be associated with the Goose was not even born until 68 years after the Goose had been murdered. In fact, the German that came to be associated with the Goose was an obscure monk, in an obscure German town, in an obscure part of rural Germany a full hundred and two years after the Goose’s death until he nailed a piece of paper to a church door to complain about indulgences and then people began to make the connection almost immediately, “He’s just like the Goose.”
The German’s name was Martin Luther.
The Goose’s name was John Huss.
You see in the Czech language Huss means “goose”.
Now because of that association…that is, because of his association with Martin Luther…John Huss wound up becoming one of the principle characters…one of the principal heroes of the Protestant Reformation and that is true even though he had been dead a hundred years when Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses on the door at Wittenberg.
Now because of that many scholars scoff at the account I am about to read to you. You remember that I said earlier that most of John Huss’ story was true. Well the part I am about to read to you is the part about which there is some doubt. You see many scholars doubt that John Huss ever said the words I am about to read to you. It’s not that they don’t want them to be true. It’s just that they do not see how they could be true. That is, they do not see how this man, this man named “Goose” could have said what he was supposed to have said at his martyrdom.
Are you interested? Alright then here is the disputed part…as far as I know the only disputed part of John Huss’ story.
I am reading now from the letter of Poggius Florentini to his friend Leonhard Nikolai. Poggius, was a Roman Catholic priest and an observer at Huss’ martyrdom. He came to be known in history as Poggius the Papist. He was an official church observer and not a friend or admirer of Huss at all prior to his trial. Anyway, in his letter, Poggius describes the scene where they were Huss was being taken to the stake to be burned alive. This is what he says: Then Hus sang in verse, with an elated voice, like the psalmist in the thirty-first psalm, reading from a paper in his hands:
With such Christian prayers, Hus arrived at the stake, looking at it without fear. He climbed upon it, after two assistants of the hangman had torn his clothes from him and had clad him into a shirt drenched with pitch. At that moment, one of the electors, Prince Ludwig of the Palatinate, rode up and pleaded with Hus to recant, so that he might be spared a death in the flames. But Hus replied: “Today you will roast a lean goose, but hundred years from now you will hear a swan sing, whom you will leave unroasted and no trap or net will catch him for you.” Full of pity and filled with much admiration, the Prince turned away.1
Now that same story…that exact same story is repeated in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.
When the chain was put about him at the stake, he said, with a smiling countenance, “My Lord Jesus Christ was bound with a harder chain than this for my sake, and why then should I be ashamed of this rusty one?” When the fagots were piled up to his very neck, the duke of Bavaria was so officious as to desire him to abjure. “No, (said Huss;) I never preached any doctrine of an evil tendency; and what I taught with my lips I now seal with my blood.” He then said to the executioner, “You are now going to burn a goose, (Huss signifying goose in the Bohemian language:) but in a century you will have a swan which you can neither roast nor boil.” If he were prophetic, he must have meant Martin Luther, who shone about a hundred years after…2
Now you can see there are two variants.
Poggius has Huss say what he says to a prince. Foxe has Huss say what he says to an executioner. It’s hard to know whether one of the two is true or whether either one is true but I am not too concerned about that…we have an official transcript of his trial and even his death…so we know the basic facts and the basic story.
What I want to talk about this morning is why anyone saw a connection between Huss and Luther and why Foxe thought this cryptic phrase, “but in a century you will have a swan which you can neither roast nor boil” might possibly have been applied to Martin Luther.
The first reason and really the simplest is that Luther’s Coat of Arms bore the image of a swan. That is, Luther’s family crest bore the image of a swan. So in that time and culture the common people would have picked up on the idea of a goose and a swan. In much the same way that people in our day and time use the letter “W” to refer to a specific person.
The second they connected them is that both men got into trouble over the issue of indulgences. Now we talked at length last week about indulgences, what they were and why they were vile. Both men got into trouble over indulgences. The third is that both men attracted the popular sentiment of the masses. Both men spoke out against what everyone already knew to be wicked and sinful. It is just that both men were brave…or obstinate depending upon your point of view. In fact, Luther’s enemies noted the similarities and often charged him with being a Hussite, a follower of Huss. They sometimes called Luther the Saxon Huss. No one is exactly sure of the year John Huss was born. It was probably between 1369 and 1371. It is remarkable to me but not even Huss was never sure how old he was. He was born in the little town of Hussinetz, whose name meant something like “Gooseville” and from which he later took his name. His parents were very poor and Huss’ father died at an early age. Huss first started school when he was thirteen. He loved learning and learned quickly and soon decided on a life of ministry not because he was particularly religious but rather because it was a vocation open to someone that poor like he was and because it was vocation in which he could continue to study and learn.
Eventually Huss was ordained as a priest by the Roman Catholic Church. He both taught and the University of Prague and preached at Bethlehem Chapel on Sundays. The church where Huss preached, Bethelehem Chapel, was unusual in that it required its minister to preach in the naïve language of the people. So Huss preached to the people of Bethlehem Chapel in Czech. That was unusual because in that day almost all services were in Latin.
Early on, Huss came under the influence of the English Reformer John Wycliffe. At first that was true because Wycliffe was an able philosopher. Wycliffe was a professor at Oxford University in England and both a philosopher as well as a wonderful theologian. Because Huss taught philosophy he enjoyed reading Wycliffe’s books and reading Wycliffe he also picked up some of Wycliffe’s theology. Anyway the Holy Roman Emperor’s sister married the King of England, Richard II and one of the results was that a great many students traveled to England to study at Oxford and when they did they came under the influence of Wycliffe. Huss too was impacted by Wycliffe’s radical ideas and later read and incorporated into his teaching many of Wycliffe’s ideas.
Some of Huss’s most radical ideas were:
…that the church was made up of all the predestined believers of all ages. During the time of Wycliffe and Huss the official position of the church was that the true church consisted of the Pope and the cardinals his bishops and priests and that common lay people were not real members but only communed with the church as they received communion, which was limited to bread.
…that the authority of the Bible was higher than the authority of the church. That was a radical idea in his day and it was an idea derived from Wycliffe. This particular point is principally what got him killed and it is interesting that his words regarding the authority of Scripture were later to be repeated almost word for word by Luther.
…that Jesus Christ Himself was the head of the church and that reprehensible lives disqualified men from their positions of authority in ministry. He believed that Jesus was the head of the church and that reprobate leaders were disqualified from leading the church.
Now all those things seem so simple to us but in Huss’ day they were radical ideas and fearful ideas to monarchs and religious leaders alike. Early on Huss found himself being accused of being a follower of Wycliffe and you know what, he was. He had several volumes of Wycliffe which he copied with his own hand. Now originally there was so much political and ecclesiastical turmoil in the empire that Huss managed not only to survive but to prosper. He was a popular preacher in Prague, principally because he preached in the language of the people. He was a popular preacher and a respected seminary professor. Still, he was considered something of a radical and his radicalism was see both in the fact that taught the views held by Wycliffe and because he administered both the bread and the cup to his parishioners. Probably he survived as long as he did because he was such a popular preacher.
Now to understand why John Huss was burned at the stake, it is important to understand something of the religious conflict of his day.
The first thing that you need to understand is that in Huss’ day there was more than one pope. Do you find that surprising?
If you look instance at this map you can see that there are principally two different colors dividing up western Europe. The lighter cream color represents those areas under the domain of the King of France and the golden color represents the domain of the Holy Romans Empire. You can see that not even Italy was exempt from division.
Now let me take just a moment or two to explain how that came to be. Now what happened originally is that in 1305 the King of France forced a number of bishops to appoint a pope. When they did the King changed the pope’s residence to Avignon in France. That meant that over a period of the next seventy years or so, the papacy moved from Rome to Avignon. How that happened and why it was permitted are important but that is not our subject this morning. What is important is that the King of France for all practical purposes hijacked the papacy and kept it under his dominion in Avignon. This period became known to the Italians, who had lost their pope, as the Babylonian Captivity of the Church…presumably because like the Babylonian Captivity of Israel it lasted for about 70 years.
Luther, as some of you already know, later wrote a book called the Babylonian Captivity of the Church…but his book was about the sacraments and not about Avignon. Still the people of his day would have had this particular event in mind.
French Popes Ruling from Avignon-Starting in 1305 seven Popes ruled from Avignon
Now here is the list but for our discussion this morning their names are not very important. The one that is important is Gregory XI. Here’s why. Over the seventy years or so of the Babylonian Captivity seven popes ruled from Avignon. Finally one of the popes Gregory XI decided to return to Rome. The Italians were ecstatic. Rome had fallen on terrible times without the Pope there to protect there to guide the city and to draw pilgrims. Still Gregory did not intend to stay. He enjoyed the climate of southern France much more than the climate of southern Italy. He intended to return to Avignon. But before he could, he died. Now the cardinals that attended the Pope were almost all French and their intention was to leave Italy and to return to Avignon. But when the Italians found out Gregory had died and that the cardinals were about to return to France they were filled with rage. They stormed the Vatican. Let me let David Schaaf describe the scene.
The French cardinals were unable to agree upon a candidate from their own number. But the Italian mob outside the Vatican influenced them. A scene of wild and unrestrained turbulence prevailed in the square of St. Peter’s. The crowd pressed its way into the very spaces of the Vatican, and with difficulty a clearing was made for the entrance of all the cardinals. To prevent the exit of the cardinals, the captains of the thirteen districts into which Rome was divided, had taken possession of the city and closed the gates. The mob, determined to keep the papacy on the Tiber River, filled the air with angry shouts and threats, “We will have a Roman for pope or at least an Italian.” On the first night soldiers clashed their spears in the room underneath the chamber where the conclave was met, and even thrust them through the ceiling. A fire of combustibles was lighted under the window. The next morning as their excellencies were praying the mass of the Holy Spirit and engaged in other devotions, the noises became louder and more menacing. One cardinal, “better elect the devil than die” here in Rome.3
So they appointed an Italian as Pope.
His name was Urban the VI.
Now after his appointment and installation, the French cardinals escaped the city and returned to Avignon. They resented, as you might suspect, having been forced to appoint a pope. They also resented the thought, perhaps even more, that the papacy was going to return to Italy. So that same group of cardinals decided to elect another pope who was in their mind the real pope. His name was Clement VII.
French Popes Ruling from Avignon
Italian Popes Ruling from Rome
Now over the next thirty years or so, the church endured two popes…one in Rome and one in Avignon and they fought it out both trying to gain the upper hand. Now if you ever want to read a really interesting portion of church history this is a good place to start. The two popes threatened each other and even anathematized each other…they excommunicated and anathematized whole regions and whole countries trying to gain support and control…still neither one was able to gain the upper hand.
Finally, around the 1409…just about the time Huss came on the scene the political leaders, that is the Holy Roman Empire and the French King, decided to put an end to the conflict and appoint a conciliar commission to depose the other two popes and to select a third pope agreeable to everyone. The only problem was that when they elected their new conciliar pope, Alexander V, neither one of the other two men was willing to step down. The result, of course, was that there were no longer two popes. Instead, there were now three.
French Popes Ruling from Avignon
Italian Popes Ruling from Rome
Conciliatory Popes
To make matters worse, Alexander V did not live very long and when he died he was replaced by a vile human toad named Baldasarre Cossa, John XXIII. John XXIII was, however, a man of action. He had been a famous soldier, probably I ought to say infamous soldier, and when he was elected pope he took Rome by force and caused Gregory XII to flee for his life.
However, the King of Naples hated John XXIII and when he discovered that he had taken Rome by force, he marched up to Rome and forced John XXIII to flee. When that happened John XXIII was infuriated and he began to raise money to put together a massive army to take Rome back. But he didn’t have any money. Now I want you to guess how he intended to raise the money to pay for the army to drive the King of Naples out of Rome.
He intended to raise the money by selling indulgences. Now you can see, I think, how Huss and Luther became connected. And when John Huss caught wind of that he went crazy. He began to preach against indulgences. He began to preach against the sinful folly of men like John XXIII. He began to preach that the church was not made up of the Pope and his cardinals, obviously if it were then there were at least three separate churches, but was made up of the elect of all the ages. Now when that happened Huss became the mortal enemy of all three popes. Huss fell under the ire of the Holy Roman Emperor, and at least two of the three popes. He was excommunicated but he would not stop preaching. Finally, the City of Prague was placed under an interdict, which meant that all the people of the City were excommunicated and were going to die in their sins unless they expelled Huss. That meant that if a person died while the city was an interdict they went to hell. A person could not be married. No Priests could be ordained. No person could receive communion. When a city was placed under an interdict, the people became so spiritually discouraged that they often forced their leaders to comply with the wish of the pope. Anyway, to spare the city Huss left the city and went into exile. Still, he would not shut up and plans were hatched to lure him to a Council and deal wit him once and for all.
Now you might think it strange that Huss became the focus of anger of both the pope and the Holy Roman Emperor…you might think it strange that he became the focus of so much anger and hatred. But the problem for them was that Huss had the hearts of the people and to let him go…to let him have his head they knew was a danger that could lead to the revolt of the everyday citizens. So they lured him to a town of Constance under the promise of resolving their conflict. They offered him safe conduct to and from the city. Now the point is terribly important because 120 years later they were going to offer safe conduct to Luther as well. Only Luther knew the story of Huss and knew that such men could not be trusted. When Huss arrived in Constance they promptly put him in chains and put him in prison and they did that in violation of their promise to give him safe conduct. They began the process of putting him to death.
Finally they decided to kill him. On July 6, 1415 they stripped him of his priestly office and placed a large paper cone or dunce hat on his head. The hat contained the image of dancing devils and bore the word “Chief of the Heretics”. John Huss was paraded through the city in chains wearing this ridiculous dunce cap with devil on it and still he carried himself in a noble and manly way, head up…shoulders back with an air of dignity and refinement. He had been in prison for almost six months at the time…he had almost died several times from disease and exposure and hunger. He was terribly gaunt and pale and emaciated yet he possessed extraordinary courage and bearing as he marched to the place where he was to be burned alive.
I though I might just read you an account of his execution. This is from John Hus by Matthew Spinka. I think Spinka is a Czech and it seems to me that he holds Huss and Huss’ memory in deep reverence. I think you feel Spinka’s pride in writing of his countryman.
When the sad procession, accompanied by “almost all the inhabitants of that city,” was passing the cemetery, where his books which could be found in Constance were being burned, Huss smiled. On the way he exhorted the crowd not to believe that he was guilty of heresy. When they reached the place of execution, he knelt and prayed that God might have mercy on him. The crowd of onlookers was impressed and uttered their amazement at his prayer. Some thought that he should be allowed to confess his sins but the officials disagreed, noting it was not appropriate for a heretic.
While he was praying, the paper crown fell from his head. Some soldiers exclaimed: “Put it on him again, so that he might be burned with the devils, his masters.“ Huss then rose and said clearly that lie was willing to bear most patiently and humbly the dreadful death. They disrobed him down to his shirt and tied him, with his hands behind his back, to the stake. He faced east…but some bystanders objected because facing east was only permitted to those hoping in the resurrection. They untied him, turned him around and made him face west. Then bound by the neck to the stake with a rusty chain, he commented with a smile that his Savior had been bound by a heavier chain. Thereupon, the executioners placed wood interspersed with straw all the way up to his chin.
Before the order to apply the torch was given, the imperial marshal and Duke Louis approached and once more exhorted Huss to recant to save his life; but even in this supreme moment of decision, Huss remained firm. Thereupon the two men clapped their hands as a signal to the executioner to proceed with his grim task.
When the fire was lit, Huss began to sing: “Christ, Thou Son of the living God, have mercy on us” ; and then “Christ, Thou son of the living God, have mercy on me.’’ In the third place he prayed, “Thou, Who art born of Mary the Virgin” but he did not finish it, for the wind blew the flame into his face and snuffed out his voice. He continued to pray silently, until he died a short time later, “about the time one could quickly recite Our Father’ two or three times.’’
When the pyre died down and the ropes were burned, the remains of the body stood erect, hanging by the chain placed at his neck. The executioners pulled down the body with the stake and adding more wood, burned it, breaking the bones and the skull that they might be incinerated even faster. When they found the heart, they impaled it on a sharpened stick so they could burn it separately. The clothing also was thrown into the fire at the order of the marshal, who remarked that otherwise the Czechs might venerate it as a relic. He promised the executioners, who otherwise would have divided the garments among themselves, to pay them for what they worth...only to burn them. Finally, loading the ashes into carts, the executioners dumped them into the Rhine. The faithful Czechs did not need any relics; they carried the memory of their great champion of truth in their hearts. They still do.4
John Huss died because he resisted the selling of indulgences. A hundred and two years later when Luther nailed the Ninety Five Theses on the door at Wittenberg, the immediate charge was that he was a Hussite. They said, “He’s just like John Huss!” And the expectation was what had happened to Huss would also happen to Luther but we’ll talk about that more next week. I do want to read one other thing to you though this morning. It was something written by Luther himself, something that I found in my private reading of Luther…something I never realized he said, until just a couple of months ago.
This is from Luther’s Commentary on the Imperial Edict. It was written in 1531. I love this. Luther writes:
That’s the story. The story of how a goose turned into a swan. It’s a great story. It’s our story as people of the Reformation.
Let’s pray.
Wasn't my question. Just my reply.
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.
So sorry, I am trying to keep up with too many threads. Please forgive me.
It does get that way at times!
Jan HusCath. Encycl.(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.)
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.
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.
Maybe that caution expressed by St. Peter should apply to those who ignorantly attempt to apply history, as well.
???
Okay. Beyond asserting that I'm "thinking with a modern mind," can you provide any proof for this assertion?
"...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
The history of Wycliff is for tomorrow....
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.
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.
600 years ago the State and the Church throughout Europe was virtually synonymous.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
If it is not worth the time, why all the squawking?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.