Posted on 12/06/2005 2:16:55 AM PST by HarleyD
It was a Wednesday.
It was a Wednesday, October 31, 1517. It was not really all that different from the thousands of other Wednesdays that had come before. It was fall, of course, and the air had cooled down and the leaves were putting on a wonderful show of color along the River Elbe on the hillside. It was nice time to be a German. It was a nice time to live in rural Germany.
That was how I started out our first lesson some eight weeks ago and this morning we are returning, at last, to that same autumn day, October 31, 1517 with which we began our study. We are also returning to that same old door and by that I mean, of course, the door to the castle church at Wittenberg…the door where Luther posted his 95 Theses on October 31, 1517. Of course, none of that ought to be surprising. That is the place people always point to when they talk about the start of the Reformation…and there is a sense in which you can understand that perfectly.
That is why, eight weeks ago, I felt compelled to start there myself.
Of course, rather than start there and go forward in time I chose to start there and go backwards. I did that because I wanted you to see that Luther’s 95 Theses were not something that just came out of the blue. I wanted you to see the connection between Luther and Huss and Wycliffe and the Lollards. Actually, Luther’s 95 Theses were not the beginning but rather the culmination of a whole series of events…a whole series of reforming protests and actions. There was and had been a steady drumbeat of protest and opposition to the practice of selling indulgences dating back at least to the time of Wycliffe and really even farther back that that. The Door at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517 was simply the place where everything came together. It was the place Luther, Huss, Wycliffe, the Lollards and the Renaissance converged. It was the place were there was enough nationalistic pride, enough freedom, enough education and enough ink and paper1 to put an end to the tyranny of the middle ages.2 And when I use that kind of language…tyranny, nationalistic pride, freedom, education, ink and paper…I am not talking politically…I am talking theologically. Wittenberg was the place where a whole number of events came together at once to launch a tremendous spiritual upheaval and you know, the thing that is surprising about all that is not so much that it happened…looking back through the historical development of opposition leading up to the Reformation you can actually see it coming. Still, the thing that is remarkable is that it happened in such an out of the way, obscure, little, backwater town. In that sense, Wittenberg was a little like Bethlehem. It was not the kind of place anyone would ever expect anything to happen that would impact the world. But it did…and what happened there still impacts the world today.
Now let me take a minute or two and refresh your memory concerning what we talked about when we first started our study together some eight weeks ago.
Martin Luther was a young professor of the Bible at the University of Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. On that particular day, he was thirty-three years old. He had only been at Wittenberg four or five years. He had been brought there by Staupitz, who was the prior of the monastery of the Augustinian Hermits and the head of theological studies at the university. He had been brought there to teach theology and the Bible. Luther had known Staupitz at Erfurt and Staupitz had been a wonderful encouragement to Luther in his battle with sin and despondency. But you mustn’t think that their relationship was all giving on the part of Staupitz with Luther doing all the taking. Staupitz recognized in Luther a wonderful sense of genius, ability and drive. He saw the way the people responded to Luther’s preaching and he saw how Luther’s students responded to his lectures. Staupitz, of course, admired Luther’s knowledge and grasp of the Bible. You will remember that I pointed out that Luther was the only monk Staupitz had ever met that had actually read the Bible prior to becoming a monk.
Anyway, by October 31, 1517 Luther had had the time to study and teach through the Psalms, Romans and Galatians. He had had his theological breakthrough in which he had discovered that the righteousness of God mentioned in Romans 1:17 was not just the righteousness that God demanded but also the righteousness that God provided to sinners by grace through their faith in the atoning work of Christ. The righteousness then that God demanded was the borrowed or imputed righteousness of Christ. We talked at length about all that last week and I don’t really want to go through it all over again.
What I want to do this morning is just flesh out for you the political and theological landscape of Germany and Italy on the morning of October 31, 1517.
The reason I want to do that is because I think if you understand how things were and how large the forces were that were at work, you’ll understand even more the miracle of God’s kindness in having an obscure Augustinian monk in the right place, thinking about the right things at the right time.
In Germany, things started when twenty-four year old Prince Albrecht of Brandenburg made a play to become the Archbishop of Mainz. In that day, Germany, part of France, Switzerland, Poland, Lithuania, and part of Bohemia, what we now know as Czechoslovakia, made up a political confederation known as the Holy Roman Empire. Now the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was elected by seven men…seven men were known as electors. Those seven electors were comprised of three ecclesiastical men and four provincial chieftains.3
The 4 provincial offices were:
Now, Albrecht faced three small obstacles. The first problem that he faced was that canon law did not permit a man to stack up offices. In other words, a man was not allowed to be the bishop of more than one see or diocese or area at a time and Albrecht was already the Bishop of Magdeburg and essentially the Bishop of Halberstadt.4 The second problem that he faced was that he was only twenty-four and was thus too young to be a bishop in the first place.5 The third problem he faced was that the Diocese of Mainz was bankrupt. You see whenever a new bishop was chosen the Diocese had to pay a large sum of money to the papacy and the Diocese of Mainz had had the misfortune of having three archbishops die in ten years. That meant that the Diocese had not had enough time to recover all the money it had paid to Rome.
But all of those problems were solvable and the man that could solve them was named Jacob Fugger…otherwise known as the kingmaker.6 Fugger, the head of the Fugger Bank, had been known to finance more than one rise to power in his lifetim and he already had a wonderful amicable relationship with the papacy. He agreed to finance the 29,000 gulden needed to secure Albrecht’s appointment to the Archbishopric at Mainz with the stipulation that he would be permitted to recoup his loan…and a small profit…through the selling of the St. Peter’s indulgence in Albrecht’s districts. After a short period of negotiation terms were agreed on. Jacob Fugger estimated the profit to be roughly 52,000 ducats and that profit was to be split between the Albrecht, the Fugger Bank and the papacy.7
Now, unless you are a lot different than I was, you’re probably struggling to wrap your mind around the terms “ducats” or “gulden.” The terms were for me almost completely meaningless so I tried this week to do some research and to make some calculations to try to put some of these things and terms in perspective. That is always a hard thing to do, five hundred years and the difference between their culture and ours make such calculations extremely hazardous…so keep that in mind.
That is a lot of money. It sounds almost like the Presidential election process in the United States…but I digress.
At that same time Albrecht was arranging his financial offer in Germany the issue of money was becoming very important to the new Pope in Italy, Pope Leo X.
Leo X, whose given name was Giovanni Medici, was the second son of Lorenzo de Medici. Leo succeeded the tumultuous Julius II as the Vicar of Rome on February 20, 1513. Now there were a lot of differences between Leo and his predecessor, Julius. One of those differences involved the way they perceived money.
Julius II had been a skinflint…that is, he was renowned for being a pennypinching, money grubbing old miser. I think something of his frugal nature comes across very plainly in the movie the Agony and Ecstasy starring Charlton Heston as Michelangelo and Rex Harrison as Julius II. If you have seen the movie you will remember that Julius forced Michelangelo to work on the Sistine Chapel in the harshest of conditions for almost no pay…and yes, both Michelangelo and the famous artist Raphael were contemporaries of Luther and would have been in Rome at the time of Luther’s visit there. Anyway, Julius was a penny pincher. But he was also a warrior pope. He was not above leading armed incursions to demand obedience, and that obedience almost always involved money, from the faithful.
Still, in spite of his military expeditions and in spite of his many artistic projects…the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, David and the laying the foundation of the new St. Peter’s Basilica, Julius managed his finances quite well and had actually garnered a sizeable surplus at the time of his death in February 1513.
Leo X blew through that surplus like a grass fire through the Texas Hill Country in August.
Leo was in every way different than Julius. First off, he was of the House of Medici. He was used to extravagance and finery. His father was one of the great art connoisseurs of the Renaissance. Leo was scholar, and artist and a bit of a dandy. In addition, to that he loved to hunt. In fact, Roland Bainton writes that one of the principal complaints lodged against him during the first years of his primacy was that adoring visitors coming to pay homage and to kiss his big toe often found his feet to be shod in muddy, pointy-toed hunting boots.9
Anyway, to illustrate something of Leo’s lack of restraint and reserve, Paul Thigpen writing in a 1992 edition of Christian History magazine points out that Leo X spent almost 100,000 ducats on his own coronation to the papacy…an amount that equaled almost one-seventh of the entire reserve set aside by Julius.10 If that were true, and my other calculations were right, that would have meant that Leo X would have spent some $16 million on his coronation…and that is a figure which is so high it causes me to doubt all my other calculations.
Still, Leo was Medici and he was frivolous with money. Thigpen goes on to add that within two years Leo X had squandered all the money Julius had saved and on that point there is no argument of any kind.
Anyway, when Prince Albrecht pitched his offer through the Fugger bank to Leo X, he found Leo pleasantly receptive. That is not surprising. Leo, it seems, had no intention of making any cutbacks or in restricting his appetites or in suffering during his tenure as pope in any way. He is famous for once having said, “God has granted us this Holy See (or office) and we shall enjoy it.” His eight year reign bears adequate testimony that he meant what he said.
Anyway, as I mentioned, Leo was receptive to Albrecht’s offer. Prince Albrecht, represented by the Fugger Bank was interested in attaining the Archbishopric of Mainz and was willing an able to pay a lot of money to get it. It was a match made in heaven or in hell depending upon your historical perspective.
Now as I said, the loan was financed by the selling of the St. Peter’s Indulgence. Half of the money was to go to Rome and half was to be split between the Fugger Bank and Prince Albrecht. Now the St. Peter’s Indulgence was designed originally to finance the building of a new St. Peter’s Basilica. Prior to the construction of the new St. Peter’s, the church worshipped in an old wooden building dating back to the days of Constantine some eleven hundred years before.11 But Julius II had determined to rebuild St. Peter’s. He had laid a foundation and had begun construction but was initially slowed by one war or another and finally stopped altogether by his death. Leo intended to take up where Julius had left off except that he intended to that on an even grander scale than what Julius had planned.
Now there is almost no way to calculate the cost of St. Peter’s. It is still the largest church in the world. It can hold a hundred thousand people if they are standing and sixty thousand if they are seated. It is an extraordinary building by any standard. The fact that it took over a hundred and twenty years to build and contains some of the most priceless artifacts in the world only adds to its extraordinary value. The Catholic Church says officially that it cost a $48 million dollars to build but when you consider that the new stadium in Arlington is going to cost $700 million it hardly seems likely that $48 million dollars can be right in terms of dollars adjusted to present day value. Oh, it is true that a great deal of the material used it its construction was salvaged from other and older sites in and around Rome but even that could not reduce the enormous amount of manpower and craftsmanship it took to put it all together. Anytime Michelangelo was brought in to do duty as an architect you know the work and the cost was going to be something special. I once heard a scholar say that building St. Peter’s cost in ancient terms of gross national product just about what it cost the United States to put a man on the moon in the sixties. I think that is just about right.
Now the intention on Prince Albrecht’s part was simply to disguise the payment for the Archbishopric at Mainz under the cover of the St. Peter’s Indulgence. That is what happened. No one, other than the representatives directly involved, had any idea that part of the St. Peter’s Indulgence was going to purchase the archbishopric for Albrecht. Luther did not find out that that was what happened until he was an old man.
Now the price of the St. Peter’s Indulgence was not cheap for it was a plenary indulgence. The price was determined both by income and station of life. Kings and Queens were required to pay 25 gulden or about $2,500 in modern dollars. High prelates and counts had to pay 10 gulden or about $1,000. Lesser prelates paid 6 gulden or about $600. Townsfolk and merchants paid 3 gulden or about $300. Artisans paid 1 gulden about $100 and really poor people paid a half or a quarter gulden…$50 down to $25.12
Most people thought they were getting a bargain.
Still there were a few people who were unhappy about the St. Peter’s Indulgence. Luther was unhappy about it because he had come to view the whole indulgence practice as something of a scandal. But he was not the only one. Frederick the Duke of Saxony…the leader of the province where Luther lived and the patron of the University at Wittenberg were Luther taught was also very much against the St. Peter’s Indulgence. Now his reasons were not theological at all. They were in fact quite mercenary. Frederick the Wise objected to the selling of the St. Peter’s Indulgence because he too was in the indulgence business.
These were the treasures made available on the day of All Saints.13
Now the reason, the theological reason that so many people believed that such an indulgence could be granted was because the Church taught the principle of supererogation. That is the Church taught that some saints did above and beyond whatever works of penance were required of them. The Church taught that that extra labor or merit was not wasted but was stored up as a work of supererogation in the Treasury of Merit. It was added to the works of Christ and to the works of Mary and could then be dispensed to the faithful upon the basis of their penitential works as the Pope or Church saw fit.
Now last week we talked about the nature of indulgences and how indulgences did away with the temporal punishment of sin that otherwise had to be paid for in purgatory. We also talked about how penance and indulgences differed and I don’t want to go over all that again. Instead, I want to spend most of our remaining time introducing you to infamous John Tetzel.
John Tetzel was a Dominican priest assigned the principal role in selling the St. Peter’s Indulgence on behalf of Prince Albrecht. He tramped all over Germany selling the St. Peter’s Indulgence and often skirted the province of Saxony less than twenty miles from Wittenberg. People flocked to hear him including many from Luther’s congregation. He was the principal recipient of Luther’s scorn and criticism. Listen to this description by D’Aubigne.
Come and I will give you letters, all properly sealed, by which even the sins that you intend to commit may be pardoned.
There is no sin so great, that an indulgence cannot remit; and even if any one (which is doubtless impossible) had offered violence to the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, let him pay — only let him pay well, and all will be forgiven him.
Reflect then, that for every mortal sin you must, after confession and contrition, do penance for seven years, either in this life or in purgatory: now, how many mortal sins are there not committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in a whole life!...Alas! these sins are almost infinite, and they entail an infinite penalty in the fires of purgatory. And now, by means of these letters of indulgence, you can once in your life obtain a plenary remission of all your penalties and all your sins!15
As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, The soul from purgatory springs.
Will you not then for a quarter of a form receive these letters of indulgence through which you are able to lead a divine and immortal soul into the fatherland of paradise?16
And Luther had come to a breakthrough there as we saw last week. He had come to understand from Romans 1:17 that God provides the righteousness He requires in the atoning work of Christ and that any man woman boy or girl that responds to Christ in faith is clothed in the imputed righteousness of Jesus. So Luther argued against indulgences primarily on the basis of the doctrine of justification. But that is not how the Church argued back. They argued back on the basis of the authority of the church and of the pope to formulate whatever doctrine it chose.
And, of course, Luther responded that true authority did not lay with the church but with Holy Scripture.
But all that was yet to come. Within two weeks of Wittenberg, Luther was known all over Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. His 95 Theses were published in German and distributed just about everywhere. Luther was instantly loved by the common people and by those longing for the church to be reformed. He was instantly hated by church officials.
Now you should know that when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door at Wittenberg he sent, at the same time, a letter to Albrecht the Archbishop of Mainz appealing to him to pull Tetzel back. The letter was very respectful and took the position that Albrecht could not possibly know what Tetzel was doing and why it wrong. But Albrecht did not stop, he simply forwarded the letter to Rome and the fight was on. Over the next four years Luther would be tried three separate times, first at Augsburg, then at Leipzig and finally at Worms and each time the trial ratcheted up the implications of Luther’s objections.
First, they had him deny the infallibility of the Pope.
Secondly, they had him deny the infallibility of Church Councils.
Finally, they had him affirm the opposition and theology of John Huss.
But we won’t talk about those things until next week.
For now keep this in mind. Luther objected to the practice of indulgences but the real objection was theological. The real objection was founded in the church’s faulty view of justification but what the church heard Luther say was that he rejected the church’s authority and that was true as well, he did. He rejected in favor of the authority of Holy Scripture. That is why the Reformers would later constantly repeat three of the five solas, sola gratia, sola fide and sola scriptura.
That is why we repeat them so often today.
It all goes back to the door.
Mercy, what else can be said other than from the prophetic
Mercy, what else can be said other than from the prophetic
Blasphemy is also the act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered. -- Matthew 26:63-66
Now, I'll grant that they convicted Him. But the point I was driving at was that He, in fact, did not violate their law in any way.
Jesus did not violate Jewish law, only if you believe what Jesus said to be true. The Sanhedrin did not believe Him, thus to them, He was and remains a blasphemer. Tried and convicted. Christians believe Jesus told the truth, so to them, He has no sin.
In kind, Huss did not violate Church law, but only if one believes what he said to be true. The Church did not believe him, thus to them, he was and remains today a heretic. Tried and convicted. Many Protestants believe Huss told the truth, so to them, he is no heretic.
HarleyD's anology (post #10) is correct.
Absolutely agreed :-O
The Church, through the use of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, defined what orthodox belief was. Therefore, the Church defined what was heretical.
The rulers of the States at that time (and for a couple of hundred years hence) believed they did so by divine writ. And their job was to act as the enforcers: if the Church deemed somebody heretical, it was their responsibility to enforce that: heresy, in a fashion, is treason against God. Since the state, in the view of the rulers at the time, was an instrument of God, it was also considered as treason against the State (in fact more so).
And, in all honesty, the ruler of the State had the obligation to enforce this, as well. Had the ruler been seen to coddle or even tolerate heretics within his realm, the Church hierarchy would have provided some sort of ecclesiastical interdict against that ruler, up to and including excommunication. No ruler, prior to the Protestant schism, could have continued to rule if excommunicated: his rivals in court or, in fact, the people themselves would have risen up to expel the evil over them.
That brings the question of burning: Would the Church have tolerated a lesser form of death, such as hanging or beheading? Unknown, but possibly: although mercy is a mark of the Church, excommunicated heretics put themselves outside the realm of mercy (particularly considering the fact that they were always repeatedly given opportunities to repent). In addition, the public spectacle and horror of a burning would serve as a great disincentive for other people to publically preach heretical doctrines.
Again, keep in mind that in any of the cases you've cited and, in fact, in any case with which I am familiar, if the case is actually examined, you will see that excommunication is the last option: the Church always attempts to reconcile the person several times before breaking contact! And, before criticizing this, consider that this is the Biblical way of doing things:
Titus 3:10-11:
10 After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic,
11 realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.
But you need to consider this: there are many currently in the modern American Church who are begging, pleading, and praying for the modern bishops to do the same exact thing to heterodox clerics (e.g., many in the Jesuit order, so-called Catholics for Free Choice, etc.) and to so-called Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion. Let's assume, for a minute, that we actually had some bishops who had some chutzpah, rather than the bunch of weak-kneed wimps who are in office now. Let's say John Kerry was excommunicated because of his unrepentant attitude. Would that make any difference to anybody? (unfortunately, including a good percentage of Catholics? Suppose that a priest who was constantly preaching that homosexuality was OK and who actually performed homosexual "marriages" (in between demonstrating for "women's reproductive rights") was subsequently branded a heretic and excommunicated. Would that matter to anybody? Would anybody who is debating here argue that the Church was wrong in taking those actions?
I, frankly, doubt it.
Well, if this was the middle ages, once the Church did what she did, the State would take over and assign the appropriate temporal punishment. That doesn't happen anymore because we don't take the Bible quite as literally anymore as was done in earlier times:
Rom 13
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
And to look at this relationship between rulers and God and rulers and people from the other angle, we have:
Wis 6:
1 Hear, therefore, kings, and understand; learn, you magistrates of the earth's expanse!
2 Hearken, you who are in power over the multitude and lord it over throngs of peoples!
3 Because authority was given you by the LORD and sovereignty by the Most High, who shall probe your works and scrutinize your counsels!
4 Because, though you were ministers of his kingdom, you judged not rightly, and did not keep the law, nor walk according to the will of God,
5 Terribly and swiftly shall he come against you, because judgment is stern for the exalted -
6 For the lowly may be pardoned out of mercy but the mighty shall be mightily put to the test.
A very interesting point.
From your perspective you are quite correct, Hus was not a heretic. From the Sanhedrin perspective, Jesus was a heretic.
But, objectively, when you look at it, Jesus was as he stated. Therefore, objectively, Jesus was not a heretic.
And, likewise, when you objectively look at Hus' statements, you see that he was preaching heresy against the teachings of the Church. Therefore, objectively, he was a heretic.
Of course, you reject the teachings of the Church on those issues, as well. Therefore, you, subjectively, do not see him as a heretic, you see him as a martyr.
There are also those who believe that it is perfectly OK to ordain women. If somebody is excommunicated for "ordaining" a woman, that person is seen by those who subscribe to those beliefs as a martyr, and not what he is, a heretic.
There are also those who believe that Jesus was the second person of the blessed Trinity, but was merely a man. If the Church excommunicates a person who teaches that doctrine, those who agree with those beliefs will see him as a martyr, not as a heretic.
And there are those who believe that Jesus never came in the flesh, but was merely a phantasm. If the Church excommunicates a person who teaches that doctrine, there will be those who see him as a martyr, not as a heretic.
And so on. There will always be those who prefer to follow people who teach heterodox doctrines. And they will see heretics as martyrs.
Please (if you haven't already blown up your computer) consider this: I am not trying to denigrate your beliefs in any way. I am just trying to get you to see it from a different perspective.
I think it's dangerous for us to look back on history and condemn those who made and enforced such laws as burning people at the stake. It was a different era. The thought process was completely different.
Burning heretics at the stake, as barbaric as it may sound to us, might have seemed relatively civil at that time. As Claud pointed out this practice probably started with the Romans just lighting Christians up to provide outdoor entertainment. As you've pointed out by the 13th century it had moved to recanting your views before the Church and sparing yourself. By the time Calvin came along in the mid-1500s it was a civil court that determined whether a heretic should live or die-with minimum input from Church leaders. Afterwards various groups of Christians were persecuted but punishment became progressively less. Now we just argue among ourselves and sometimes that's punishment enough. ;O)
I don't fault the Roman Catholic Church for the part they played in executing heretics anymore than I fault the part some Protestants played. It was simply a different time.
However, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck as much as some would like to believe. Just about everything revolved around the Church in those days and the Church had significant power to say who would live and who would die.
Whoa LOL....perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I thought.
It wasn't just entertainment for the Roman....it was serious business. To *not* participate in the (pagan) state religion was an act of treason. This didn't matter for other pagans, because you could simply throw a few other gods into the sacrificial mix. But it was impossible for Christians for obvious reasons.
Interestingly, the Jews had a special exemption from participating in the Roman state religion. The Romans decided that for the sake of expediency...otherwise, they would have to destroy every last Jew who would rather die than worship false gods.
But when Christianity and Judaism parted ways (and when Gentiles began converting en masse) this exemption was not able to be claimed by Christians. Hence, they were accused by pagans of "atheism" and killed for that reason. I believe Plato was officially executed by the Greeks for the similar reasons--defiance of the state religion.
I was thinking about time of Nero when I wrote my response. At that time there is documented evidence that it was entertainment. But you're right, for the most part it was serious business.
Funny, I thought you were echoing my perspective.
Those who seek to change the church and succeed are seen as reformers, those that fail are are seen as heretics. Those that follow the heretics see them as innovators/liberators/saints.
Socrates. His crime was, indeed, not believing the gods of Athens and corrupting the youth.
Can you tell my knowledge of Greek history is atrocious LOL
Possibly, in a complementary way.
Those who seek to change the church and succeed are seen as reformers, those that fail are are seen as heretics.
Or schismatics. Or both.
Those that follow the heretics see them as innovators/liberators/saints.
True. If both sides can see it from the others' perspective (including the homilest for this series of articles), we'd probably have a lot less violence going on in these threads...
Hus preached against a practice that was heretical-paying for indulgences. It took the Catholic Church almost 200+ years to admit selling indulgences was wrong but they finally did. Does that make Hus the heretic or the Church who was sponsoring the selling of indulgences heretics?
This isn't like the ordination of women. The Church was wrong to sell indulgences. They admit they were wrong. There was no scripture to support their endeavor. Yet after 500 years Hus name is still dragged through the mud and those inside the Church are extolled.
Harley, with due respect, Hus was excommunicated not for denouncing indulgences (he did denounce them, but he was already excommunicated before he even started his denouncements of the sale of indulgences), he was excommunicated for being a Wyclifite. See my post #25 on part 2 of this series for the account of this. He was, therefore, a heretic long before this happened.
I know this is not the first time you've seen this Harley, but here, again, is the official act of the Church excommunicating Jan Hus.
You will, I hope, note that 'indulgence' is mentioned exactly one time and one time only. That is in the condemned article #8:
>8. Priests who live in vice in any way pollute the power of the priesthood, and like unfaithful sons are untrustworthy in their thinking about the church's seven sacraments, about the keys, offices, censures, customs, ceremonies and sacred things of the church, about the veneration of relics, and about indulgences and orders.
Of course, the allegation of this article is not a condemnation against indulgences, but against priests who live in vice administering those indulgences. Big difference.
Anyway, enjoy the reading, Harley:
[Sentence against John Hus]
The most holy general council of Constance, divinely assembled and representing the catholic church, for an everlasting record. Since a bad tree is wont to bear bad fruit, as truth itself testifies, so it is that John Wyclif, of cursed memory, by his deadly teaching, like a poisonous root, has brought forth many noxious sons, not in Christ Jesus through the gospel, as once the holy fathers brought forth faithful sons, but rather contrary to the saving faith of Christ, and he has left these sons as successors to his perverse teaching. This holy synod of Constance is compelled to act against these men as against spurious and illegitimate sons, and to cut away their errors from the Lord's field as if they were harmful briars, by means of vigilant care and the knife of ecclesiastical authority, lest they spread as a cancer to destroy others. Although, therefore, it was decreed at the sacred general council recently held at Rome [35 ] that the teaching of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, should be condemned and the books of his containing this teaching should be burnt as heretical; although his teaching was in fact condemned and his books burnt as containing false and dangerous doctrine; and although a decree of this kind was approved by the authority of this present sacred council [36 ] ; nevertheless a certain John Hus, here present in person at this sacred council, who is a disciple not of Christ but rather of the heresiarch John Wyclif, boldly and rashly contravening the condemnation and the decree after their enactment, has taught, asserted and preached many errors and heresies of John Wyclif which have been condemned both by God's church and by other reverend fathers in Christ, lord archbishops and bishops of various kingdoms, and masters in theology at many places of study. He has done this especially by publicly resisting in the schools and in sermons, together with his accomplices, the condemnation in scholastic form of the said articles of John Wyclif which has been made many times at the university of Prague, and he has declared the said John Wyclif to be a catholic man and an evangelical doctor, thus supporting his teaching, before a multitude of clergy and people. He has asserted and published certain articles listed below and many others, which are condemned and which are, as is well known, contained in the books and pamphlets of the said John Hus. Full information has been obtained about the aforesaid matters, and there has been careful deliberation by the most reverend fathers in Christ, lord cardinals of the holy Roman church, patriarchs archbishops, bishops and other prelates and doctors of holy scripture and of both laws, in large numbers. This most holy synod of Constance therefore declares and defines that the articles listed below, which have been found on examination, by many masters in sacred scripture, to be contained in his books and pamphlets written in his own hand, and which the same John Hus at a public hearing, before the fathers and prelates of this sacred council, has confessed to be contained in his books and pamphlets, are not catholic and should not be taught to be such but rather many of them are erroneous, others scandalous, others offensive to the ears of the devout, many of them are rash and seditious, and some of them are notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, and it strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved. Moreover, since the articles listed below are explicitly contained in his books or treatises, namely in the book entitled De ecclesia and in his other pamphlets, this most holy synod therefore reproves and condemns the aforesaid books and his teaching, as well as the other treatises and pamphlets written by him in Latin or in Czech, or translated by one or more other persons into any other language, and it decrees and determines that they should be publicly and solemnly burnt in the presence of the clergy and people in the city of Constance and elsewhere. On account of the above, moreover, all his teaching is and shall be deservedly suspect regarding the faith and is to be avoided by all of Christ's faithful. In order that this pernicious teaching may be eliminated from the midst of the church, this holy synod also orders that local ordinaries make careful inquiry about treatises and pamphlets of this kind, using the church's censures and even if necessary the punishment due for supporting heresy, and that they be publicly burnt when they have been found. This same holy synod decrees that local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy are to proceed against any who violate or defy this sentence and decree as if they were persons suspected of heresy.
[Sentence of degradation against J. Hus]
Moreover, the acts and deliberations of the inquiry into heresy against the aforesaid John Hus have been examined. There was first a faithful and full account made by the commissioners deputed for the case and by other masters of theology and doctors of both laws, concerning the acts and deliberations and the depositions of very many trustworthy witnesses. These depositions were openly and publicly read out to the said John Hus before the fathers and prelates of this sacred council. It is very clearly established from the depositions of these witnesses that the said John has taught many evil, scandalous and seditious things, and dangerous heresies, and has publicly preached them during many years. This most holy synod of Constance, invoking Christ's name and having God alone before its eyes, therefore pronounces, decrees and defines by this definitive sentence, which is here written down, that the said John Hus was and is a true and manifest heretic and has taught and publicly preached, to the great offence of the divine Majesty, to the scandal of the universal church and to the detriment of the catholic faith, errors and heresies that have long ago been condemned by God's church and many things that are scandalous, offensive to the ears of the devout, rash and seditious, and that he has even despised the keys of the church and ecclesiastical censures. He has persisted in these things for many years with a hardened heart. He has greatly scandalised Christ's faithful by his obstinacy since, bypassing the church's intermediaries, he has made appeal directly to our lord Jesus Christ, as to the supreme judge, in which he has introduced many false, harmful and scandalous things to the contempt of the apostolic see, ecclesiastical censures and the keys. This holy synod therefore pronounces the said John Hus, on account of the aforesaid and many other matters, to have been a heretic and it judges him to be considered and condemned as a heretic, and it hereby condemns him. It rejects the said appeal of his as harmful and scandalous and offensive to the church's jurisdiction. It declares that the said John Hus seduced the christian people, especially in the kingdom of Bohemia, in his public sermons and in his writings; and that he was not a true preacher of Christ's gospel to the same christian people, according to the exposition of the holy doctors, but rather was a seducer. Since this most holy synod has learnt from what it has seen and heard, that the said John Hus is obstinate and incorrigible and as such does not desire to return to the bosom of holy mother the church, and is unwilling to abjure the heresies and errors which he has publicly defended and preached, this holy synod of Constance therefore declares and decrees that the same John Hus is to be deposed and degraded from the order of the priesthood and from the other orders held by him. It charges the reverend fathers in Christ, the archbishop of Milan and the bishops of Feltre Asti, Alessandria, Bangor and Lavour with duly carrying out the degradation in the presence of this most holy synod, in accordance with the procedure required by law.
[Sentence condemning J. Hus to the stake]
This holy synod of Constance, seeing that God's church has nothing more that it can do, relinquishes John Hus to the judgment of the secular authority and decrees that he is to be relinquished to the secular court.
[Condemned articles of J. Hus]
1. There is only one holy universal church, which is the total number of those predestined to salvation. It therefore follows that the universal holy church is only one, inasmuch as there is only one number of all those who are predestined to salvation.
2. Paul was never a member of the devil, even though he did certain acts which are similar to the acts of the church's enemies.
3. Those foreknown as damned are not parts of the church, for no part of the church can finally fall away from it, since the predestinating love that binds the church together does not fail.
4. The two natures, the divinity and the humanity, are one Christ.
5. A person foreknown to damnation is never part of the holy church, even if he is in a state of grace according to present justice; a person predestined to salvation always remains a member of the church, even though he may fall away for a time from adventitious grace, for he keeps the grace of predestination.
6. The church is an article of faith in the following sense: to regard it as the convocation of those predestined to salvation, whether or not it be in a state of grace according to present justice.
7. Peter neither was nor is the head of the holy catholic church.
8. Priests who live in vice in any way pollute the power of the priesthood, and like unfaithful sons are untrustworthy in their thinking about the church's seven sacraments, about the keys, offices, censures, customs, ceremonies and sacred things of the church, about the veneration of relics, and about indulgences and orders.
9. The papal dignity originated with the emperor, and the primacy and institution of the pope emanated from imperial power.
10. Nobody would reasonably assert of himself or of another, without revelation, that he was the head of a particular holy church; nor is the Roman pontiff the head of the Roman church.
11. It is not necessary to believe that any particular Roman pontiff is the head of any particular holy church, unless God has predestined him to salvation.
12. Nobody holds the place of Christ or of Peter unless he follows his way of life, since there is no other discipleship that is more appropriate nor is there another way to receive delegated power from God, since there is required for this office of vicar a similar way of life as well as the authority of the one instituting.
13. The pope is not the manifest and true successor of the prince of the apostles, Peter, if he lives in a way contrary to Peter's. If he seeks avarice, he is the vicar of Judas Iscariot. Likewise, cardinals are not the manifest and true successors of the college of Christ's other apostles unless they live after the manner of the apostles, keeping the commandments and counsels of our lord Jesus Christ.
14. Doctors who state that anybody subjected to ecclesiastical censure, if he refuses to be corrected, should be handed over to the judgment of the secular authority, are undoubtedly following in this the chief priests, the scribes and the pharisees who handed over to the secular authority Christ himself, since he was unwilling to obey them in all things, saying, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; these gave him to the civil judge, so that such men are even greater murderers than Pilate.
15. Ecclesiastical obedience was invented by the church's priests, without the express authority of scripture.
16. The immediate division of human actions is between those that are virtuous and those that are wicked. Therefore, if a man is wicked and does something, he acts wickedly; if he is virtuous and does something, he acts virtuously. For just as wickedness, which is called crime or mortal sin, infects all the acts of a wicked man, so virtue gives life to all the acts of a virtuous man.
17. A priest of Christ who lives according to his law, knows scripture and has a desire to edify the people, ought to preach, notwithstanding a pretended excommunication. And further on: if the pope or any superior orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the subordinate ought not to obey.
18. Whoever enters the priesthood receives a binding duty to preach; and this mandate ought to be carried out, notwithstanding a pretended excommunication.
19. By the church's censures of excommunication, suspension and interdict the clergy subdue the laity, for the sake of their own exaltation, multiply avarice protect wickedness and prepare the way for antichrist. The clear sign of this is the fact that these censures come from antichrist. In the legal proceedings of the clergy they are called fulminations, which are the principal means whereby the clergy proceed against those who uncover antichrist's wickedness, which the clergy has for the most part usurped for itself.
20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it.
21. The grace of predestination is the bond whereby the body of the church and each of its members is indissolubly joined with the head.
22. The pope or a prelate who is wicked and foreknown to damnation is a pastor only in an equivocal sense, and truly is a thief and a robber.
23. The pope ought not to be called "most holy" even by reason of his office, for otherwise even a king ought to be called "most holy" by reason of his office and executioners and heralds ought to be called "holy", indeed even the devil would be called "holy" since he is an official of God.
24. If a pope lives contrary to Christ, even if he has risen through a right and legitimate election according to the established human constitution, he would have risen by a way other than through Christ, even granted that he entered upon office by an election that had been made principally by God. For, Judas Iscariot was rightly and legitimately elected to be an apostle by Jesus Christ who is God, yet he climbed into the sheepfold by another way.
25. The condemnation of the forty-five articles of John Wyclif, decreed by the doctors, is irrational and unjust and badly done and the reason alleged by them is feigned, namely that none of them is catholic but each one is either heretical or erroneous or scandalous.
26. The viva voce agreement upon some person, made according to human custom by the electors or by the greater part of them, does not mean by itself that the person has been legitimately elected or that by this very fact he is the true and manifest successor or vicar of the apostle Peter or of another apostle in an ecclesiastical office. For, it is to the works of the one elected that we should look irrespective of whether the manner of the election was good or bad. For, the more plentifully a person acts meritoriously towards building up the church, the more copiously does he thereby have power from God for this.
27. There is not the least proof that there must be one head ruling the church in spiritual matters who always lives with the church militant.
28. Christ would govern his church better by his true disciples scattered throughout the world, without these monstrous heads.
29. The apostles and faithful priests of the Lord strenuously governed the church in matters necessary for salvation before the office of pope was introduced, and they would continue to do this until the day of judgment if--which is very possible--there is no pope.
30. Nobody is a civil lord, a prelate or a bishop while he is in mortal sin.
Bump -- trying to catch up...
I decided to post these back to back. It is a lot of reading but I wanted to have the whole series over before Christmas.
Thank you, friend, for alerting me to this fine series on God's reformation of the Church of Christ. Like the Israelites of old, when idolatry and superstition become prevalent with his people he sends them into exile but still retains a remnant of faithful worshippers.
God Bless!
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.