Posted on 07/06/2015 2:23:38 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
The condemnation took place on July 6, 1415, in the presence of the solemn assembly of the council in the cathedral. After the performance of high mass and liturgy, Hus was led into the church. The bishop of Lodi delivered an oration on the duty of eradicating heresy; then some theses of Hus and Wycliffe and a report of his trial were read. He protested loudly several times, and when his appeal to Christ was rejected as a condemnable heresy, he exclaimed, "O God and Lord, now the council condemns even thine own act and thine own law as heresy, since thou thyself didst lay thy cause before thy Father as the just judge, as an example for us, whenever we are sorely oppressed."
An Italian prelate pronounced the sentence of condemnation upon Hus and his writings. Again he protested loudly, saying that even at this hour he did not wish anything but to be convinced from Holy Scripture. He fell upon his knees and asked God with a low voice to forgive all his enemies. Then followed his degradation-- he was enrobed in priestly vestments and again asked to recant; again he refused. With curses his ornaments were taken from him, his priestly tonsure was destroyed, and the sentence was pronounced that the Church had deprived him of all rights and delivered him to the secular powers. Then a high paper hat was put upon his head, with the inscription Haeresiarcha. Thus Hus was led away to the stake under a strong guard of armed men. At the place of execution he knelt down, spread out his hands, and prayed aloud. Some of the people asked that a confessor should he given him, but a bigoted priest exclaimed, a heretic should neither be heard nor given a confessor.
The executioners undressed Hus and tied his hands behind his back with ropes, and his neck with a chain to a stake around which wood and straw had been piled up so that it covered him to the neck. Still at the last moment, the imperial marshal, Von Pappenheim, in the presence of the Count Palatine, asked him to save his life by a recantation, but Hus declined with the words "God is my witness that I have never taught that of which I have been accused by false witnesses. In the truth of the Gospel which I have written, taught, and preached I will die to-day with gladness." There upon the fire was kindled with John Wycliffe’s own manuscripts used as kindling for the fire. With uplifted voice Hus sang, "Christ, thou Son of the living God, have mercy upon me." Among his dying words he proclaimed, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” His ashes were gathered and cast into the nearby Rhine River.
Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg. The prophecy of John Hus had come true!
Well, Dangus, let us for the sake of argument concede your points. Then the only question that remains is this: By what right did the church condemn to death Hus, and see to the carrying out of the sentence? Where in all of God’s Word is this power given to the church of the New Testament? And corollary to that, if the church had such power, why does it not still possess and exercise such power?
or you know.. vestments, wafers, statues, pews or crosses..
sorry to say it.. BUT God would be enough..
Then they don't need Bibles, either? (I am asking because I've noticed "God would be enough" from multiple people of multiple theological persuasions, but I've also never really heard a matching account of how this idea would work as a guiding principle in life--for example, in missions.)
Like the Cathars.
>> And why is that? <<
Only because the only records we have are the books he published. The witnesses are dead and buried for 600 years, and so therefore we have far less grounds for re-examining the evidence than we’d have for, say, Sacco and Vanzetti.
>> When was this doctrine first espoused? <<
Among Wycliffe’s Lollards, by 1380.
>> for the lack of priests this doctrine was formulated? <<
I won’t attempt to read Wycliffe’s or Hus’s mind. I can’t state WHY impanation was formulated. I can only state that it was a convenient excuse for explaining how it could be that according to Lollardists and Hussites there could be no grace among those they regarded as their opponents.
No, tragically the Catholic Church did repress the Cathars into obscurity. (This is a tragedy because of the means of the repression; the Cathars were amazing sick, vile perverts, not the proto-Protestants of restorationist fantasies.) Contrarily, the Hussites went extinct largely because they killed themselves off by warring amongst themselves... and the survivors eagerly chose one of two non-Hussite camps, reformed Christians or Catholic Christians, rather than face such horrific intramural violence.
I knew you’d know!
The commander of the anti-Cathar crusade, when told that his soldiers were slaughtering both Cathars and Catholics, dismissed it with, “God will know which ones are his.”
The Cathars were more like Manichaeans, by way of the Bogomils of the Balkans. (What a name, Bogomil.)
And Hus is dead, never given a defense under 'safe passage'.
Was not 'both kinds' the practice before the 13th century? Isn't this practice different than Christ's institution?
“Hus wanted to bring the Bible, the sacred texts of Christianity, to the common man. He paid with his life.”
That’s false. If you’ve read the charges against him - and I bet you haven’t - he was not accused, charged or anything else in regard to bringing “the Bible, the sacred texts of Christianity, to the common man” because there was no such “crime” or “heresy” for him to be charged with. Bible translation in Prague was not a legal issue.
His heresies concerned things like Utraquism - which no Protestant today believes in anyway - and Dominion.
“When churchmen use murder as a tool of persuasion, its a good sign that the Holy Spirit is no where present among them.”
It wasn’t murder and it wasn’t about persuasion.
“They could learn that they don’t even need an organized church..
Or Priests.. Cardinals or Popes.. Pastors or even Deacons..
or you know.. vestments, wafers, statues, pews or crosses..”
Huss believed in a highly organized Church. He believed you could not be saved with receiving BOTH FORMS of the Eucharist. The simple fact is Huss was no Protestants.
““God will know which ones are his.””
Actually there is every reason to believe that is a myth.
It’s like “Liberty Valance,” when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
I’m sure a lot more Cathars got slaughtered than Catholics.
Then they don’t need Bibles, either? (I am asking because I’ve noticed “God would be enough” from multiple people of multiple theological persuasions, but I’ve also never really heard a matching account of how this idea would work as a guiding principle in life—for example, in missions.)
Actually I’ve noticed some who worship the bible.. idolaters really..
Of course they would deny it.. but it’s true..
They don’t need God.. without the bible they are “hopeless”..
or in lieu of having God they supplant the bible..
totally oblivious of this fact..
others use other artifacts the same way.. same deal..
The first church didn’t have bibles... not they could read anyway..
Question is.. What DID they have?..
Most christians, I know, could care less about this question..
Seeing the question is irrelevant if not nonsense..
What do you do with idolaters such as that?..
Christians playing house.. never grew up.. maybe..
To them NO BIBLE, NO GOD..
” This is the new covenant I will make with my people on that day, says the LORD: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds. “
Did God do it.?... OR did you memorize it from the bible, a book?..
One or the other.. Both some say.. but I doubt it..
proof: Have you looked at churches lately?.. They are CLUBs... Like the Boy/Girl Scouts..
merit badges and everything..
true..
“Hus wanted to bring the Bible, the sacred texts of Christianity, to the common man.”
Then in the 1400s, was the Roman church just fine with the common man reading the Bible on his own?
aside from the common man not being able to read, the Church wanted, more properly, insisted that the language of the Bible was properly Latin
To keep people ignorant and under priestly control, latin was the tool of enslavement
There is a trend back to Latin today for that very reason
Hocus Pokus, Dominokus was the cure for enlightenment
Seems like a pretty poor reason to tie a man to a stake and burn him to death.
Where EXACTLY did Christ say the church should do that?
Chapter and verse if you please.
Thanks.
L
Do you approve of all translations and versions of the Bible?
Amen to those coming to Christ, it’s encouraging to see in these terrible days.
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.