You wrote:
“Yes, that’s silly....they were all born into Roman Catholicism—as was the whole country. However, since they lived less than 500 years from the first generation of Czech Christians who WERE originally Eastern Orthodox...”
No, actually they were Catholics. Sts. Cyril and Methodius lived before 1054 and the final split between East and West. There was no such thing as the “Eastern Orthodox.” They are all just Catholics. They received the blessing and support of Pope Adrian II, for instance. Western bishops also ordained Cyril and Methodius’ closest Slav followers as priests. This means that the Pope and the Catholic Church of course, considered the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to be entirely Catholic. Also, it is clear to historians that the people whom Sts. Cyril and Methodius preached to, had already been introduced to Christianity as is clear in the letter of King Rastislav of Moravia to Byzantine Emperor Michael III.
“and only forced into Rome’s orbit for political reasons, many historians surmise that there was a generations-old resentment against the Roman Catholic Church, which made them more quickly revolt with Hus’ urging.”
Actually, no, no reputable historian believes there was a centuries old (it would have to be more than 550 years old) grudge against Rome or the Catholic Church which fed into the Hussite revolt. The easiest way to expose that “grudge” as the nutty idea it is is to ask what proof of it there is. The answer, of course, is absolutely none. The exact opposite is the truth. Throughout the Middle Ages, right up until the trials and tribulations of the 14th century, Moravia/Bohemia was extremely loyal to the Church and reaped enormous rewards and blessings from Church membership that would have eluded it otherwise.
“Even relatively long past history affects peoples’ attitudes in the present. Spain for example led the quest for Roman Catholic doctrinal purity with the Inquisition.”
No. 1) There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church”. There was only the Catholic Church. 2) Spain did not lead the way. It was not the first nation to have inquisitorial tribunals set up within its borders. 3) Spain wanted the inquisition for more than religious reasons. The Spanish Inquisition was actually a governmental organ, staffed to a great extent by government bureaucrats, and commissioned to carry out a program of religious integration to help meld a new state - Spain.
“They had only just finally ejected the Moors (and the Jews) in 1493...(and many thousand we now know were secretly not orthodox Catholics). Hence, the country had something to prove to the rest of Europe that they were loyal Roman Catholics—so they reacted with a strain of fanatical devotion, in the Inquisition.”
No. The Spanish Inquisition was not fanatical. It was established to protect Spain - a new nation - from fanaticism and at the same time false Christians. The pogroms of the 14th century and the attacks on New Christians (Jewish converts) as well as attacks FROM New Christians on Old Christians demanded that the issue be resolved to protect Spain from fanaticism on all sides. People often forget about things like the July 21st storming of the Cathedral of Toledo by the New Christian, Fernando de la Torre and his private army of fellow New Christians. A struggle ensued in the Cathedral and it spilled out into the streets. Neighboring towns sent men to aid the Old Christians and De La Torre was hanged. A massacre of New Christians followed. That was in 1467.
That was the sort of fanaticism the inquisition wanted to crush.
The final straw for Isabella - in the city that Isabella made her temporary capitol and which Torquemada (who was of Jewish decent) lived - was a war between New Christians. One New Christian leader decided to attack the other under the guise of an anti-New Christian uprising. The target - the governor of the region - (yes, he was a New Christian), was warned of the coming attack by Cardinal Borgia (who later became Pope Alexander VI). He escaped. The attack was vicious and bloody. Isabella and Ferdinand later thanked the governor for his defense of the New Christians. This was on May 16, 1474. The inquisition was established just four years later.
When Sixtus IV established the inquisition under the control of the monarchs he clearly detailed what the problem was: people were pretending to be Christians and this led to “wars,” “slaughter”, “evident injuries to men”, and “to the peril of souls, and the scandal of many.” The pope went on to praise Ferdinand and Isabella for their “praiseworthy zeal for the safety of souls.”
“It’s interesting that one of Protestant history’s famous heretics at that time (by any Christian measure) was Micheal Servetus. He had been tried and condemned to death twice (in absentia) by Roman Catholic Inquisition courts—but it took Calvin’s Geneva to try him a 3rd time and execute this anti-trinitarian.”
Of course, he was also once tried - in 1538 - by the inquisition for some of his odd beliefs and practices that he had made public - and was acquitted! The inquisition tribunals were much more fair than people give them credit for.
“Different times, and different people. Or perhaps its just different times, and different heresies...”
I see no relationship whatsoever between the ninth century conversion of Moravia, Jews in Spain, Servetus, etc. Nor do other historians.
I’m well aware that the Western Roman Church had had not broken with the Eastern Churches (now known as Eastern Orthodox) in Cyril’s and Methodius’ day... However, the cultural divide between eastern and western Christians was already very evident by the 800s. Cyril and Methodius were from the east, not from the Latin Church—even while given Rome’s approval.
Actually there is a lot of evidence that before Huss, the Bohemian people (what their rulers did is a different matter) did have issues with Roman corruption (the utraquist controversy pre-dates Huss for example)— as did many conscientious Christians throughout Europe.
“The Spanish Inquisition was actually a governmental organ, staffed to a great extent by government bureaucrats, and commissioned to carry out a program of religious integration to help meld a new state - Spain.” Ummm, pretty much that’s exactly what I said—Spain wanted to prove its Roman orthdoxy.
“No. The Spanish Inquisition was not fanatical. It was established to protect Spain - a new nation - from fanaticism and at the same time false Christians.”
I’m of the opinion that any and all punishment, in particular capitol punishment, for religious disagreement, is BY DEFINITION, fanatical. (I’m American.) Don’t you agree?
It sounds very much like you are defending the persecutions by the Inquistion?
And actually I have read the definitive biography of Servetus, by Roland Bainton, and he yes, he really was condemned twice by Roman Catholic courts—for religious offenses. (The 2nd time he was tried, he escaped, before the end of the trial).
I’m a Calvinist....however I’m also happy to say Calvin and Geneva did the wrong thing, when they executed Servetus. It was culturally acceptable—and not uncommon in that day, to execute people just for their religious views, still, it was wrong.
Of course there is no direct connection between the Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition, the trials and execution of Micheal Servetus, or the severe mistreatment and murders of the Moravians—except that Roman Catholicism—and the long legacy of religious intolerance in Europe—persecuted them all.
As to, “1) There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church“” And I guess there’s no Roman church today, eh? Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.