Foxe's Book of Maryrs and Maryrs' Mirror

[Radical]

“On July 30, 1419, following a violent sermon by the priest John Zhelivsky, quoting numerous Scriptural passages about killing and overthrow, thousands of Hussites massed in the streets of Prague, seized the Church of St. Stephen, then stormed the town hall and threw 13 councillors an other officials out of the windows, killing them.”

The Glory of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol. 3, Warren H. Carroll, 1993, p.507

The Hussites “sang a grim war song, ‘We, warriors of God’, which ended ‘slay, slay, slay, slay them every one’…The Taborite heretics, the Bohemian scourge, enjoyed ravaging this clerical state, laying waste, torturing priests and junkers to death, and carrying the common people away to captivity.”

The Monks of War, Desmond Seward,1972, p. 128

What exactly is your purpose in these posts? I am not suggesting that the Hussites were w/o sin/atrocity…though I will say two wrongs don’t make a right. The Hussites likely thought that the Catholics started the nastiness by murdering Hus…but that wouldn’t justify reciprocating murders. Further, subsequent Hussite sins wouldn’t legitimize any Catholic sins either. So again, what is your point?

"Pope Martin V who issued a bull on 17 March 1420 which proclaimed a crusade “for the destruction of the Wycliffites, Hussites and all other heretics in Bohemia.’ "

wordiq.com/definition/Hussite_Wars

Is it extermination or is it destruction?

What exactly is the difference between the two? Is one less nasty/sinful than the other?

 

[Radical]

A work of " fiction " containig facts does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to negate it’s status as " fiction " . Most works of fiction , in fact , contain " facts " . Think of the genre of "historical fiction " . These works of fiction are chock 'o block with facts and are nonetheless , Still Fiction .

I take it that you do not make a distinction between a novel written in the form of a historical fiction and a summary of historical events done in a less than completely accurate fashion. From over here the difference seems obvious, but if you can’t see it, I guess you can’t see it.

I, for one , have no problem dealing with this chapter of Catholic history .

excellent…please answer the questions that I asked Coptic

Pray tell , what do YOU THINK this chapter of Catholic history ACTUALLY Demonstrates ? Please be specific

As I said before:
Let me see if I have gotten this right.

a) The Pope issues a Bull calling for the extermination of the Hussites;

b) A Council of the Catholic Church of the 15th century grants an plenary indulgence to those who would prosecute the Hussites;

c) The Pope states that God is agreeable to the killing of the Hussites; and

d) Relying upon such things, many a good Catholic goes off to Bohemia to fight the Hussites and ends up being killed whilst relying on the assurance of his Church that he will receive a plenary indulgence for his efforts and on the assurance of his Pope that he is doing the will of God.

…in order to determine what was an official teaching in the 1420’s, I am inclined to rely on the Pope, the Council and receivers of indulgences from that decade as opposed to someone else…I have no doubt that the teaching “it is good and godly to kill Hussites” was recognized as official by all those involved…Pope, Council and in particular, those Catholics who died for an indulgence.

From that, I see a serious disconnect between what was the official teaching of the 1420’s and what is the official teaching of today wrt “separated brethren”. To suggest that the difference is explainable by categorizing it as a development or a clarification seems laughable (at best) from over here. To try and salvage it by distinguishing between the Hussites of the 1420’s (who were mostly baptized into the CC of that time) and modern “separated brethren” (who are not necessarily baptized into the CC of this day and age) also seems laughable (at best) ….and so it seems that we have two inconsistent official teachings in a church that claims that its official teachings are free from error. Was that specific enough for you?

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

I take it that you do not make a distinction between a novel written in the form of a historical fiction and a summary of historical events done in a less than completely accurate fashion. From over here the difference seems obvious, but if you can’t see it, I guess you can’t see it.

Actually , in the two books cited specifically , I don’t ( make a distinction ) . When you invoke some of the Early Church Fathers ( Catholics all ) to support your Protestantism you lose credibility . Put another way , it doesn’t even pass the laugh test .
So specifically ; no , in general I have no quibble with the " summary of historical events done in a less than completely accurate fashion ", unless it is done to deliberately mislead .And even if the intention was not to mislead , why were the claims so inaccurate ? It can also be argued that the weight of inaccuracies reaches critical mass to the point of deserving the description of " fiction " . The claims are also so outlandish that their motives are suspect in my eyes .
At the very least Coptic’s claim re: fiction should at least be considered to be metaphorically true .
How much would you have objected if he had said the books’ claims were false ?

Oh , keep up the condescension , it is so endearing .

excellent…please answer the questions that I asked Coptic

I re-read your post # 60 and I’m not sure what question you mean . In the paragraph about Church history ( the last graph in that post ) there is no question .
If you mean the earlier question about the sin of killing , I’ll answer that one .
First of all , all killing is not necessarily a sin . All murder is a sin , but not all killing . My God is not stupid . I don’t know what God wanted in this case . What I do know is that there have been times when God did in fact want certain people dead . God has used different instruments to accomplish this task ; nature , angels and men , for example .

What’s with your " crush " on the Albigensians ? This is a sect/cult with despicable beliefs and behaviors . Their beliefs were so antithetical to society that the Civil Authorities
would not ( nor should they have ) tolerated them .

As I said before:
Let me see if I have gotten this right.

a) The Pope issues a Bull calling for the extermination of the Hussites;

b) A Council of the Catholic Church of the 15th century grants an plenary indulgence to those who would prosecute the Hussites;

c) The Pope states that God is agreeable to the killing of the Hussites; and

d) Relying upon such things, many a good Catholic goes off to Bohemia to fight the Hussites and ends up being killed whilst relying on the assurance of his Church that he will receive a plenary indulgence for his efforts and on the assurance of his Pope that he is doing the will of God.

…in order to determine what was an official teaching in the 1420’s, I am inclined to rely on the Pope, the Council and receivers of indulgences from that decade as opposed to someone else…I have no doubt that the teaching “it is good and godly to kill Hussites” was recognized as official by all those involved…Pope, Council and in particular, those Catholics who died for an indulgence.

From that, I see a serious disconnect between what was the official teaching of the 1420’s and what is the official teaching of today wrt “separated brethren”. To suggest that the difference is explainable by categorizing it as a development or a clarification seems laughable (at best) from over here. To try and salvage it by distinguishing between the Hussites of the 1420’s (who were mostly baptized into the CC of that time) and modern “separated brethren” (who are not necessarily baptized into the CC of this day and age) also seems laughable (at best) ….and so it seems that we have two inconsistent official teachings in a church that claims that its official teachings are free from error. Was that specific enough for you?

I’ll try and be gentle . The Catholic Church does NOT claim that " it’s official teachings are free from error " ! What it does say is that it’s official teachings on matters of faith and morals ( only ) are free from error , but only when 3 specificic criteria are met( all at the same time ) . The Pope must be speaking in his capacity of Pope , it must be a matter of faith or morals and it must be a matter that must be held by all the faithfull ( I am working off of memory on this ) .

Please demonstrate how this definition applies to your example cited above ?

Why isn’t your repeated invocation of " extermination " of the Hussites a case of hyperbole ( at best ) ?

You would have a better argument if you were opposing " Impeccability " . The only problem is that the Catholic Church has never made the claim of " Impeccability " for the Vicar of Christ on Earth . Imeccability is not Infallibility .

SO again , what are you REALLY claiming this chapter in Church history demonstrates ? I am looking for a more grandiose ( and specific ) conclusion on your part .

Oh , one more thing . Victimhood doesn’t wear well on you . Remember , that as long as victimhood is the source of your empwerment , recovery is the enemy and is actually destructive to your sense of self .

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

The Catholic Church does NOT claim that " it’s official teachings are free from error " ! What it does say is that it’s official teachings on matters of faith and morals ( only ) are free from error , but only when 3 specificic criteria are met( all at the same time ) . The Pope must be speaking in his capacity of Pope , it must be a matter of faith or morals and it must be a matter that must be held by all the faithfull ( I am working off of memory on this ) .

 

[CopticChristian]

that is kinda rich…coming from a guy who felt the need to disclose what he gets paid for an opinion.
no room? I gave you everything from “never” to “always” and everything in between…there isn’t any more room available.

I know what I have answered when I have asked myself this question**…I am wondering what you and other Catholics think.** it sure seems like you have a hard time dealing with this chapter of **Catholic history. ** First, no matter what Contarini said, you could not tolerate giving Foxe’s Book any label other than “fiction”…no matter how many facts it contained, apparently any inaccuracy makes it a work of fiction. Now, you seem to be stuck at pointing your finger at the other (non-Catholic) guy rather than evaluating the actions and teachings of the Catholics at the time.

Radical,

Forgive my delay in response. I have things to do this week and there has been little time. I did not want to respond without thought and fortunately the posts that have followed have given me thought and aided clarification of my response. I will respond to you in a way that hopefully answers your queries concerning…

This guy who has gotten paid for his opinions.
Chapter in Catholic History.
Foxe’s book of Martyrs.

I should have some time later today or tommorrow.

Be patient and I shall provide thought that should clarify my position as it concerns the OP, my point of view of the Chapter in context and the book of Foxe as well as the Hussites and you.

Thank you for being patient:thumbsup:

 

[Radical]

Actually , in the two books cited specifically , I don’t ( make a distinction ) . When you invoke some of the Early Church Fathers ( Catholics all ) to support your Protestantism you lose credibility .

it is very easy to invoke certain ECFs to support aspects of Protestant theology that vary from modern Catholic theology. To suggest that the modern Catholics have some sort of proprietary right WRT the heritage established by ECFs, (when some of their doctrine was so very different from modern Catholicism) is wrong.

At the very least Coptic’s claim re: fiction should at least be considered to be metaphorically true .

huh?

How much would you have objected if he had said the books’ claims were false ?

Contarini described nicely how the works should be described and used…I have nothing to add

I re-read your post # 60 and I’m not sure what question you mean .

post #67 contained the questions that I had in mind.

First of all , all killing is not necessarily a sin . All murder is a sin , but not all killing . My God is not stupid . I don’t know what God wanted in this case .

so that crusade against the Hussites might have been a grave error?

What’s with your " crush " on the Albigensians ?

you are in the wrong century. I was talking about the Hussites and not the Cathars.

This is a sect/cult with despicable beliefs and behaviors . Their beliefs were so antithetical to society that the Civil Authorities would not ( nor should they have ) tolerated them.

I wouldn’t judge them so harshly….WRT these alleged despicable beliefs, were they the Cathars’ unofficial beliefs or their official beliefs?..you surely can’t judge them on their unofficial beliefs and as to their behaviors, you surely can’t expect impeccability from them.

I’ll try and be gentle .

thanks, I have been told that victimhood doesn’t work well for me.

The Catholic Church does NOT claim that " it’s official teachings are free from error " ! What it does say is that it’s official teachings on matters of faith and morals ( only ) are free from error ,…

hmmm….the call to kill people who differ from you WRT their faith seems to be all about morality (the goodness or badness in killing) and faith (killing b/c of a difference in faith)

Why isn’t your repeated invocation of " extermination " of the Hussites a case of hyperbole ( at best ) ?

b/c an actual crusade involving invading armies carrying weapons for the purpose of killing Hussites accompanied the invocation

Victimhood doesn’t wear well on you . Remember , that as long as victimhood is the source of your empwerment , recovery is the enemy and is actually destructive to your sense of self .

hey thanks, this will make a great bumper sticker.

Three conditions Must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility…These three conditions are seldom present at the same time , ergo , no infallibility invoked or claimed .

it involves more than papal infallibility

Also , the Pope shares the charism of Infallibility with the body of bishops as a whole when in doctrinal unity WITH THE POPE , they solemnly teach a doctrine as true .

as I said before, if I want to understand what was an official teaching in the 1420’s, I am inclined to rely on the Pope, the Council and receivers of indulgences from that decade as opposed to someone from today…I have no doubt that the teaching “it is good and godly to kill Hussites” was recognized as official by all those involved…Pope, Council and in particular, those Catholics who died for an indulgence. What I find unsatisfactory WRT your criteria is that they are loosey goosey enough to allow any one (using them) to claim infallibility for their teachings. Do two teachings within a body of teachings contradict each other? If so, declare one or both to be unofficial (for not meeting the criteria) and the contradiction no longer matters. If that doesn’t sit well, then clarify and/or develop one or both of the teachings to eliminate the perceived conflict. I prefer (what I see as being) a more objective approach. I realize that you don’t see the same problems with your approach (as I see), but from this perspective, when the 1420’s are compared to the 21st century, it appears that the CC has done a dramatic about face WRT to its teachings regarding non-Catholic Christians. Again, for those of us who are not prepared to grant you the license to subjectively select what Catholic teachings you want to categorize as official, it appears that the official teachings of the CC must contain error b/c some of those teachings are in dramatic conflict.

You accuse Foxe (or was it the other guy?) of distorting history so as to make claims that are outlandish, fiction etc. for suspect motives. Specifically, the charge is that the author enlisted earlier Christians and portrayed them as sharing his beliefs so that continuity was achieved and so that a line of martyrs (all sharing the author’s specific faith) could be traced back to the beginning. Frankly, I think that you do something similar. Specifically, my charge is that you enlist earlier Christians and (by selecting what you will deem to be their official teachings)edit their views so as to portray them as possessing official beliefs that are not at odds with the official beliefs of the modern CC so that continuity is achieved and so that a line of “apostolic successors” (all sharing the your specific “error free” faith) could be traced back to the beginning.

SO again , what are you REALLY claiming this chapter in Church history demonstrates ? I am looking for a more grandiose ( and specific ) conclusion on your part .

again, hopefully that is specific enough…can’t say that I tried for grandiose.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

The Hussites likely thought that the Catholics started the nastiness by murdering Hus…but that wouldn’t justify reciprocating murders.

“murdering”? The Catholic priest Fr. John Hus “refused to retract his errors, was condemned as an obstinate heretic, and handed over to the secular arm” He was then executed for his crime.

Church History, Fr. John Laux, M.A. page 408

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Why wouldn’t the Pope, when trying to enlist the aid of a monarch, point out the threat to that monarch caused by the ideas of liberty and equality?

Political liberty, where is that in the Holy Bible?

 

[Radical]

“murdering”?

yep

The Catholic priest Fr. John Hus “refused to retract his errors, was condemned as an obstinate heretic, and handed over to the secular arm” He was then executed for his crime.

Church History, Fr. John Laux, M.A. page 408

The Jewish teacher Jesus refused to retract his claim to be the Christ, was condemned as an obstinate blasphemer and was handed over to the Romans, He was then executed for his crime.

Gospel of Matthew

Political liberty, where is that in the Holy Bible?

IIRC you’ll find it at the end of the chapter that describes Peter and Paul buring heretics at the stake.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

yep

The Jewish teacher Jesus refused to retract his claim to be the Christ, was condemned as an obstinate blasphemer and was handed over to the Romans, He was then executed for his crime.

Gospel of Matthew

Fr. John Hus was no Jesus Christ.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

it is very easy to invoke certain ECFs to support aspects of Protestant theology that vary from modern Catholic theology. To suggest that the modern Catholics have some sort of proprietary right WRT the heritage established by ECFs, (when some of their doctrine was so very different from modern Catholicism) is wrong.

Yes , the ECF’s were Catholic , not Protestant . In fact I think it was an ECF who first used the term " Catholic Church " .

You make generalizations and I love generalizations , but generalizations Without concrete examples are useless .
Go ahead and invoke those ECF"s who support Protestant theology that varies from modern Catholic theology .

huh?

" Metaphorically " ! A figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable , in order to suggest a resemblance .

Contarini described nicely how the works should be described and used…I have nothing to add

Well , in post # 8 he described the works as " reliable but biased " ."Reliable " as used here is a little too " squishy " for my taste . How reliable ? Are they orthodox or heterodox ? Perhaps we both could agree to " reliably heterodox " ?
I prefer to describe these works as " dissembling " .
post #67 contained the questions that I had in mind.

so that crusade against the Hussites might have been a grave error?

Perhaps , or perhaps not .

you are in the wrong century. I was talking about the Hussites and not the Cathars.

In addition to the Hussites I thought you also invoked the Cathars/Albigensians .

I wouldn’t judge them so harshly….WRT alleged despicable beliefs, were they the Cathars’ unofficial beliefs or their official beliefs?you surely can’t judge them on their unofficial beliefs and as to their behaviors, you surely can’t expect impeccability from them.

Their official beliefs , of course ! And their official behavior as well ! Re: their supposed "impeccability " , I have no idea as to whether they claimed it or not .

But , I wouldn’t be surprised if you did defend the Cathars . Clearly , the Cathars were no pikers , they gave us a heretical " twofer " . They combined Gnosticism with Manichaeism ( talk about synergy ) . They believed that the world was created by an evil deity , so matter( including the human body ) is evil , and the spirit was created by the good God who should be worshipped . They believed the spirit should be freed from the body .having children was one of the greatest evils , since it entailed imprisoning another spirit in flesh .Logically ( to them ) marriage was forbidden , but fornication was permitted (go figure ) .
But I’m not done , they also encouraged " ritualistic suicide " ( those who would not take their own lives were sometimes " helped along " ) . Cathars also refused to take oaths , which in a feudal society meant they oppsed all governmental authority . Thus Catharism was Both a moral and political danger . This is why both civil and Church authorities opposed them . Weren’t these Cathars swell ? Hail fellows , well met , wouldn’t you say ? Just the type to invite over for a backyard cookout ?

Do you personally identify with the Cathars ? Did you think that these were good 12th Century Protestants , Fundamentalists or Bible Christians ? You know , your spiritual ancestors ?

thanks, I have been told that victimhood doesn’t work well for me.

Great , so when do you intend to act like it ?

.the call to kill people who differ from you WRT their faith seems to be all about morality and faith

b/c an actual crusade involving invading armies carrying weapons for the purpose of killing

For all we know , this may have been considered a " disciplinary " issue ( tough love ) .

WHEN will you provide EVIDENCE that this was a case of the POPE invoking the charism of infallibility ? It is your charge , so when will you actually make your case with EVIDENCE ? BULLS don’t EQUAL infallibility . ALL OFFICIAL Church teaching doesn’t equal infallibility . When the pope speaks infallibly , he lets the whole world KNOW it , you don’t have to guess !. Show us the evidence !

it involves more than papal infallibility if I want to understand what was an official teaching in the 1420’s, I rely on the Pope, the Council .I have no doubt that the teaching was recognized as official by all those involved.What I find unsatisfactory WRT your criteria is that they are loosey goosey enough to allow any one (using them) to claim infallibility for their teachings. Do two teachings within a body of teachings contradict each other?

I love to be the guy to break it to you , but just because you have no doubt , doesn’t make it so . Have you ever thought of claiming the charism of infallibility for yourself ? Think about it ! I suspect you already function as your own ’ magisterium " !

How are the Church’s criteria for infallibility ( they are not my criteria ) ’ loosey goosey ?
Really , explain that . No one except the pope or the bishops in doctrinal unity with the pope when teaching a doctrine as true can invoke the charism of infallibility .The conditions are clear .

I am NOT selecting what Catholic teachings are “official”, rather I am saying that all official Church teachings DO NOT INVOKE the CHARISM of INFALLIBILITY !

My only license is the truth .

When will you admit that your’s is a tired , old and boring Protestant Trope ?

When will you admit to what your real agenda is ? This Hussite example is a tool or ruse , I suspect you have bigger game in mind . Go ahead , shoot the moon , go big casino , you know you want to . Go for it ! ON the Left there is an expression , " The issue is not the issue , the revolution is the issue " . The Hussites are not the issue , so say what you want to say !

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

i

You accuse Foxe (or was it the other guy?) of distorting history so as to make claims that are outlandish, fiction etc. for suspect motives. Specifically, the charge is that the author enlisted earlier Christians and portrayed them as sharing his beliefs so that continuity was achieved and so that a line of martyrs (all sharing the author’s specific faith) could be traced back to the beginning.

These earlier Christians , especially ECF’s( but not limited to them ) , wouldn’t have shared the same faith . The ECF’s were Catholic . Did the non-Catholic martyrs believe in the True Presence , a hierarchical Church , did they share the same liturgy , the same understanding of the Theotokos , infant Baptism , all seven Sacraments, the dual nature of Christ ( fully human and fully divine at the same time ) ? Who is playing fast and loose here ? Or if you prefer , loosey-goosey ?

Frankly, I think that you do something similar. Specifically, my charge is that you enlist earlier Christians and (by selecting what you will deem to be their official teachings)edit their views so as to portray them as possessing official beliefs that are not at odds with the official beliefs of the modern CC so that continuity is achieved and so that a line of “apostolic successors” (all sharing the your specific “error free” faith) could be traced back to the beginning.
again, hopefully that is specific enough…can’t say that I tried for grandiose.

You make general charges , but offer NO ACTUAL EXAMPLES to back those charges up !!! Please give me examples , because your charges are so general as to be useless !
What earlier Christians , which official teachings ? Be specific .
What do you mean by " error free faith ?

AND , speaking of faith , WHAT is yours ? You choose to fly under the flag of
" Protestant " , but that is so vague . Tell us , what SPECIFIC stream of Protestantism do you claim ? And WHY did you CHOOSE to be so vague in the first place ?

You know exactly what you’re dealing with , but I don’t ?

Regarding what you THINK you know about the Catholic Church , how much of it was gleaned from primary Catholic sources rather than anti-Catholic ones ? I ask because you don’t have a good grasp of " infallibility " or " official Church teachings " ( and what that actually means ) .

I suggest you read Prof. Philip Jenkins , " The New Anti-Catholicism , the Last Acceptable Prejudice " ( yes , he is a history and religious studies professor —and he is NOT Catholic ) .

IN ch. 9 ( this chapter is entitled , " Black Legends ) of the above book , he addresses Foxe’s " Book of Martyrs “—” Ever since the Reformation ,historical writing has provided perhaps the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of anti-Catholic rhetoric . Accounts of alleged Catholic atrocities and distortions have been best -sellers , and works such as Foxe’s " Book of Martyrs " were for centuries among the most popular titles in the English speaking world . Usually , these books presented a predictable range of arguments and examples , to the extent that a standard anti-Catholic mythology has retained it’s broad general outlines from the sixteenth century onward . What is remarkable , though , is that such a mythology not only survives today , but is regarded as a respectable part of civilived discourse " . Again , Prof. Jenkins is NOT a Catholic and does not have a dog in this fight .

So , tell me again why you invoke Foxe and support him ? Yah , so what’s polemics got to do with it , got to do with it ?

 

[Contarini]

have you considered this aspect of slavery and Martin V? (my apologies for referencing wikipedia…but I am too lazy to find anything better)
Slavery was commonplace in this era and was accepted by “almost everyone” with few arguing against it. During the 15th century, sentiment in Europe increasingly turned against the enslavement of Christians and the Church denounced such practices, but this did not extend to unbelievers. According to Burton (2007) Martin authorized a crusade against Africa in 1418 and this coupled with a later bull (1441) sanctioned the Portuguese trade in African slaves. In March 1425 a bull was issued that threatened excommunication for any Christian slave dealers and ordered Jews to wear a “badge of infamy” to deter, in part, the buying of Christians. In June 1425 Martin anathematized those who sold Christian slaves to Muslims. Traffic in Christian slaves was not banned, purely the sale to non-Christian owners. The papal bull of excommunication issued to the Genoese merchants of Caffa related to the buying and selling of Christians but has been considered ineffectual as prior injunctions against the Viennese, including the Laws of Gazaria, made allowances for the sale of both Christian and Muslim slaves. Ten black African slaves were presented to Martin in 1441 by Prince Henry of Portugal. Martin supported colonial expansion. Davidson (1961) argues that Martin’s injunction against slavery was not a condemnation of slavery itself but rather it was driven through fear of “infidel power”.(emphais added by Radical to show points of possible divergence with the Hussite position on slavery)

It seems highly unlikely that the Hussites concerned themselves with the enslavement of Africans and other non-Christians. It is possible that the Taborites (probably not the Utraquists) did support the abolition of serfdom–I don’t know enough about them to be sure, but I know they did have a kind of millenarian utopianism, and such ideas often went along with support for greater social equality.

A 19th-century French politician (which is what Cormenin was, according to wikipedia) who turned against the restored Bourbon monarchy and (again according to wikipedia) “voted with the extreme Left” would have a serious bias toward stressing the Catholic Church’s alleged opposition to ideas of freedom and equality. I repeat: we have yet to see a reliable citation/translation of this text.

I fail to see anything in the letter that is inconsistent with a declaration of a crusade…what is a crusade other than a God endorsed use of military force? …wouldn’t such use of force result in the killing of Hussites? Doesn’t it then follow that killing Hussites is in accordance with God’s will?

Crusades pretty much uniformly had as their goal the destruction of some kind of political entity which was thought to oppose true religion. The goal was to establish a political situation in which false religion could be suppressed by the civil government and true religion could be proclaimed. Contrary to the stereotype, they were not wars of annihilation. (Nor, of course, were Muslim holy wars, but that’s a separate issue.)

Why wouldn’t the Pope, when trying to enlist the aid of a monarch, point out the threat to that monarch caused by the ideas of liberty and equality? In short, it seems to me that what is stated in the letter is entirely consistent with the calling of a crusade.

Yes. It’s also consistent with what a 19th-century French liberal would imagine a Pope would say. I know nothing about Cormenin except what I have found on wikipedia, which tells me nothing about his reliability. I do know the names of major 19th-century historians, and he isn’t among them. Wikipedia describes him as a political pamphleteer. We have all been unable, so far, to find another citation.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

that is kinda rich…coming from a guy who felt the need to disclose what he gets paid for an opinion.
no room? I gave you everything from “never” to “always” and everything in between…there isn’t any more room available.

I know what I have answered when I have asked myself this question…I am wondering what you and other Catholics think.

it sure seems like you have a hard time dealing with this chapter of Catholic history. First, no matter what Contarini said, you could not tolerate giving Foxe’s Book any label other than “fiction”…no matter how many facts it contained, apparently any inaccuracy makes it a work of fiction. Now, you seem to be stuck at pointing your finger at the other (non-Catholic) guy rather than evaluating the actions and teachings of the Catholics at the time.

Concerning paid opinions.

I spent the better part of 10 years learning to write forensic medical reports. I wrote reports and they were edited by lawyers. I then rewrote those reports. They never told me what to say however they advised me how to write in a way that conveyed what I wanted to say in a way that a lawyer could use.

I translated that experience in the next 20 years without the editing, since I knew how to do it, and wrote reports that I self edited and produced. In 20 years I built a forensic medical practice so that I wrote reports for Personal Injury, Malpractice and Workman’s comp. I only had one workman’s comp case that I lost in court, one personal injury case that was lost in court and offered a fair number of opinions in malpractice cases. Physicians that I wrote reports in defense were lifelong friends. There was never any dishonesty in my writing or testimony. If I could not produce honest work I told the person before I started and would not aid them in pursuing litigation. The attorneys I worked with understood that all they wanted was truthful and honest work and I gave them that. This worked to my advantage as you might imagine. I did have cases filed against me in Arizona, anyone can file a lawsuit for whatever reason, however with my ability to produce my own reports and guide attorneys to the experts that could produce supporting reports, the result was not one successful malpractice in Arizona on my record. You have no idea how much pressure there is to settle lawsuits in Arizona. You are required to go through a settlement conference in Arizona and an independent 3rd party/Attorney advises to settle or not settle. I never listened to these advisors and advised my attorneys that the cases could not be won in court as they had no substance, ie they met the standard of care and thus the record of no successful lawsuits. That is what my understanding did for me.

I learned the difference between probable and possible. Probable in this arena means 51% surety. When it was probable then the terms that were used included “more likely than not” when generating an opinion.

The place you pulled this notion of a paid opinion from was from the thread concerning Celebrate Recovery. I never got paid for theological opinions. This thread concerned the notion of alcoholism and the notion that it is a disease and it was my opinion that it is not a disease, and I said that with certainty.

None of my opinions concerning theology are offered based on Knowledge, training and experience, as that is the definition of an expert opinion. I don’t think that I qualify as an expert in this regard as these opinions are not going to court.

Understand that much of what I write is filtered through this mental editing. I can’t help myself. It is how my mind works.

I am also aware via private communication that many that read my posts are encouraged by what I write and so knowing that I try to formulate my thoughts along those lines as well.

I do not believe that the issue of getting paid for an opinion has any value on any thread with the exception of the thread concerning Celebrate Recovery where you drew this notion from. I am formulating a well thought out response to the next issue and will post that before the week is out. I am pleased with my thoughts on that answer thus far. While I am pleased, your pleasure is yet to be discovered as you will have to wait. I promise it will not be disappointing.

While I do not believe that my opinions on these threads are worth a price I do reserve the right to consider some of them priceless.

 

[Radical]

It seems highly unlikely that the Hussites concerned themselves with the enslavement of Africans and other non-Christians.

why? It wasn’t just happening continents away. I note Thomas Fudge in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology wrote (at p. 26):

In practical terms, the Hussites raged against ecclesiastical and secular abuses, especially simony, social injustice, and immorality. The law of God was invoked to counter these offences, producing not insignificant results. Religious practice experienced renaissance with the introduction of renewed eucharistic observance. Apostolic rule controlled communities, while religion generally assumed broader dimensions, especially when the Hussites perceived themselves as God’s chosen people, anointed for the eschatological moment to defeat Antichrist, Satan, and all unrighteousness. Liturgical practices were overthrown in radical centres such as Tabor, but moderates consistently adopted a more traditional form of liturgical reformation. The social implications of these ideas enacted in society created numerous significant changes, many of which can be traced theologically to the Hussite conviction of the meaning and application of the law of God. Taborite religion is most illuminating and instructive here. The chalice became the dominant symbol and practice. Secular law was abolished in deference to divine law. Egalitarianism stemmed from this social levelling represented by eucharistic reform, and this was temporarily translated into social relations. Communism - the abolition of slaves, debts and secular authority structures - became a hallmark of the new faith; even material possessions were surrendered in order fully to realize the law of God. A national assembly at the town of Caslav effectively legalized the Four Articles for the Czech lands.

Now, perhaps Fudge was sloppy and should have said that the Hussites only advocated the abolition of Christian slaves…he doesn’t give a primary source for the claim and I don’t know that he is major 21st century historian, so perhaps you are inclined to dismiss his comment too.

A 19th-century French politician (which is what Cormenin was, according to wikipedia) who turned against the restored Bourbon monarchy and (again according to wikipedia) “voted with the extreme Left” would have a serious bias toward stressing the Catholic Church’s alleged opposition to ideas of freedom and equality.

you could find a bit more about Cormenin at the link I provided to the translation of his book….at the translator’s preface to it.

I repeat: we have yet to see a reliable citation/translation of this text.

What I see as being unreliable regarding this matter so far, is Farsight’s assessment of the existence of the quote in Cormenin (which you seemed to accept w/o question) and your gut instinct regarding the Hussite position on slavery. I haven’t seen any reliable challenge of the quote and I don’t know why we should assume that it is untrustworthy. On the spectrum running from “believe w/o any doubt” to “assume it to be a fabrication” I am inclined to be quite a bit closer to the former than the latter.

Crusades pretty much uniformly had as their goal the destruction of some kind of political entity which was thought to oppose true religion. The goal was to establish a political situation in which false religion could be suppressed by the civil government and true religion could be proclaimed. Contrary to the stereotype, they were not wars of annihilation. (Nor, of course, were Muslim holy wars, but that’s a separate issue.)

well, Martin’s Bull is also reported as calling for an extermination of the Hussites (among others) and the Council of Siena is reported as calling for much the same. There is a obvious consistency with the letter. The goal was the annihilation of Hussite beliefs, one way or another. The crusade against the Hussites had to start by killing Hussites to change the political situation.

 

[Radical]

I spent the better part of 10 years learning to write forensic medical reports. I wrote reports and they were edited by lawyers.

I had guessed this is what you were talking about…though here we sometimes pay that rate for the opinion of Chiropractors…I wasn’t sure which medical group you fell into

The place you pulled this notion of a paid opinion from was from the thread concerning Celebrate Recovery.

no, it was this thread post #24

I do not believe that the issue of getting paid for an opinion has any value on any thread…

well, that’s ok, some of my stuff has no value too.

While I am pleased, your pleasure is yet to be discovered as you will have to wait.

While I do not believe that my opinions on these threads are worth a price I do reserve the right to consider some of them priceless.

hey, come to Canada and I’ll buy you a coffee (extra large even) in exchange for a few of your theological opinions.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

well, Martin’s Bull is also reported as calling for an extermination of the Hussites (among others) and the Council of Siena is reported as calling for much the same. There is a obvious consistency with the letter. The goal was the annihilation of Hussite beliefs, one way or another. The crusade against the Hussites had to start by killing Hussites to change the political situation.

“Two days later the Crusade Bull was publicly read out in the city; it called for the extermination of Wyclifites, Hussites, and other heretics-the realm of Bohemia was not named.”

A History of the Hussite Revolution, by Howard Kaminsky, 1967.
Howard Kaminsky’s source of this quote is recorded as the “Hussite chronicler, Master Laurence of Brezova.” Here is another quote of Laurence of Brezova from the same book,

“After the death of John Hus the perverse clergy of Bohemia and Moravia who had procured his condemnation by contributing money and by various other means, and who had consented to his death, were by just judgement of God affllicted increasingly every day, by having their property taken away by laymen, by being ejected from their places and offices, and even by being made to suffer physical violence.”

 

[Sword_Brethren]

“After the death of John Hus the perverse clergy of Bohemia and Moravia who had procured his condemnation by contributing money and by various other means, and who had consented to his death, were by just judgement of God affllicted increasingly every day, by having their property taken away by laymen, by being ejected from their places and offices, and even by being made to suffer physical violence.”

Did our Lord support Revolution and Nationalism?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

why? It wasn’t just happening continents away. I note Thomas Fudge in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology wrote (at p. 26):

In practical terms, the Hussites raged against ecclesiastical and secular abuses, especially simony, social injustice, and immorality. The law of God was invoked to counter these offences, producing not insignificant results. Religious practice experienced renaissance with the introduction of renewed eucharistic observance. Apostolic rule controlled communities, while religion generally assumed broader dimensions, especially when the Hussites perceived themselves as God’s chosen people, anointed for the eschatological moment to defeat Antichrist, Satan, and all unrighteousness. Liturgical practices were overthrown in radical centres such as Tabor, but moderates consistently adopted a more traditional form of liturgical reformation. The social implications of these ideas enacted in society created numerous significant changes, many of which can be traced theologically to the Hussite conviction of the meaning and application of the law of God. Taborite religion is most illuminating and instructive here. The chalice became the dominant symbol and practice. Secular law was abolished in deference to divine law. Egalitarianism stemmed from this social levelling represented by eucharistic reform, and this was temporarily translated into social relations. Communism - the abolition of slaves, debts and secular authority structures - became a hallmark of the new faith; even material possessions were surrendered in order fully to realize the law of God. A national assembly at the town of Caslav effectively legalized the Four Articles for the Czech lands.

I didn’t know that our Lord supported Revolution from lawful authorities and Nationalism?

 

[Radical]

I didn’t know that our Lord supported Revolution from lawful authorities,

that is a tricky one. I note that A Hitler was duly elected and a lawful authority. Also, I can’t imagine that the Lord supports imposing doctrinal conformity through the use of the sword (especially doctrinal conformity around error). I can’t imagine that the Lord supports burning heretics (especially when the burnt is more Christ-like than the burnors). I like democracy and freedom (a lot) and I realize that I have those things b/c someone somewhere revolted against “lawful authorities”. IIRC the CC didn’t exactly embrace (at the outset) governance by the people, for the people. Do you think there is a simple answer to this issue? …b/c I can’t seem to find it.

…and Nationalism?

yah, I have wondered about that myself.