Is the Czech Republic still Hussite?

[exnihilo]

Hussites aren’t Protestants, they follow a 15th century heretic from Bohemia named Jan Hus. He taught that Christians must receive Holy Communion under both kinds (utraquism) and that people should be punished by the state for sins, as opposed to receiving penances from the clergy.

It would be a sad irony then that Hus was executed by the state because he was found guilty by the church of heresy. That is certainly the greatest punishment the state could carry out as a consequence for sin.

Hus was considered the heretic , but that was not the reason to burn him at the stake. He was burned because the Hussites under his rule took over real control of the Czech Republic and introduced a reign of terror there. Such “crimes” as gluttony, adultery, failure to post was punishable by death and the “police” could go to every house to see if the law is followed. This makes the Hussites precursors of Protestantism, which was even more radical in their fanaticism.

I’m not aware of this history. Do you have sources? Again it would be ironic if Hus and his followers advocated the state punishing sin since he was executed by the state for sin.

 

[Xenomorph66]

Contarini:

Hus was certainly a late medieval reformist who had strict ideas about immorality

Yes ,he wanted to get rid of it(immorality) , so postulated that all public and mortal sins and all other trespasses contrary to the law of God, should be punished according to the laws of the country, by those in charge of them.

Contarini:

and some of what you say sounds a lot like Savonarola–or Counter-Reformation bishops such as St. Charles Borromeo for that matter.

Savonarola was much worse than Hus , but I never heard of St. Charles Borromeo and his teachings. Could you write more about him?

Contarini:

But I’d like to see what good historical sources bear out your rather extreme-sounding claims.

amazon.com/History-Hussite-Revolution-Howard-Kaminsky/dp/1592446310/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346174706&sr=1-3&keywords=Hussites

(Taborites)in the beginning they observed a strict regime, inflicting the severest punishment equally for murder, as for less severe faults as adultery, perjury and usury, and also tried to apply rigid Biblical standards to the social order of the time.

newadvent.org/cathen/07585a.htm

Contarini:

When you say “failure to post”–I presume you mean “failure to fast.”

By “failure to post” i mean eating meat on Friday etc.

Contarini:

And none of what you describe is Nazism. . . .

His teachings have given the ideological basis to create a system in which the state could punish sins with secular penalties. That is force people against their free will.
And how to check if a citizen does not sin?Yes. He has to be invigilated and controlled.

How else to call this ideology if not Nazi? Fascist? Communist? totalitarian?

Imagine that today there is a person with such views. How would people have called him?

Sorry , but for me after the experiences of the twentieth century totalitarianism ,assessment of such persons as Hus, Savonarola, Bruno , Munzer or Calvin should be explicit. :dts:

Contarini:

The Council of Constance does not list this “reign of terror” as the reason for Hus’s condemnation.

Of course! The Council of Constance had no right to condemn him for that reason because it was part of the jurisdiction of the courts of the laity. Because secular courts have no means to reach him , Church used deception by puling him to Constance.

Council could judge him only for heresy , possibly taking into account the effects of that it brought.

To condemn a heretic to death , had to meet two conditions. First undoubtedly prove his guilt. Second there is no other way to stop him from continuing criminal activity.
Hus fulfilled both conditions , so the council has the right to condemn him.

exnihilo:

Again it would be ironic if Hus and his followers advocated the state punishing sin since he was executed by the state for sin.

But by another state.

Really ironic was death of Robespierre. Killed by the same regime that he created.

 

[michalcz]

Hello, most of us Czechs root for Jan Hus. I would go as far as saying the he is the most admired christian in the history of Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia/Bohemia if not the most admired Czech of all. Do you still call Galileo a heretic? Or Giordano Bruno? They all were very brave man who refused to give up their believe in the face of the all-mighty church and even ultimately death.

But the Husite church is a really small community - their members make less then 1% of the population. 80-90% Czechs are atheist or just don’t care. You don’t need to pray for the people here. We are very fine without god - regardless of his denomination.

 

[twf]

Hello, most of us Czechs root for Jan Hus. I would go as far as saying the he is the most admired christian in the history of Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia/Bohemia if not the most admired Czech of all. Do you still call Galileo a heretic? Or Giordano Bruno? They all were very brave man who refused to give up their believe in the face of the all-mighty church and even ultimately death.

But the Husite church is a really small community - their members make less then 1% of the population. 80-90% Czechs are atheist or just don’t care. You don’t need to pray for the people here. We are very fine without god - regardless of his denomination.

Galileo was a heretic, though not for the reasons you’re thinking. He wasn’t a heretic for proposing that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth (we, of course know that he was right on that point)…but he was a heretic in other areas, and it was his attack on the institutional Church and the authority of Scriptures that got him into trouble more so than his scientific theories. Also, Galileo was never executed…so I’m not sure what you mean by “ultimately death”. See catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

 

[Xenomorph66]

michalcz:

I would go as far as saying the he is the most admired christian in the history of Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia/Bohemia if not the most admired Czech of all.

Why? Why you admire this totalitarian?

michalcz:

Do you still call Galileo a heretic?

Still? He was never heretic. Church officials condemning his cosmological hypothesis simply went beyond their competence and this means that their judgment never had official power.

michalcz:

Or Giordano Bruno?

Yes. He is still a heretic and we all should be grateful to the church for eliminating this Renaissance Hitler and the enemy of science before he put his ideas into effect.

michalcz:

They all were very brave man who refused to give up their believe in the face of the all-mighty church and even ultimately death.

??? Galileo denied his claims. (which, moreover,he couldn’t prove it) and was sentenced to house arrest(which was later repealed) in a luxury villa at the expense of the church and the recitation of seven penitential psalms once a week for three years(he did continue after the end of the penalty of his own accord).

All-mighty church? which almighty church?

michalcz:

80-90% Czechs are atheist or just don’t care.

only on paper

In no country has I seen so many clairvoyants , diviners etc. (ok. I’ve seen more in Sweden)

The Czechs are a very religious nation , but it seems to them that if they do not believe in a God that makes them automatically atheists.

It’s very funny to hear “I am an atheist but I believe in omens and mystical energies”

 

[michalcz]

In no country has I seen so many clairvoyants , diviners etc. (ok. I’ve seen more in Sweden)

The Czechs are a very religious nation , but it seems to them that if they do not believe in a God that makes them automatically atheists.

It’s very funny to hear “I am an atheist but I believe in omens and mystical energies”

You may have met those. My mother would fit there too, but she is far from believing in personal god, prayer, salvation, resurection etc. Afterlife maybe I would add them in the grey zone between 60% atheists/agnostics and 11% believers. Still, they are far from being Christians. The point is, Jan Hus is generally admired for his bravery, even among catholic clergy and non-believers and the Hussite church is marginal (btw it’s quite popular among politicians, for unknown reasons).

People here are no different then anywhere else, this country is not more enlightened than other countries. Most people are non-religious for historical and social reasons - that their parents were not religious and their friends are not religious. Yet some still tend to spirituality. It’s human. That’s why missionaries are so successful in developing countries with poor education. If people are not educated in science they will believe anything, because personal experience is insufficient and the world seems mystical and incredible at first glance and people want to hope that there is something beyond this one earthly life they have.

 

[Xenomorph66]

michalcz:

My mother would fit there too, but she is far from believing in personal god, prayer, salvation, resurection etc. Afterlife maybe

Since when being a religious person requires faith in God, prayer or resurection?

If a person believes in immaterial entities (transcendent) or in those whose existence not been confirmed empirically (can not be confirmed or were verified negative):afterlife , ghosts , magic ,clairvoyance , horoscopes etc. this means that this person is religious.

michalcz:

I would add them in the grey zone between 60% atheists/agnostics and 11% believers.

60% of declared atheists. You can declare yourself anything. I can declare myself the best player in the world in underwater electric spillikins but it does not mean that I am.
Being an atheist as opposed to being a Christian, Islamist , Mozart fan ect. is something objective , measurable , just like being a physicist , football player or a world champion in underwater electrical spillikins.

michalcz:

Still, they are far from being Christians.

Of , course! In Czech percentage of those who believe in Christianity is small. But not percentage of believers in general. Newage and other shamanism hold great.

michalcz:

The point is, Jan Hus is generally admired for his bravery

I wonder why no one appreciates Pol pot for his courage?

michalcz:

That’s why missionaries are so successful in developing countries with poor education.

Correlation is just the opposite. As the countries of Christian civilization developed faster than any other civilization in the history of mankind, it is a religion that is more attractive and culturally more advanced than tribal beliefs and even Hinduism or Islam.
Christian civilization is the only one in which science had been developed , so it is natural that countries of other civilizations will be more backward and will subject to cultural and scientific dominance of Christianity and its civilization.

michalcz:

If people are not educated in science they will believe anything, because personal experience is insufficient and the world seems mystical and incredible at first glance and people want to hope that there is something beyond this one earthly life they have.

Exactly , and this means that in any society, in any culture and in any age, number of atheists can not exceed 1-4% of the population, and in fact it will always be a smaller number. The rest has to be religious in one way or another (unless there will be a new breed of man, created by genetic engineering).

 

[michalcz]

Since when being a religious person requires faith in God, prayer or resurection?

If a person believes in immaterial entities (transcendent) or in those whose existence not been confirmed empirically (can not be confirmed or were verified negative):afterlife , ghosts , magic ,clairvoyance , horoscopes etc. this means that this person is religious.

Here we call someone religious if he believes in god. Náboženství = faith in god. Horoscopes don’t work, ghosts etc. are nonexistent. That’s not a good argument if you want to persuade someone that faith in god makes more sense than all the stuff you mentioned.

60% of declared atheists. You can declare yourself anything. I can declare myself the best player in the world in underwater electric spillikins but it does not mean that I am.
Being an atheist as opposed to being a Christian, Islamist , Mozart fan ect. is something objective , measurable , just like being a physicist , football player or a world champion in underwater electrical spillikins.

Of , course! In Czech percentage of those who believe in Christianity is small. But not percentage of believers in general. Newage and other shamanism hold great.

Very few educated people believe this stuff, those who do are yours for being recruited. For me it’s no difference whether someone believes in ghosts, horoscopes, god or resurrection. Deist god may be the exception but he doesn’t make much sense either. People who don’t believe in god call themselves historically atheists. Accept that, whether it makes sense linguistically or not. Many words have such skewed meaning.

I wonder why no one appreciates Pol pot for his courage?

Silly argument. Hus didn’t harm anyone in his life. He opposed some teachings and practices of the church. And because of that he was burned at stake. If you want to defend this, you would be condemned by 99% of Czech Catholics.

Correlation is just the opposite. As the countries of Christian civilization developed faster than any other civilization in the history of mankind, it is a religion that is more attractive and culturally more advanced than tribal beliefs and even Hinduism or Islam.
Christian civilization is the only one in which science had been developed , so it is natural that countries of other civilizations will be more backward and will subject to cultural and scientific dominance of Christianity and its civilization.

Science developed in spite of the church. It developed in ancient Greece and Egypt, even though they had several gods. For me, it’s a mystery that it didn’t evolve much during the first fifteen centuries A.C.E. Why could it be so? If everyone was satisfied with biblical explanation of nature, we’d still live 15th century lives. Nowadays the church at least doesn’t prevent anyone from exploring and doing science that contradicts it’s teachings.

Exactly , and this means that in any society, in any culture and in any age, number of atheists can not exceed 1-4% of the population, and in fact it will always be a smaller number. The rest has to be religious in one way or another (unless there will be a new breed of man, created by genetic engineering).

I don’t know where you got this number, but there may be this or even smaller number of truth seekers who are not satisfied with not knowing how nature and human mind works. Others will follow and learn what the scientists have discovered. That’s the main reason why every census in developed countries shows that religion is on a steady decline. Even in the US, despite massive evangelization efforts and social pressure to be part of some church. Still, there’s a social aspect of religion that a secular society misses. People are then not united around a common cause and the society is atomized. That’s what happened in Bohemia.

 

[Yerusalyim]

My wife is from the Czech Republic (Ostrava) and I’ve spent quite a bit of time there, including in the churches. I don’t think the vast majority of Czechs are athiests…I think they are agnostic or just don’t care. My wife’s grandmother is to this day an ardent communist…hasn’t been inside a church in ages…but has pictures and statues of the Maddona. At midnight mass in Ostrava…or the churches I went to…it was standing room only. In fact, the Church closest to my grandmother-in-law in Poruba is standing room only every Sunday I’ve attended. I think the church in Czech can be revived. I’d love to see an organization similar to the Knights of Columbus to attempt to revive the life of the Church in Czech.

Hello, most of us Czechs root for Jan Hus. I would go as far as saying the he is the most admired christian in the history of Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia/Bohemia if not the most admired Czech of all. Do you still call Galileo a heretic? Or Giordano Bruno? They all were very brave man who refused to give up their believe in the face of the all-mighty church and even ultimately death.

But the Husite church is a really small community - their members make less then 1% of the population. 80-90% Czechs are atheist or just don’t care. You don’t need to pray for the people here. We are very fine without god - regardless of his denomination.

 

[Xenomorph66]

michalcz:

Here we call someone religious if he believes in god. Náboženství = faith in god.

I understand that for Czechs: Raelians, Buddhists, Confucianists, Taoists, shintoists, nay even shamans summoning the spirits of ancestors and spiritual wandering the afterlife are non-religious?

michalcz:

Horoscopes don’t work

Of course, it can even be proved. But that does not stop millions of people to believe in them.

michalcz:

ghosts etc. are nonexistent.

It’s not that easy. It is impossible to prove that they do not exist , so it’s just your opinion.

michalcz:

That’s not a good argument if you want to persuade someone that faith in god makes more sense than all the stuff you mentioned.

Maybe because it’s not supposed to be this type of argument? What I wrote was an argument against limiting the scope of the word “religious” to the people who believe in God.
If I had to convince someone I would use another arguments.

Moreover, the belief in something that does not conflict with science, and is outside its range(God) makes more sense than believing in things verified negative(magic, astrology, precognition, horoscopes, etc.) or inconsistent with science(for eg. creationism ,but also Buddhism, Taoism and the rest of the Far Eastern religions)

michalcz:

Very few educated people believe this stuff

1.And that is why there are so few atheists(and I mean atheists not “atheists” who would like to hook under the ateism and thus ennoble themselves and their most bizarre , ridiculous views and superstitions.
2.Depends on the field.
Humanists have no aquaticity in science so they do not have any mechanism by which to divide science from pseudoscience and parasciences. They will believe in everything ,enough to disguise it as a science.(for eg. that electrons circulate around nucleus of an atom , or that life is a form of existence of protein etc.)

michalcz:

Those who do are yours for being recruited.

I fear that Catholicism is too rational and scientific for them.

michalcz:

Deist god may be the exception but he doesn’t make much sense either.

Because?

michalcz:

People who don’t believe in god call themselves historically atheists.

If we applied the historical definition of atheism ,it turned out that I’m an atheist.

Historically atheism means something different than it is today.Historically atheism meant refusal to participate in public worship of the gods, that is basically a disbelief in the existence of “gods” but not disbelief in mysticism in general. Moreover, the early Christians were called atheists , because they don’t submitted victims to the “gods”.

michalcz:

Accept that, whether it makes sense linguistically or not. Many words have such skewed meaning.

Since when the linguistic meaning of the word is always translated into its definition?
Whether butterfly is a fly-covered butter or fly from butter?

Definition of an atheist is not exhaustive by a - theoi, that is “without god”
Such a definition would be very inaccurate and misleading.

If we would recognize it would appear that: Taoists, Buddhists, shamans, and in general everyone except Christians, Islamists and Jews are atheists.
That would mean that the average atheist is backward, dull and superstitious.
It would be extremely unfair for a small handful of enlightened and intelligent people calling themselves atheists.

Fortunately, Richard Dawkins created the first accurate and logically non-contradictory definition of atheism.

Atheist - One who considers that since there is no trace of any being transcendent in our material universe , it is because that such entity does not exist. A person who not only not believe in transcendence , but in general in any entities, phenomena and things whose existence has not been proven scientifically. Skeptical not only of religion, but in general any ideology. Rational.

To be such a person , it should know what is science and how it works. And especially it should know how the theory of evolution works(Dawkins considers that a person who is not familiar with the theory of evolution can not be an atheist. I personally think that knowledge about scientific mechanisms is sufficient)

Such knowledge allows to create a purely scientific and materialistic worldview , that does not need to making any reference to supernatural factors.

Because 96% of people have no idea how the theory of evolution or science works(and do not have the intellectual capacity to understand them) ,
it just can not be more than 4% of atheists in the population.
Therefore, the percentage of 60% of atheists could possibly occur (which is not to say that really exists, but it could) among employees of the department of physics at Oxford but not in a multimillion population

I wonder if michalcz understand the theory of evolution.

 

[Xenomorph66]

michalcz:

Silly argument. Hus didn’t harm anyone in his life.

Ok.I exaggerated the comparison , but admire a man for the same courage…it is not wery wise. Courage can be used for wrong purpose(suicide bombing).

Anyway, they both wanted to build a wonderful new world , by monitoring, surveillance, and very harsh laws(in short, totalitarianism). It was brave, but I see no reason to admire it.

Of course Hus, and his ideology was infinitely more delicate than Pol pot’s.

michalcz:

He opposed some teachings and practices of the church. And because of that he was burned at stake.

If this would be the only reason ,then nothing would have happened to him.
Eventually he would have been expelled from the church or sentenced on a pilgrimage.

Contrary to what is commonly believed, medieval church was incredibly tolerant and pluralistic (for those times). Many sects and heresies were tolerated if they do not threaten people or society. And because the Hussites and their ideology did not meet this requirement,they have been eliminated.

michalcz:

If you want to defend this, you would be condemned by 99% of Czech Catholics.

Because 99% of Czech Catholics have no idea how Hussites rule looked like.

michalcz:

Science developed in spite of the church.

On the contrary. In the first centuries of the Christian civilization, it is the Church that not only expanded knowledge(founded universities, support research , had many discoverers in their ranks) but also preserved what it could from the knowledge of the ancient.

Even in modern times many Catholic priests are scientists and some of them have made a significant discoveries.
Giuseppe Piazzi - discovery of the first planetoid
Gregor Mendel - discovery of the laws of genetics
Georges Lemaître - creator of the concept of the Big Bang

michalcz:

It developed in ancient Greece and Egypt, even though they had several gods.

I see that you do not know what science is , because if you knew ,you would not write such nonsense.

Such a thing as science did not exist in ancient Greece nor in Egypt. Science was created in Christian civilization and no other (although I have to admit that the Greeks were close).
Science is not limited to telling different theories and hypotheses, even the wisest.
You still need to check them out by experiment or observation. The Greeks did not do anything like that. And even if one have measured or weighed anything (Archimedes, and Eratosthenes) it was treated as curiosity, of no great importance.
Therefore, science was not practiced.
And let alone in ancient Egypt.

michalcz:

For me, it’s a mystery that it didn’t evolve much during the first fifteen centuries A.C.E. Why could it be so?

It was not so. The period from I to VI century was indeed the time of stagnation and apathy(or even decline). But since the VII century, when Christian civilization begins to emerge, we observe rapid civilization, technical and economic development.
Christian civilization of the Middle Ages begins as the poorest and most backward of all civilizations. And at the end of Middle Ages it as the most developed and richest.

michalcz:

If everyone was satisfied with biblical explanation of nature, we’d still live 15th century lives.

But they were not. Even the ancient Christians did not take the Bible literally.Translation of nature through the lens of the Bible was typical for all kinds of sects and became fashionable in the Renaissance with the rise of the Protestants.

michalcz:

Nowadays the church at least doesn’t prevent anyone from exploring and doing science that contradicts it’s teachings.

Church never fought or prohibited science. According to the teachings of The Teaching Office Of The Church it can not be any contradiction between the truths of science and faith. Therefore, any scientific truth is in line with the teachings of the Church ,from the very definition.

michalcz:

Others will follow and learn what the scientists have discovered.

As I said before they do not have a mechanism to check what is science and what is not.
So they will be pushed to believe anything. They will worship global warming caused by carbon dioxide , science(will blindly believe in everything that contains the word “science”,even if it would be in conflict with it) or UFO.

michalcz:

That’s the main reason why every census in developed countries shows that religion is on a steady decline.

We are seeing the crisis of the old religion and the emergence of new ones. And not fall of religion as such.

michalcz:

Even in the US, despite massive evangelization efforts and social pressure to be part of some church.

I hope that it does not, because 40% of the world’s scientific potential in the U.S.
And as we see atheistic countries (CCCP), and constitutionally secular (former Eastern Bloc)subject to scientific and economic degeneration.
Even today, countries such as Spain (five years ago, the third economic power of Europe and one of the fastest developing countries) after the rapid secularization is a shadow of itself. Also, today’s Czech Republic (excluding Prague) compared with Polish, and even Slovakia! is a real picture of misery and despair.

 

[michalcz]

Xenomorph66, I see that you are very skilled at apologetics and I enjoy this conversation. You can offend my arguments left and right and I can even agree with you about some historical facts that you know more about than me, but the summary for me is that the church teaches something pretty unbelievable (God the father, son of a virgin, resurrection, original sin) through a book that is pretty outdated and fails miserably anywhere it tries to describe nature, and thus must be taken metaphorically. Anything then can be excused by that argument. The catholic church does this very skillfully. The God that the Bible describes is nobody/nothing I would like to worship.

It is obviously beneficial for the society if the people in it believe in something more than themselves. My hope is that it’s the health of the society itself rather than Jesus Christ. I agree with you that the society in some parts of this country needs cure. There are towns and villages without an active christian community that function very well but there are probably more that don’t function so well - forming a community without a church is harder than with one. That’s the social aspect of religion that is mostly beneficial - if it doesn’t oppress “heretics”. But if the core of Christianity is false I choose other ways of pursuing common/personal well being. It may be harder and take longer but it’s truer.

And why the deist god doesn’t make much sense either? Dawkins’ explanation is that he would need to be much more complex than anything that he created. Thus there would need to be an explanation how he was “created” - by another god? And him? And him? You most probably don’t like Lawrence Krauss, as he is quite an outspoken atheist, but his lecture/book Universe from nothing is pretty exciting. The lecture is on Youtube. You can filter out any antireligious remarks if you find them offensive The lecture describes a theory of the origin of the universe that doesn’t need any creator or any previous matter apart from emptiness for a universe like ours to emerge. It may not be true but at least it’s a viable alternative to a universe created by god. For me if someone says that “God did it” it’s like he said “I have no idea what caused it and I don’t want to know because the truth may contradict the Bible”. I chose not to take the Bible more seriously than any other fiction book.

 

[From_Austin]

There is a Czech Hussite Church which was founded in the wake of the Czech national revival surrounding Czechoslovakia’s independence. I just read today that it had hundreds of thousands of supporters in the 1920s. I believe it is much smaller now. This church, however, does not trace a direct lineage to the “Hussites” (the term has little meaning in the scope of the broad movement) of the 1400s.

The only group that can claim such a lineage is the church of Unitas Fratrum. They hid out in northern Bohemia/Moravia following Bila Hora. They were invited into Saxony by Zinzendorf, a German Peist, and became known as the Maehrische Brueder, or simply Moravians. It is interesting to note that the Unitas Fratrum were descended not from the moderates of Prague who ruled for most of the Hussite period, but from the radical tradition. Petr Chelčický (1400s), their founder, was much akin to the militant Taborites except (importantly) for his pacifism. To that end, he called the Taborites sinful for the war they made. But he also disliked the direction that Bohemia was going after the Radicals’ defeat at Lipany. His teachings have been called Christian Anarchy, and were much admired by Tolstoy.

Unlike other early radical Protestants, who were often iconoclastic, the 1700s Moravians worked hard to retain the arts in their communities. They even took it upon themselves to teach music to others, as was the case in colonial America (I learned that in Music Lit I).

Somebody mentioned the Czechs in Texas. They are mostly Catholic. And St. Mary’s of Praha is one of their greatest works of art. Some of the first wave of immigrants, however, were Protestant. Only a few miles away from where I go to school, there is a “Hussite” church. Actually, there are several. They are called Unity of the Brethren, just like the original movement. They are part of the Moravian Church, but are descended from the Brethren who did not leave for Saxony, so they are un-Germanized.

The Hussite movement was massive, and had many aims.

1. Jan Hus and other scholars of the Bohemian Nation (Fraternity actually) at Prague were upset about the state of the Church during the Schism. They also believed strongly in Utraquism, and were influenced by Wycliffe through the strong bond between the Universities of Prague and Oxford.
2. Many Czech nobles (even the king) were upset that the Church declared Hus a heretic. Although they may have not all been “Hussites,” they saw Hus’ burning as an insult to their land. Papal interdict had also declared them all “heretics.” For more cynical reasons, they were also keen on confiscating church land. Thus, the Hussite wars made the Czech-speaking nobility very rich, also from the ousting of many of the German noble families.
3. Czech-speaking peasants and poor nobility were ready to rise up, especially in the south, where the Taborite League took hold. Economic and ethnic motivators were strong here. The revolution in the south started as a kind of communalist utopia, but soon became a league of minor townships and nobles that financed their own army with elected leaders. Jan Zizka was the most famous of these. He was a kind of Pancho Villa of the Czechs, who revolutionized warfare to fit the lifestyle of the peasants, with scythes, flails, guns and wagons. He was a military man (a former mercenary captain of 60) and not much is known about his religious views or motivation.

Prague itself was divided between the New City and Old City. The Taborites were frequently at war with the moderates in Prague. The Hussites defended themselves though, seriously outnumbered, on many occasions. But they could only do so when the Praguers and the rural leagues stood together. Eventually the moderates defeated the Taborites at Lipany and Catholicism and Utraquism were established as two official religions in Bohemia proper.

I hope that helped. I have been reading a lot about Hussites and I find the subject very interesting. I know I’m a guest here, and these are polarizing issues in regards to church history.

 

[From_Austin]

Your description sounds much more like the Taborites than Hus. Hus died before the Taborites got started, and, like it or not, their program was worlds away from his.

 

[Indifferently]

Jesus also said we should receive communion in both kinds. Was he also a heretic?