John Huss and the Council of Constance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, fine, multiple times. Then, if they were brave enough, they were put to the fire.
 
ComplineSanFran and I went off into a bit of a different direction–I was addressing his point about the persecution of Jews and of coerced conversions (Exsurge Domine does not address these things–I provided earlier the relevant papal bull from Bl. Gregory X that did)
 
If by brave enough you mean persist in their error that could endanger countless souls, then yes.
 
That’s assuming it is an error which would be another thread… I guess.
 
I mean brave enough to persist in their beliefs even at the risk of a terrible death. Brave enough — yes?
 
Can you please cite hat last bit regarding Orthodoxy? I find it hard to believe that the Orthodox would venerate anyone who was not an Orthodox Christian.
 
I guess if you call not submitting to proper authority in error “bravery”, then sure, I guess.
Jan Hus, if memory serves, denied teaching what was assigned to him and I do not think he denied his teaching, trying to say he wouldn’t deny that which he never taught…in other words, he did not defend his error, but tried to say he did not teach such error in the first place.
 
You make a good case, but I’m not convinced that is the case. The vast majority of Catholics today, are influenced by very modern ideas, many of which were condemned by the church prior to the 20th century. Here, on this thread, you have Catholics, saying that the burning of heretics is wrong, which was the assertion by Martin Luther, specifically condemned by pope Leo X. Yet, if you were to ask a devout Catholic from the 13th century about the burning of heretics, would they say it is wrong? I highly doubt it. Note that the saints of your religion during that period of history did not object to this practice. So clearly, something has changed the minds of the mass number of Catholics, and this in turn influenced the church, basically ‘argumentum ad populum’. If the church truly has the authority, especially divine authority, then what right does it have to fear from the objections of the masses? Why doesn’t the church seem to deliver when it claims to uphold constant teachings on faith and morals?
 
Last edited:
The Orthodox Church doesn’t canonize western saints (except saints from pre-Schism). But the Eastern Catholicism venerate some orthodox saints like St. Gregory Palamas, a monk from Mount Athos.
 
Pope Saint John Paul II spoke very well for himself
ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER TO AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON JOHN HUS
17 December 1999

Distinguished Members of the Government,
Dear Cardinal and Brother Bishops,
Distinguished Scholars,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

1 It gives me great pleasure to greet you on the occasion of your Symposium on John Hus, which has been another important step towards a deeper understanding of the life and work of the renowned Bohemian preacher, one of the most famous of the many great scholars to come from the University of Prague. Hus is a memorable figure for many reasons. But it is particularly his moral courage in the face of adversity and death that has made him a figure of special significance to the Czech people, who have themselves suffered much through the centuries. I am particularly grateful to all of you who have contributed to the work of the ecumenical Commission “Husovská”, established some years ago by Cardinal Miloslav Vlk in order to identify more precisely the place that Jan Hus occupies among those who sought a reform of the Church.

2 It is significant that scholars not only from the Czech Republic but also from neighbouring countries have taken part in this Symposium. No less significant is the fact that, despite the tensions that have marred relations between Czech Christians in the past, scholars from different Confessions have come together to share their knowledge. Now that you have brought together the best and latest scholarly work on Jan Hus and the events in which he was involved, the next step will be to publish the results of the Symposium, so that as many people as possible will have an insight not only into a remarkable man but also into an important and complex period of Christian and European history.

Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus, and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people. It was during my first visit to Prague that I declared my hope that precisely in your land decisive steps could be taken on the path of reconciliation and true unity in Christ. The wounds of past centuries must be healed through a new attitude and completely renewed relationships. May our Lord Jesus Christ, “who is our peace… and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14), guide the path of your people’s history towards the rediscovered unity of all Christians, which we ardently hope for in the millennium that is about to begin.

3 Scholarly endeavours to reach a more profound and complete grasp of historical truth are crucial to this cause. Faith has nothing to fear from the work of historical research, for, in the final analysis, research too is directed towards the truth which has in God its source. Therefore, I give thanks to our Father in Heaven for your work as it reaches its end, just as I was keen to encourage you as you began.
Click to expand...
 
cont’d
The writing of history is sometimes beset by ideological, political or economic pressures, so that the truth is obscured and history itself becomes a prisoner of the powerful. Genuinely scientific study is our best defence against such pressures and the distortions they can bring. It is true that it is very difficult to attain an absolutely objective account of history, since personal convictions, values and experiences inevitably impinge upon historical study. Yet this does not mean that we cannot offer an account of history which is in a very real sense impartial and therefore true and liberating. Your own work is a proof that this is possible.

4 The truth can also prove uncomfortable when it asks us to abandon long-held prejudices and stereotypes. This is as true of Churches, ecclesial communities and religions as it is of nations and individuals. Yet the truth which sets us free from error is also the truth which sets us free for love; and it is Christian love which has been the horizon of what your Commission has sought to do. Your work means that a figure like Jan Hus, who has been such a point of contention in the past, has now become a subject of dialogue, of comparison and shared investigation.

At a time when many are working to create a new kind of unity in Europe, studies such as yours can help to inspire people to go beyond narrow ethnic and national confines to genuine openness and solidarity. It can help Europeans to understand that the continent will advance more assuredly to a new and enduring unity if it draws in fresh and creative ways upon its shared Christian roots and upon the specific identity which derived from them.

5 It is clear, then, that your work is an important service not only to the historical figure of Jan Hus but also to Christians and European society more generally. This is because, in the end, it is a service to the truth about man; and it is this truth above all which the human family needs to recover at the dawn of the Third Millennium of the Christian era.

In contemplating the truth about man, we turn inevitably to the figure of the Risen Christ. He alone teaches and embodies completely the truth of man created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26). I pray most fervently that he who is “the same… for ever” (Heb 13:8) will send his light into your hearts. As a pledge of grace and peace in him, I invoke upon you, your loved ones, and upon the whole Czech nation the abundant blessings of Almighty God, to whom be “glory and wisdom and thanksgiving for ever and ever! Amen” (Rev 7:12).
Click to expand...
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-.../documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus.html
 
ComplineSanFran said:
The Vatican has apologized for many things, but it is well past time for the church as a whole to own up to it’s horrendous behaviour throughout history.
Click to expand...
This is so very true. I think, given the heroism on the part of the Popes and the Bishops…above all since the Second Vatican Council…great progress is being made. We are engaged and engaging in an entirely different way from that era before Vatican II.
 
Last edited:
As I explained, what changed were the circumstances. In the past, heresy implied a whole lot more than it does in a society where religious unity in civil society is already destroyed. The same principles regarding the application of the death penalty applied then as it does now. This is from the section on the execution of criminals in the chapter on the commandment against killing in the Roman Catechism (aka Catechism of the Council of Trent) published not long after Exsurge Domine:
The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.
Click to expand...
This is the same reasoning in the modern CCC.

So yes, ask someone today if a heretic deserves death, and everyone would and should say no, since nowadays that just implies that you’re one of many people in an already pluralistic society who denies an article of faith. However, if you phrase it another way, like asking if someone who is attacking and threatening the very stability of society and putting the lives of many people at risk (not to mention souls), and other means to stop the person are ineffective, can putting that person to death be justified, then I bet a whole lot more people would agree that in such a situation death is justified. The only difference is people in the past, based on their experience, associated those factors with heresy whereas now it is not usually accompanied by those factors.

Again, as I mentioned, the experience in the past was that heresy tended to lead to such things if not repressed (just look at the chaotic and bloody aftermath of the Reformation itself and it’s no wonder St. Robert Bellarmine thought it was a good idea). But, since that violence has died down, we’ve learned to co-exist peacefully for the most part and so we no longer see it as being justified (although, there are analogous situations in modern times, like when the US government went after the Branch Davidians or what’s going on with ISIS in the Islamic world).

To me, this issue is no different than two people applying the same just war doctrine and coming to different conclusions about a particular war, especially when one has more factual knowledge and experience than the other. We may look back with perfect hindsight and say a particular war wasn’t justified after all, whereas the people waging it at the time may have been doing so in good faith based on the information they had.
 
Last edited:
The entire point of the inquisitions was to obtain information. Except the information was to establish whether someone is guilty of heresy, there was no question as to whether punishing an obstinate heretic is both legally justifiable and morally justifiable. Nowaways, most Catholics would say it was never legally nor morally justifiable. The response of the church just seems to be argumentum ad populum.
 
Genesis315 said:
As I explained, what changed were the circumstances. In the past, heresy implied a whole lot more than it does in a society where religious unity in civil society is already destroyed. The same
The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.
Click to expand...
You have presented several very interesting observations and facts. As Christians we find ourselves at odds with the world and the governments of nations at times and increasingly so in our time. I like how you state that heresy and the purging thereof was understood and handled differently in those times in history when the Church and the State were intermingled. If we learn anything from history, we as Christians should be able to realize from Christ’s teaching given via the Bible that Jesus never ever meant for the Church to join forces with the worldly government systems. He explicitly stated that his Kingdom was not of this world. Is it possible that the Church in extreme persecution caved to the seduction of the State and compromised to gain comfort in this world? In doing so, over time the persecuted Church became accessories to persecution. Rather than dwelling and apologizing for specific atrocities committed by the Church and State of the time of the Reformation the Church needs to recognize that the sin that needs acknowledging is the sin of joining the Kingdom with the world.
Click to expand...
 
The separation of church and state, was specifically condemned by the church in the 19th century. Pope Leo XIII said that there should be two principle powers in a state, that of the secular authorities and that of the church. The same pope Leo XIII said, “The world has heard enough of the so-called ‘rights of man.’ Let it hear something of the rights of God.” The church wasn’t unfamiliar to the thought that came to dominate in the 20th century, they were opposed to it. By the mid 20th century however, it seemed the church decided “if you can’t beat them, join them”.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the inquisition was in the means some inquisitors used to extract information not in inquiring per se (using torture to extract confessions was condemned, for example, by Pope St. Nicholas I). In general, however, the Church still teaches that she can coerce and punish her erring members–even including temporal, expiatory penalties, not just spiritual ones (like excommunication). From the current Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1311 The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.

Canon 1312 §2. The law can establish other expiatory penalties which deprive a member of the Christian faithful of some spiritual or temporal good and which are consistent with the supernatural purpose of the Church.
Click to expand...
Generally today, heresy is punished with excommunication (and of course with it the deprivation of offices and other beneficial support from the Church).

Furthermore, the Church also still teaches that the state may repress false religious activity that is harmful to the common good. From the Catechism
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
40 DH 7 § 3.
Click to expand...
Note, the enforceable limits must be based on the truth (it can’t be “positivist”), including the supernatural truth and supernatural well-being of the people (it can’t be “naturalist”). This is because according to Catholic doctrine, the common good includes man’s spiritual well-being (see CCC 1925).

Tying this back to our previous discussion, as the Catechism states, the extent of repression is going to be based on the needs of the common good given the particular circumstances. Our circumstances today are very different from those in the time period at issue in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top