John Huss

[WesleyF]

A Protestant wrote:

“John Huss was born in Hussenitz, Boehemia in 1372 and later studied theology at the University of Prague. He was ordained a priest and appointed preacher at the Bethlehem chapel in Prague in 1402. Huss then became rector of the University in 1409.
He especially rejected the Roman Catholic pope as having authority over the Church. He believed that Scripture was the foremost authority in all Church matters. He believed that there needed to be extensive reforms within the Church to turn away from corruption and abuses of the Roman Church. He believed as Wycliffe did that the communion bread and wine did not become the actual body of Christ when the priest prayed over them. He further believed that everyone should have a copy of the Bible in their own language, to read for themselves. Huss was invited to attend the Council of Constance, but when he arrived about January 1415, he was arrested and held in a room in the palace. When he went before the Council he listened to the forty articles read against him and appealed his case to the higher judge, Jesus Christ. As the conversation continued, he was laughed at and mocked by council members, who were enraged at his words and condemned him to be burned.They then bound him to a stake with a chain and placed bundles of his books around him up to his neck. He was then asked to recant his teachings, to which he replied, “I never taught any doctrine that was evil, now what I have taught with my lips, I will seal with my blood.” When the flames engulfed him, he began to sing a hymn so loud and cheerful that he could be heard above the crackling of the flames and the noise of the crowd. His remains, as John Wycliffe’s, were gathered and cast into the Rhine River. However, they could not destroy his memory or his teachings from the minds of his supporters.”

What do you say to him?

 

[NewCatholic1207]

I have recently been involved in a discussion with a Baptist and gotten pretty much the same response. He, however, also referred to Huss as “one of the early martyrs…”. I guess St Stephen doesn’t count anymore.

I would also be very interested in how to deal with this line of argument from a Protestant.

God Bless.

 

[NHInsider]

Well, that’s a very, very simplified statement of a very, very complicated bit of Church/European history. The Council of Constance began during the time of the Western Schism, when there were three sitting “popes,” (John XXIII, Benedict XIII and Gregory XII) each supported by a different national/regional power group. So Hus’ statements on the authority of the Roman pope were not only ecclesial statements but political ones.

The Council itself was wracked with political dissent and power struggle. Over the course of many months the council managed to work out a system of vote distribution, unseat, one at a time, each of the three claimants to the papacy, and ultimate elect a single pope (Martin V), restoring the unity of the Western church. They also dealt with, I think, the trials of a half-dozen heretics, including Hus, who had come voluntarily to the Council to argue his case under the protection, he thought, of the Emperor, although the Emperor later (after Hus was arrested) said that he would not stand against the authority of the Church - one wonders if he had hoped all along that the Church would rid him of the very popular Bohemian leader.

Heresy, as has been noted here before, was not only a threat to the faith but to civil order and hence was a secular crime.

Many of the reforms Hus urged were valid - during the schism the disorder and abuse in the Church had become rampant. Martin V began immediately to correct many of the very things Hus had condemned. Others of Hus’ teachings were obviously not compatible with the Catholic faith, most notably his denial of the Real Presence (although the summary offered by your Protestant debater is incorrect, here. Wyclif and Hus did NOT believe that the elements were purely symbolic. They taught that God entered the elements at the time of communion but that they were not substantially changed, so that any remaining after the liturgy were once again only bread and wine - rather the same idea as those who taught that Jesus was not God Incarnate but just a human being “possessed” by the Holy Spirit from His baptism to the Crucifixion.)

But (as I understand it, and I’m by no means an expert) the reason the secular authority wanted Hus gone was because he taught that the faithful were not subject to civil authority unless those in authority were in a state of grace. He was seen as a leader of the Bohemian nationalists against the authority of German emperor.

And the romantic description of the condemnation and execution of Hus leaves out the two and a half months of examination of his work (during which he continued to preach and write under house arrest at the castle of Gottlieben) and skips over the fact that he was not “bound and burned” by the Council but turned over by them to the secular authorities after having been found guilty of heresy.

Everyone admits that his conduct at his execution was a remarkable exhibition of his faith.

The problem with these kinds of arguments is two-fold. One is that they’re meant to prove by evoking the horrible details that the Catholic Church was a wicked institution. The obvious retort is to point to something like the drawing-and-quartering of Catholic priests under the Elizabethans and say “you did it, too” when in truth neither situation proves anything about the faith but only about the times.

The other issue has to do with the Church’s authority to define the faith and to silence one of her ordained ministers who teaches contrary doctrines. (Pope John XXIII had instructed Hus to cease teaching long before the Council, excommunicating him without suggesting any secular sentence. Hus, obviously, rejected that discipline.) Since Protestants reject the very notion of apostolic authority, they see any act taken to quash heresy as wrong. The alternative, obviously enough, is that when a minister of a Protestant church comes up with a conflicting doctrine, he starts a new church. This issue of authority regarding teaching on faith and morals is obviously one the Church continues to deal with - there are many dissenting theologians today who should be supremely grateful that secular authorities no longer impose the death penalty on heretics!

I’m not sure any of this gives you a ready answer to your opponent. I’d be inclined to say “So? What is your point?” Because dueling anecdotes is really meaningless.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

A Protestant wrote:

“John Huss was born in Hussenitz, Boehemia in 1372 and later studied theology at the University of Prague. He was ordained a priest and appointed preacher at the Bethlehem chapel in Prague in 1402. Huss then became rector of the University in 1409.
He especially rejected the Roman Catholic pope as having authority over the Church. He believed that Scripture was the foremost authority in all Church matters. He believed that there needed to be extensive reforms within the Church to turn away from corruption and abuses of the Roman Church. He believed as Wycliffe did that the communion bread and wine did not become the actual body of Christ when the priest prayed over them. He further believed that everyone should have a copy of the Bible in their own language, to read for themselves. Huss was invited to attend the Council of Constance, but when he arrived about January 1415, he was arrested and held in a room in the palace. When he went before the Council he listened to the forty articles read against him and appealed his case to the higher judge, Jesus Christ. As the conversation continued, he was laughed at and mocked by council members, who were enraged at his words and condemned him to be burned.They then bound him to a stake with a chain and placed bundles of his books around him up to his neck. He was then asked to recant his teachings, to which he replied, “I never taught any doctrine that was evil, now what I have taught with my lips, I will seal with my blood.” When the flames engulfed him, he began to sing a hymn so loud and cheerful that he could be heard above the crackling of the flames and the noise of the crowd. His remains, as John Wycliffe’s, were gathered and cast into the Rhine River. However, they could not destroy his memory or his teachings from the minds of his supporters.”

What do you say to him?

How about this:

“This only shows that the Catholic Church has made some horrible mistakes in its past, caused mostly by the short comings of the men that were leading her at these times. It is a sad reality that no Church has been immune to these mistakes. (If you do not believe me just do Google search on Richard Topcliffe, Anabaptist, or consistories and you will know what I’m talking about. Luckily, The Church has admitted these mistakes and asked for forgiveness. I prefer to concentrate on the Church of today which reflect the lessons learned from the Church of yesteryear. By the way… When was the last time that YOUR denomination apologized for anything???”

Viva Cristo Rey!

Catholic Deacon

 

[WesleyF]

The Protestant has replied:

why it is that the questioner believes that tragic stories of martyrs prove that the Church is not the Church?

BECAUSE catholic church contradicts itself. They believe that they are saved from error by Jesus Christ himself. yet.they burn a man at stake just because he differs with them. Even the popes have to apologise time and again. So, catholic church isn’t perfect and it is not the true church.

But Wyclif wasn’t a Protestant - he was a dissenting Catholic whose teachings were used by others to defend positions of rejection of civil authority on religious grounds.

…oh, so that is the reason they had to burn his bones and throw them in Thames. All protestant reformers were dissenting catholics. That is why they are protestants.!!

I would like to know, what oral tradition had given the pope authority to burn people at stakes. The apostate church( according to the protestants) became a death messenger rather than life-giver.

 

[ICEArmy]

So I’m guessing that he believes that the True Church has to be perfect? That the Church has to always be right and never wrong, that all the members of that church have to be perfect and never do anything wrong?

Doesn’t he know that we are all humans, and that noone is perfect except Jesus Christ, himself.

I dont know about how the Church was authorized to burn people at the stake, but I would really like to learn that myselft, incase a protestant questions that to me.

 

[NHInsider]

I dont know about how the Church was authorized to burn people at the stake, but I would really like to learn that myselft, incase a protestant questions that to me.

Technically the Church did not execute people. Church punishments are things like excommunication and interdict. States had heresy laws - heresy was in most cases a capital crime. But state authorities turned to the Church to investigate and determine whether or not a person was guilty of heresy, since that was the Church’s area. The Church did the investigation, rendered a verdict, and sometimes made a recommendation. The State carried out the punishment, whether it was burning or drawing-and-quartering or boiling in oil or hanging or whatever.

And I still say Jan Hus wasn’t a Protestant. There was no non-Catholic church in his day, nor did Hus try to start one. Your debater’s position is apparently that anyone who disagrees with the Catholic Church is a Protestant. Does he claim ALL the heretics as his spiritual forefathers, I wonder? Gnostics, Donatists, Manichees . . . it’s an interesting pedigree.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A Protestant wrote:

"John Huss was born in Hussenitz, Boehemia in 1372 and later studied theology at the University of Prague. He was ordained a priest and appointed preacher at the Bethlehem chapel in Prague in 1402. Huss then became rector of the University in 1409.
He especially rejected the Roman Catholic pope as having authority over the Church.

Not a good idea. Understandable, given the unsettled condition of the Church at the time - but still not a good idea, seeing as that position was contrary to Catholic teaching; was heretical, indeed. The CC has never fallen over itself to admire those it judges heretics, nor did it do so then. It cannot be expected to do so, any more than Protestants can be expected to accept all the CC holds & teaches.​

He believed that Scripture was the foremost authority in all Church matters. He believed that there needed to be extensive reforms within the Church to turn away from corruption and abuses of the Roman Church. He believed as Wycliffe did that the communion bread and wine did not become the actual body of Christ when the priest prayed over them.

If Huss believed that, he was holding another heretical belief. If someone propagates heretical ideas, the CC gets rather upset, because that means a formerly private heresy is public; & whereas a private heretic harms himself alone, an open & public heretics risks harming others. This is something heretics have no right or liberty to do, because it is an intrinsically evil act; like poisoning the water supply rather than oneself alone. Heresy is a crime now, & was a crime then, in the eyes of the Church - that is why Huss was treated as a criminal. As for the (in)famous issue of his safe-conduct, that was given him to insure that he arrived at the Council in safety; it did not imply that he would not be arrested or not tried or (if found guilty) not punished.​

He further believed that everyone should have a copy of the Bible in their own language, to read for themselves. Huss was invited to attend the Council of Constance, but when he arrived about January 1415, he was arrested and held in a room in the palace. When he went before the Council he listened to the forty articles read against him and appealed his case to the higher judge, Jesus Christ. As the conversation continued, he was laughed at and mocked by council members, who were enraged at his words and condemned him to be burned.

Burning alive was the punishment for heresy - among other crimes. FWIW, the fact & the severity of this form of execution cannot be used against the CC by Protestants, unless Protestants can defend their own use of this punishment. That does not justify it, & is not meant as an attempt to do so: but a lot of nonsense is talked about the cruelty of Catholicism, as though it were alone in having inflicted the death penalty for heresy. A 15th-century Inquisitor would probably be horrified by the ease with which abortion is obtainable in countries supposedly Christian; so we should be very slow to accuse previous ages - there is plenty for our descendants to accuse us of.​

They then bound him to a stake with a chain and placed bundles of his books around him up to his neck. He was then asked to recant his teachings, to which he replied, “I never taught any doctrine that was evil, now what I have taught with my lips, I will seal with my blood.” When the flames engulfed him, he began to sing a hymn so loud and cheerful that he could be heard above the crackling of the flames and the noise of the crowd. His remains, as John Wycliffe’s, were gathered and cast into the Rhine River. However, they could not destroy his memory or his teachings from the minds of his supporters."

What do you say to him?

Nothing, without being given a source Protestants are not always notable for their care in interpreting Catholic documents & ideas in the sense intended (not that they unique in that).​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have recently been involved in a discussion with a Baptist and gotten pretty much the same response. He, however, also referred to Huss as “one of the early martyrs…”. I guess St Stephen doesn’t count anymore.

I would also be very interested in how to deal with this line of argument from a Protestant.

God Bless.

Read the thread ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Technically the Church did not execute people. Church punishments are things like excommunication and interdict. States had heresy laws - heresy was in most cases a capital crime. But state authorities turned to the Church to investigate and determine whether or not a person was guilty of heresy, since that was the Church’s area. The Church did the investigation, rendered a verdict, and sometimes made a recommendation. The State carried out the punishment, whether it was burning or drawing-and-quartering or boiling in oil or hanging or whatever.

Hanging, drawing & quartering was inflicted on male traitors not of noble blood, in England - the Church had no part in that, but only in the punishment of ecclesiastical crimes. Heresy was an ecclesiastical crime first and foremost: it became a crime punishable by the temporal power only secondarily - which is how it was possible for Henry IV in 1401 to issue the writ de haeretico comburendo for the punishment of Lollards. He did so in virtue of his royal authority, although the canonical trial of heretics remained in the hands of the bishops, as before. The executions of 1555-58 under Queen Mary I were, again, proceeded with according to de haeretico comburendo after the condemned had been tried by episcopal tribunals. No Inquisition ever had any jurisdiction in England, curiously enough - it was never operative in all of Europe.​

And I still say Jan Hus wasn’t a Protestant.

There was no non-Catholic church in his day, nor did Hus try to start one. Your debater’s position is apparently that anyone who disagrees with the Catholic Church is a Protestant. Does he claim ALL the heretics as his spiritual forefathers, I wonder? Gnostics, Donatists, Manichees . . . it’s an interesting pedigree.

 

[benhur]

Doesn’t he know that we are all humans, and that noone is perfect except Jesus Christ, himself.

Yes, that is why Hus said we follow Christ first ,even above a pope who can err.

 

[LightBound]

Yes, that is why Hus said we follow Christ first ,even above a pope who can err.

Last post before yours was over 6 years ago- mods request a new thread be started when one is dormant for so long