Topic: Jan Hus

[erracht]

Before the Reformation of Luther and Calvin, there was Master Jan Hus, a Czech who wanted the Roman Catholic Church to ''return to its original teachings'' (according to what I've read) and to have services in the vernacular. He was burned at the stake for his efforts, but some people were impressed, and Hussuite churches were formed. It seems that much of Bohemia belonged to one or another group of Hussites, until the Habsburgs took over and forced Roman Catholicism on them. But after the Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart, there was a religious ''reawakening'' in Czechoslovakia. Apparently some people became ''Hussite'' again, but an Orthodox Church was also formed. Its first bishop, Gorazd, was an ex-RC cleric who formed the Czech Orthodox Church with the help of the Serbian ch+¦rch. He was martyred in WWII, executed by the Nazis for sheltering Czech paratroopers in the crypt of the Orthodox cathedral in Prague (I now go to this church, as I am working in Prague hopefully until June).

I was wondering, what should be the Orthodox perspective on Jan Hus' teachings? Was it by any chance more Orthodox than that of Luther?

[Linus7]

I'm a bit rusty on Hus, but as I recall he was heavily influenced by the writings of John Wycliffe of England. Wycliffe was a heretic with Donatist attitudes about the clergy. He cooked up Sola Scriptura almost 200 years before Luther.

As I recall, Hus' ideas mirrored Wycliffe's.

Many of the Hussites were quite violent. One branch, the Taborites, believed they alone were the Elect and were entitled to plunder the non-Elect or Reprobate. They engaged in brigandage.

I do not know much about the Czech Orthodox Church, but I cannot see how it could have grown out of the Hussite movement. Individual disaffected Hussites may have repented of their Protestantism and turned to Orthodoxy, but Orthodoxy is certainly NOT a natural development of what Hus believed.

[erracht]

You're right. That part was more an aside. St. Gorazd was interested in Hus, but from what I understand, he found ''fullness of the faith'' in Holy Orthodoxy. I can't say that the Czech Orthoox Church grew out of Hussitism.

There are supposed to be some 25000 Orthodox in the Czech Republic.

[Br. Max, OFC]

http://www.johnhus.org/beliefs/

[Linus7]

http://www.johnhus.org/beliefs/

Yep. Hus was a heretic.

[Br. Max, OFC]

which heresies do you see him espousing?  Arianism? Monarchianism? sabellianism?

[Ben]

You all might find this interesting, it's from a Ukrainian Orthodox site, however I have been told that the author of the article is Ukriainian Catholic. Anyway I thought it was very interesting....

It was in the sixteenth century on an October 31 that Martin Luther first made public his "95 Theses" against the Roman Catholic church, thereby inaugurating the Protestant Reformation.    

The term "Protestant" comes from "protest" and was used to describe radicals who swam against the stream, especially when the Church was involved.  One of the first to be called a "protestant" was Joan of Arc.  Her excommunication and subsequent burning as a heretic was a religious form of revenge exacted by an angry English Church and people.

Another "protestant" who was actually burned on the same day as Joan, was the Czech Reformer Jan Hus (+1415).  It is in the life and times of Jan Hus that we best see the religious issues surrounding the genesis of the Reformation.

A Catholic priest and theologian, Fr. Jan Hus (from his town of Husinec) was very interested in the pastoral care of his Czech flock.

Hus was well aware of the former Cyrillo-Methodian heritage of Bohemia and the surrounding areas from the time of Prince (Saint) Rostislav who first invited the Thessalonian brothers to his domains.

The later imposition of Roman Catholicism and of German colonial rule on Bohemia and the Czech lands were to become the "lords of spiritual misrule," according to Jan Hus.

Roman Catholicism imposed the foreign language of Latin on the Slavic Czechs, rather than the previous Slavonic of Sts. Cyril and Methodius which was entirely understandable.

This meant that the people could no longer understand the Church services or the Scriptures.  With the imposition of Latin, the people fell away from an active and intelligent participation in the life of Christ through the Church.  Consequently, their spiritual and moral lives fell to an all time low.

In his writings and sermons, Hus decries the moral laxity of the clergy in Bohemia.  The higher clergy are overly concerned with property and finances, he said, and the lower (celibate) clergy's sexual morals were a scandal to the laity.  Hus was also strongly against mandatory celibacy for the clergy.  He was in favour of a sound monastic life.

To show how low the level of religious awareness became in Bohemia, Hus cites an example of a parishioner who thought that "Sviata Troytsa" or, in English, "Holy Trinity" was a female saint!  Something similar happened in Rome itself when the Greek Church of the Resurrection or the "Anastasis" became the Church of "St Anastasia."

Hus was also particularly angry that the Roman Rite of his time forbade Communion from the Chalice.   Later on, the movement that originated with Hus took the Chalice as its main outward symbol.

Hus also objected to the strong German influence at the University of Prague and other cultural influences that diluted the Slavic culture of his people, especially in the Church.  

Hus maintained that this prevented the proper inculturation of the Gospel among the Czechs and hurt their overall evangelization.

Hus began to get into trouble when his preaching against moral laxity reached to the heights of papal authority.  His Bethlehem Chapel in Prague, for example, contained paintings of moral comparison.  On the one side was a picture of St Peter walking humbly.  On the other, was a picture of the current popes being carried throughout the streets of Rome . . .

Hus also preached against the use of Czech resources to help fight the papal wars.  He found that to be totally at variance with the Gospel of Christ!

Called to the Roman Council of Constance to answer charges of heresy, Hus went with the promise of safe passage from the Emperor.  But once at Constance, Hus was arrested and kept in dark prison for about a year.  He was tried for trumped up charges, such as teaching there was a "fourth person" in the Trinity and similar such fantastic statements concocted by his judges who were determined to condemn him.

For his part, Hus refused to answer the charges, so indignant he was.  Both sides hardened their positions very quickly.  Hus was then condemned to die by fire for heresy.  He constantly demanded from his judges that they prove from Scripture and Tradition that his views were heretical.  They would not because they could not . . .

Hus received a letter from Emperor Sigismund who said Bohemia was worried about his safety.  "Don't worry," Hus wrote back.  "Your goose ("Hus" means "goose") is not cooked yet."   This is the source for that quaint locution!

His Czech friends and even some former enemies visited Hus in prison.  They tried to convince him to recant.  However, if he believed in what he said, then, they told him, he should remain steadfast until the end.

Hus was taken in chains to the place of his martyrdom wearing a heretic's hat with two devils depicted destroying a soul.

He was chained to the stake, with a chain around his neck so that the cap wouldn't fall off too soon.  

Jan Hus died forgiving his enemies, foretelling that the Church would exonerate him, reciting the Creed and saying the Jesus Prayer.  His ashes were collected and thrown into the river to prevent people from obtaining relics . . .

The reaction to Jan Hus' death was immediate.  The University of Prague declared Hus a Saint and a Martyr and established July 6 as his Feast.  The Czech people painted his Icon in their Churches and every second village, it is said, had a monument to their national martyr.

The Hussites were formed and Jan Zizka, the great Czech general, repelled the papal forces from Bohemia no less than five times, using brilliant military strategy.  The Ukrainian Prince, later Saint, Theodore Ostrozhky, borrowed from Zizka's tactics against the Poles in Western Ukraine, (with tremendous success).

Orthodox theologians analyzing the life and times of Jan Hus have always maintained that he wanted to return to the former spiritual heritage of Cyril and Methodius.  He was not a classical "protestant," but a reforming churchman.  

A married priesthood, the national language in the Church and Communion in both Kinds, among other things, were all part of the Cyrillo-Methodian Christian tradition.

A Wycliffite theologian in the person of John Payne visited Prague in the aftermath of Hus' martyrdom.  From there, he visits the Orthodox Church at Constantinople.  There he becomes Orthodox and is consecrated a Bishop for the Orthodox Hussite movement that had started in Bohemia at that time.  

"Constantine Anglikos" then spends his life working among the Hussites.  One Orthodox Bishop indicated to me that the Hussites were always, in fact, of an Orthodox orientation and many of them did join the Orthodox Church.  

Certainly, the Hussite movement had much to do with the resurgence of Orthodoxy in Bohemia in the twentieth century.  It is not surprising that one of the great national martyrs of the Czech Republic is an Orthodox Bishop, St Gorazd of Prague, who was martyred by the Nazis for hiding Czech patriots!

Also, Hus' associate, Jerome of Prague, himself a student of Wycliffe in London, also became Orthodox in Latvia during his visit there.  He died a similar death, at the stake, for the "Orthodox Catholic Church," as he said.  Jerome's Orthodox baptismal certificate has been located and there is interest in the possibility of formally glorifying him as an Orthodox saint.

Several years ago, I came across a very mission-minded Czech Orthodox priest who had received numerous Hussites into the Church.  He told me he was in favour of the Church declaring Hus a saint and allowing for his veneration.  This was part of the Hussite heritage, he said, and would make for an even greater conversion of the Hussites to Orthodoxy.

Certainly, Jan Hus has been honoured by many Pan-Slavists, including Taras Shevchenko.

In his poem, The Heretic, Shevchenko, himself an Orthodox Christian, has this to say about Mistr Jan Hus:

"Receive then this poem about the Holy Czech, the Great Martyr, the Glorious Hus!  And I will pray that all Slavs become as heretical as the Great Heretic of Constance!"

The Pope of Rome has recently apologized for the suffering of Hus at the hands of the Roman Church and there seems to be a rehabilitation process afoot for Hus, spurred on especially by German theologians.

Clearly, the tradition of Jan Hus belongs with that of the Orthodox Church.  His reformation was based on the Fathers and Sts. Cyril and Methodius.  

His message and witness remain cogent and relevant in our times, especially with respect to the tenor of "ecumenical" discussions between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.  

To both, Jan Hus is saying, I believe, "Return to the Tradition and the Fathers of Christ's One Holy, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church!"

This is the kind of "protestant reformation" that we should all be faithful to.

http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/protestantism.htm

Now this is what Matthew Bunson, M.A. on EWTN had to say about Jan Hus...

Jan Hus was a Bohemian religious reformer whose efforts at what he saw as needed reform in the Church served as a foreshadowing the Protestant Reformation. He was ordained in 1400 and soon acquired a wide reputation for his fiery preaching. Attracted to the teachings of John Wycliffe, he became associated with Jerome of Prague and the reform movement that focused on the many supposed abuses in the Church among the clergy and hierarchy. Opposed by the local archbishop of Prague, Sbinko von Hasenburg, Hus found political support from the Bohemian King Wenceslaus IV when he exiled the Germans from the University of Prague appointed Hus the university rector, instituting Wycliffite doctrines. This was a taste of the severe problem that developed in the next century when German princes seized upon Lutheran ideas in order to advance their own ambitious political agendas at the expense of the Holy Roman Emperors and the Church. Hus taught among other things, that there is no Scriptural foundation for the Mass, the abolition of religious orders, the clergy should not own property, the clergy should be answerable to a state authority, and an early version of sola Scriptura.
Hus was excommunicated in 1410 and again in 1412, and Wenceslaus, needing to repair relations with the Church owing to his failing political fortunes, removed him from the university. Hus fled to safety among the Czech nobility, writing his main work De Ecclesiae (1413; On the Church). Finally agreeing to submit himself to a general council, he accepted Emperor Sigismund's promise of safe-conduct and journeyed to the Council of Constance. There, however, he violated the agreement that he would not say Mass or preach (as his faculties were still suspended). He was thus arrested by imperial command, condemned, and burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. His death enraged radical elements in Bohemia who declared him a martyr and a symbol of Bohemian nationalism. Within a few short years, Bohemia and Moravia were aflame with strife in what came to be called the Hussite War.

He is popular in some circles -- for the obvious reason among some Protestants -- owing to his opposition to the Church in the West as it then existed and for his resistance in Bohemia to the presence of Germans and German culture. He thus stood in part within the long tradition in Bohemia and Moravia of opposing Germanic influence, a tradition that resonated throughout Eastern Europe and Slavic lands.

http://ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=380625&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=365&Author=&Keyword=Jan+Hus&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

[Br. Max, OFC]

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/7.html

funny how each account of Hus is flavored by their own view of the man . . . .

[Ben]

Yes Br. Max I noticed that myself...I wonder what the true story actually is..I mean I am sure he strayed from the fundamentals of the Catholic faith, but I'd like to know where he really stood on the issues.

[Br. Max, OFC]

well all agree that he stood against what he perceived to be abuses in and by the clergy - and he is well remembered for insisting upon Eucharist in BOTH species.  I think if he had come before anyone other that the council of Constance, thing would have been different.  I think they nailed Hus because he was the only "reformer" trusting enough to answer their summons.

[Linus7]

From all that I have ever read about Hus and Jerome of Prague, they were anything but Orthodox.

That Ukrainian Orthodox article sounds like a bit of ethnic revisionism to me.

There may have been individual Hussites who became Orthodox, but Hus was a proto-Protestant, not a disciple of Sts. Cyril and Methodius.

Br. Max: I think they nailed Hus because he was the only "reformer" trusting enough to answer their summons.

That and the fact that Hus was a follower of the heretic Wycliffe and refused to recant.

Hus also lacked the sort of powerful friends that Luther had.

[The young fogey]

That Ukrainian Orthodox article sounds like a bit of ethnic revisionism to me.

You're probably right. Don't rely on anything Alex Roman writes - his church membership (Ukrainian Catholic) has nothing to do with it.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Linus,

Yep. Hus was a heretic.

I have little doubt that he was; but keep in mind, so were/are the Roman Catholics he was protesting against!

I think what is perhaps more meaningful (if any of this is even worth discussing at all), is whether or not he was "more right, than wrong."

On that score, I think it can be said Jan Hus was "moving in the right direction", at least on most things; in others, I think he was simply a product of the culture/philosphical trends that he was coming from.

One thing that seems to seperate him from the later Reformationists is that according to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (which if anything, is not a "philo-Jan Huss" source), is that he was a philosophical realist, and not a "nominalist" (as Luther was).

It seems very difficult to find information on what Jan Hus himself actually taught (at least online), though constant reference is made to Wycliffe's teachings, which for the most part, Hus was sympathetic towards (though apparently, at least according to the profile of Jan Hus at the Ecole Glossary, he did not agree with Wycliffe's teaching of impanation of the Eucharist, which in some respects is similar to the Lutheran teaching of consubstantiation.)

What all of the different sources (regardless of their own baises) seem to agree on, is that Jan Hus did do/say the following...

- he rejected the doctrine of the "two swords" (that the Papacy not only had a right to ecclessiastical authority, but also secular authority)

- rejected the practice of witholding the chalice from the laity in administering communion.

- preached against indulgences.

- believed the Papacy was ultimatly a matter of ecclessial good order, and did not exist on the basis of a Divine mandate.

- taught against the accumulation of wealth by the clergy ("evangelical poverty")  This particular point is interesting, since he was not the first (or last) to bring it up - it was particularly a contentious point as far as many of the Franciscans were concerned (their entire order being founded on the basis of absolute poverty, and as a rebuke to the clerical decadence which existed in Francis' time).

Where I get some ambiguity in the various witnesses to what Jan Hus' taught, was his opinion on the Eucharist.  Some say he was opposed to the Mass; which seems unlikely, since it is said his celebration of it is what got him executed by the decree of the Council of Constance.  I've also have read that he was anti-heirarchal; however, I don't think this can be understood in a Protestant sense, since he himself claimed that he was willing to submit to the judgement of Rome, if they would only demonstrate where he had erred.  So in this way, his views are much like those of Martin Luther were at the begining of his "protest" (not later on, when they had grown much more radical.)

Another thing I read several times, is that he was opposed to the sacrament of confession.  How true this is, would require me to be able to actually read his writings on these subjects first hand (if anyone has  found online sources, I'd be interested in reading them.)

That Ukrainian Orthodox article sounds like a bit of ethnic revisionism to me.

I agree.

There may have been individual Hussites who became Orthodox, but Hus was a proto-Protestant, not a disciple of Sts. Cyril and Methodius.

I agree, in the sense that he was a product of the political/religious circumstances which would "flower" into what became the full fledged "reformation", and certainly his memory was seized upon by the Reformers.  However, I do not think he himself would have identified with many of their fundamental ideals (but then again, they themselves did not all agree on their fundamental ideas; note the extreme antagonism between Luther and Calvin.)

However, I think it's hard not to lump them all in a very broad group, of those who were "protesting" against Roman Catholic decadence and invention...though I think we have to be careful, since you really are dealing with a large group that is not at all homogenus.

That and the fact that Hus was a follower of the heretic Wycliffe and refused to recant.

Yes, who was rebelling against the heretics in Rome (including the Papal chair), and their subordinates abroad.  This is important to remember, as someone with an Orthodox p.o.v. "looking from the outside, in" on this period of history - we're not dealing with "good, Orthodox Rome" vs. it's "heterodox dissidents."  They're all heretics, unfortunately, differing fundamentally in their doctrines from the Orthodox confession of the Church of Christ.

As for the Reformation itself...

Putting aside the very real political crises which brought on the Reformation (including the fall out of the "Great Western Schism" and it's rival "Popes" and the basic distrust of the Papacy and the "heirarchal church" that this caused), a great deal of the valid polemic/criticism of the Protestants, was sadly comprimised (and ended in futility) for two basic reasons...

- they themselves laboured under the same basically Augustinian errors that their RC opponents did (if anything, their more extravagant errors were precisely due to their being more "Augustinian" than the RCC - for example, on the issue of predestination.)  This also includes the attitude of theological creativity, which also infected the Protestants as it did their Roman Catholic "mother" (in the case of the Roman Catholics, this led to the "growth of the faith" via syllogistic reasoning - the invention of previously unknown doctrines; in the case of the Reformers, it created a "re-inventing the wheel" attitude).

combined with

- No real link to the Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church; hence, while they could sense real, important divergences from the "ancient way" and Orthopraxis (based on what little documentary evidence of the west's one time Orthodoxy still remaining in their possession), they had no "bar" or "rule" to measure against, to know when they were attacking real accretions and divergences from the true Faith, or simply throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Their intense distrust of heirarchal authority (which is the fault of Rome itself, and it's subordinate heirarchs) also disposed them (unfortunately) to widdle away at anything that involved a real distinction between the clergy and laity, or the heirarchy being invested with special authority/charisms that the laity did not possess.  Given this, they had no means to really differntiate between a "indulgence issuing heirarchy of men who differed little in way of life than temporal princes, save for their tenuous celibacy", and the ideal of a bishop who does none of these things, yet really is in possesion of the Priesthood (in a way the laity do not participate with), and charged to act as "overseer" of the Christians under his care.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that the different varieties of Protestantism are heretical.  But I think it does put them in context.

Perhaps the best thing we can say is this (from an Orthodox p.o.v.) - there would be no "Reformation" and it's excesses, without the Schism and excesses of the Papacy, from the Orthodox Church of Christ.

Seraphim

[Br. Max, OFC]

That and the fact that Hus was a follower of the heretic Wycliffe and refused to recant.

Hus did have powerful friends but because he was promised safe passage to and from the council, he told them he would be fine - he TRUSTED the council to keep it's word.   As for the charges brought against him - without seeing the actual charges he was brought up on I cannot say more than his supporteds maintain they were trumped up and had no grounding in his actual teachings.

[Linus7]

That and the fact that Hus was a follower of the heretic Wycliffe and refused to recant.

Hus did have powerful friends but because he was promised safe passage to and from the council, he told them he would be fine - he TRUSTED the council to keep it's word.   As for the charges brought against him - without seeing the actual charges he was brought up on I cannot say more than his supporteds maintain they were trumped up and had no grounding in his actual teachings.

Hus had no friends like the ones Luther had. And the political situation in his day did not lend itself to his survival.

I have read what I regard as some pretty reliable histories that describe Hus' teachings and what happened to him.

I don't think there is any doubt that he was a follower of Wycliffe.

The idea that he was headed towards Orthodoxy seems fatuous to me.

[Br. Max, OFC]

Some might think that any steps away from Rome are steps towards orthodoxy . . . .

[Ben]

::)Hmm so when my Catholic friend converted to Islam he made a step towards Orthodoxy.....lol....I can't wait to tell him that hes closer to Orthodoxy than he was before!

[Keble]

Yep. Hus was a heretic.

I have little doubt that he was; but keep in mind, so were/are the Roman Catholics he was protesting against!

I think what is perhaps more meaningful (if any of this is even worth discussing at all), is whether or not he was "more right, than wrong."

It doesn't matter. By protesting at all, he committed the crucial "heresy": protesting. Whatever the church authorities decide is right, becomes right. Therefore challenging them, even when they are wrong, is the greatest "sin" from their point of view.

Orthodoxy is no more free of this taint than Catholicism-- at least, "taint" if you're a Portestant. . .

[Br. Max, OFC]

::)Hmm so when my Catholic friend converted to Islam he made a step towards Orthodoxy.....lol....I can't wait to tell him that hes closer to Orthodoxy than he was before!

At least now he is free of pope-ism!!

[Linus7]

Yep. Hus was a heretic.

I have little doubt that he was; but keep in mind, so were/are the Roman Catholics he was protesting against!

I think what is perhaps more meaningful (if any of this is even worth discussing at all), is whether or not he was "more right, than wrong."

It doesn't matter. By protesting at all, he committed the crucial "heresy": protesting. Whatever the church authorities decide is right, becomes right. Therefore challenging them, even when they are wrong, is the greatest "sin" from their point of view.

Orthodoxy is no more free of this taint than Catholicism-- at least, "taint" if you're a Portestant. . .

I don't think that is quite fair or accurate.

There have been reformers within the Church who cleaned up abuses.

They differed with Hus and the rest of the crowd of heretics in that they remained within the Apostolic Tradition and the Deposit of Faith.

Besides, Protestantism loves a good protest as long as it is aimed at the "right" enemies. But Protestant denominations are about as fond of protests within their own ranks as they are of rosary beads and statues of the Blessed Virgin.

[Br. Max, OFC]

um linus - Hus never left the RC church.  

[Linus7]

um linus - Hus never left the RC church.    

That is arguable.

He left it when he began denying some of its central tenets. He certainly left it (or it left him) when it excommunicated him and burnt him at the stake.

15th century Bohemia was notably short on denominations to which one could turn outside of the RCC.

Besides, I did not say he left the RCC; I said he (and the other heretics) left the Apostolic Tradition and the Deposit of Faith. That was what got them into trouble, not protesting abuses.

[Br. Max, OFC]

linus: but hus always made appeals to both scriptures and the apostolic fathers.  He asked his accusers to prove him wrong via those two sources and they never did.  They were more intent on making an example out of him than out of getting him to recant.

[Linus7]

linus: but hus always made appeals to both scriptures and the apostolic fathers.  He asked his accusers to prove him wrong via those two sources and they never did.  They were more intent on making an example out of him than out of getting him to recant.

Br. Max -

Every heretic says the same thing: prove me wrong; let's play "dueling interpretations."

But the Apostolic Tradition is not about your private interpretation versus mine. It is what the Church has always everywhere believed; and it is the Church that is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

[Br. Max, OFC]

Linus: but is that not what he councils of the church have been called inorder to do - prove them wrong?  Nicea was called to prove Arius wrong.

[Linus7]

Linus: but is that not what he councils of the church have been called inorder to do - prove them wrong?  Nicea was called to prove Arius wrong.

No!

The councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, explain and clarify the faith of the Church. They do not seek to "prove" anything, as if they could ever offer enough proof to satisfy heretics like Arius.

Individual apologists like St. Athanasius may offer arguments and proofs that have tremendous value; but did Arius listen to them?

I believe those present at Constance reasoned with Hus. The records show that he simply reaffirmed his faith in Wycliffe and refused to recant.

I am not defending the RCC or its decision to burn Hus. But I still think Hus was a heretic.

[Br. Max, OFC]

linus: okay, if he was a heretic, what were his errors?

[Linus7]

linus: okay, if he was a heretic, what were his errors?

The Donatist idea that the personal sins of the clergy render sacraments celebrated by them invalid; Sola Scriptura; rejecting the sacrament of reconciliation (confession); and predestinarianism.

There may have been others. I believe he may have followed Wycliffe in denying that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the true Body and Blood of Christ, but I am not sure about that.

[Br. Max, OFC]

Linus: he did not agree with Wycliffe on the Eucharist.  

AS for sola Scriptura - define how you understand the term.  Things have changed with that term over the centuries.  

As far as predestination, did he differ from St Augustine on the issue?  

[Linus7]

Linus: he did not agree with Wycliffe on the Eucharist.  

AS for sola Scriptura - define how you understand the term.  Things have changed with that term over the centuries.  

As far as predestination, did he differ from St Augustine on the issue?  

You may be right about the Eucharist. I have found a reference in the book Great Leaders of the Christian Church (John D. Woodbridge, ed.) that says Hus held the Catholic doctrine (p. 184).

Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is the only infallible authority for the Christian, that it is a source independent of and superior to any church. As a consequence, it must be read, understood, and interpreted by the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit. Informed by this divinely-aided understanding of the Bible, the individual is to able to judge all churches and human institutions.

This, I believe, was Hus' understanding as well as Wycliffe's.

St. Augustine's predestinarianism was mollified by its reliance on God's foreknowledge. As I understand it, he backed off some of the more extreme writings of his earlier years after being reproved by St. Ambrose.

Wycliffe and Hus, however, took Augustinism to the extremes implicit within it, as Luther and Calvin would do later.

It is interesting that at Worms the Roman Catholic scholar Dr. Johann Eck accused Luther of being a Hussite. This peeked the Reformer's curiosity, so he read some of Hus' writings. Luther found that he did agree with Hus and admitted as much.

If Luther found himself in agreement with Hus, is it likely that Hus had been "moving toward Orthodoxy"?

[Br. Max, OFC]

Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is the only infallible authority for the Christian, that it is a source independent of and superior to any church. As a consequence, it must be read, understood, and interpreted by the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit. Informed by this divinely-aided understanding of the Bible, the individual is to able to judge all churches and human institutions.

This is the modern take on Sola Scriptura - Modern understandings of Sola Scriptura are not the same as those of the reformers.  In the hands of fundies and anti-scholastics, sola scriptura has evolved into NUDA Scriptura.  

Hus and Wycliffe would have held the belief that if there is any disagreement on an issue of faith, when tradition and scriptures are in conflict - Scriptures is the superior authority.  They did not believe that Tradition was invalid except where it denied the testimony of scripture.  For EXAMPLE - Mandatary celibacy for priests.

[Linus7]

Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is the only infallible authority for the Christian, that it is a source independent of and superior to any church. As a consequence, it must be read, understood, and interpreted by the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit. Informed by this divinely-aided understanding of the Bible, the individual is to able to judge all churches and human institutions.

This is the modern take on Sola Scriptura - Modern understandings of Sola Scriptura are not the same as those of the reformers.  In the hands of fundies and anti-scholastics, sola scriptura has evolved into NUDA Scriptura.  

Hus and Wycliffe would have held the belief that if there is any disagreement on an issue of faith, when tradition and scriptures are in conflict - Scriptures is the superior authority.  They did not believe that Tradition was invalid except where it denied the testimony of scripture.  For EXAMPLE - Mandatary celibacy for priests.

Sigh . . .

What you are talking about is Sola Scriptura old style, new style, ever the same heresy.

The Apostolic Tradition cannot deny the testimony of Scripture except in the confused minds of certain individuals. Sola Scriptura makes the individual and his take on the Bible the supreme arbiters of the Christian Faith, thus usurping the authority of the Church. It is a doctrine unknown to the Bible itself - impossible, in fact - just as it was unknown among the early Christians.

Sola Scriptura is the virus responsible for the cancer of continually mutliplying divisions and sects within Protestantism. Each one reads the Bible and decides for himself what it means; and there are nearly as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are readers of it.

When there is a disagreement on the faith, the Church is the authority. If the disagreement is problematic enough, the bishops of the Church assemble in council and make a decision which is binding. We do not all try to "out Bible" each other or break into a zillion separate denominations.

What you call "mandatory celibacy" is not a dogma; it is a discipline. I don't like it, but there is nothing in Scripture or tradition that says the Church cannot require such a discipline of its officers. The RCC requires it of all priests; we Orthodox require it of our bishops.

[Br. Max, OFC]

Linus: I know that it is not dogma - I also know that it is contrary to scriptures.  I have no problem with celibacy when it is voluntary - it's when it is forced that there is an issue.  

As for disagreements in the faith - if we look to the tripod that God gave us in Scripture, Tradition, and the miraculous - the other two will always validate the third keeping us on the straight and narrow.  Scriptures tell us that Truth is always verified by two agreeing witnesses.

Sola Scriptura was not impossible - the early church did have the Septuagint for scripture - it is improper to believe that the people would only appeal to the scriptures for authority in that there was no precedent for the notion in Jewish history or the Hebrew faith where there was always Mishnah along with the Tanakh.

The crux of the problem with the sola scriptura is the question of which came first - the chicken or the egg - the Church or the Scriptures.  If we instead say that GOD came first and created both, that he imbued BOTH with truth, revealed both simultaneously not consecutively, then the question of sola Scriptura becomes moot.  However, when faced with liturgical and ecclesiastical abuses as the reformers were where the justification for said abuses comes from TRADITION rather than scripture, I can well understand why they would turn to Scripture alone.  But Hus did not do that.  When on trial he asked for proofs from tradition - from the writings of the church fathers - as well as from scriptures which would demonstrate he was in error willing (I believe) to recant if his accusers could do so.  They chose not to.  They went with the old “because I said so” stance.  Now I ask you, when has that position ever been popular?  No kid likes it and I the only adults that like it are the ones that say that!!  

The Council of Constance was looking for a way to validate and prove their authority to resolve the crisis facing the roman church - the problem of 3 men simultaneously claiming to be the validly elected pope.  They did not care about finding the truth about Hus or what he believed.  They only wanted a way to prove to the world that they were powerful enough to fix the problem with the papacy.

[Linus7]

From Br. Max:
Linus: I know that it is not dogma - I also know that it is contrary to scriptures.  I have no problem with celibacy when it is voluntary - it's when it is forced that there is an issue.

Celibacy within the RCC is completely voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to become celibate.

I happen to think the RCC is missing out on some good potential priests by requiring priestly celibacy, but such a requirement is not contrary to Scripture, which nowhere requires the Church to ordain married priests.  

Br. Max: As for disagreements in the faith - if we look to the tripod that God gave us in Scripture, Tradition, and the miraculous - the other two will always validate the third keeping us on the straight and narrow.  Scriptures tell us that Truth is always verified by two agreeing witnesses.

I don't know about any tripod.

And Scripture is a part of the Apostolic Tradition, not something separate from and above it.

The very canon of Scripture comes from Tradition.

Br. Max: Sola Scriptura was not impossible - the early church did have the Septuagint for scripture - it is improper to believe that the people would only appeal to the scriptures for authority in that there was no precedent for the notion in Jewish history or the Hebrew faith where there was always Mishnah along with the Tanakh.

Sola Scriptura is baloney.

It means the Bible alone as the infallible authority for the Christian faith.

That IS impossible, since there was no Bible before the end of the 4th century, and the very canon of the Bible was assembled, debated, and ultimately decided by the Church.

The Church is the only infallible authority for the Christian faith, not each man's private take on the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is a recipe for chaos.

If you doubt that, just take a gander at the denominational morass that is modern Protestantism.

Br. Max: The crux of the problem with the sola scriptura is the question of which came first - the chicken or the egg - the Church or the Scriptures.  If we instead say that GOD came first and created both, that he imbued BOTH with truth, revealed both simultaneously not consecutively, then the question of sola Scriptura becomes moot.

The trouble with that is that it is just not true.

Christianity produced the Bible, not vice versa.

The Bible is the book of the Church, and its true interpretation is the Church's understanding.

The Church is not subject to the judgment of individuals armed with Bibles.

Our Lord Jesus founded His Church and gave her authority to bind and loose. He wrote no books nor commanded any to be written. Instead He created a living, teaching Church to carry His word to the world.

Br. Max: However, when faced with liturgical and ecclesiastical abuses as the reformers were where the justification for said abuses comes from TRADITION rather than scripture, I can well understand why they would turn to Scripture alone.  But Hus did not do that.  When on trial he asked for proofs from tradition - from the writings of the church fathers - as well as from scriptures which would demonstrate he was in error willing (I believe) to recant if his accusers could do so.  They chose not to.  They went with the old “because I said so” stance.  Now I ask you, when has that position ever been popular?  No kid likes it and I the only adults that like it are the ones that say that!!

Hus and his ilk went way beyond the effort to reform abuses and began attacking Apostolic doctrine.

Are you certain those present made no effort to convince him to recant? As I recall, they did.

If they were unable to satisfy him, then perhaps it was because he was a hardened heretic, convinced of his own private judgments.

Br. Max: The Council of Constance was looking for a way to validate and prove their authority to resolve the crisis facing the roman church - the problem of 3 men simultaneously claiming to be the validly elected pope.  They did not care about finding the truth about Hus or what he believed.  They only wanted a way to prove to the world that they were powerful enough to fix the problem with the papacy.

I disagree.

The people present at Constance had no reason to burn Hus other than his own obstinacy. They gave him the opportunity to recant.

I don't think they were looking to prove anything to the world. They already looked upon themselves as a legitimate Church council (whether we agree or not).

It is true that the problem with the three claimants to the papacy was their chief concern.

It is the usual Protestant propaganda to say, "The Catholics didn't even try to convince him from Scripture, because they knew they were wrong!"

The facts generally prove otherwise. Luther's arguments were thoroughly skewered in his own day by Dr. Johann Eck, the renowned Catholic theologian, for example.

I do not doubt that more than one person reasoned with Hus, although I cannot prove it and frankly do not care enough to make a personal research project out of it.

If you wish to discuss Sola Scriptura, start a separate thread on it. I feel it is only fair to warn you, however: that doctrine is not very popular here.

[Br. Max, OFC]

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

[Mor Ephrem]

Does this passage require that someone be married, or just that they not be married more than once?

[Linus7]

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Old chestnut.

Do you believe that verse is establishing a requirement that bishops be married?

Is it not rather prohibiting men with more than one wife from ordination to the episcopate?

In other words, it is setting a limit on the number of wives a bishop can have, not saying that he must be married.

Please find the passage that says the Church cannot require that her clerics be celibate as a matter of discipline and not dogma.

BTW, the RCC does have married priests, albeit not many.

I personally see nothing wrong with a married priesthood or even a married episcopate, but I also do not see what the RCC currently requires as heretical.

Clerical celibacy is a discipline subject to change. It is not a fixed dogma.

[The young fogey]

Br. Max: As for disagreements in the faith - if we look to the tripod that God gave us in Scripture, Tradition, and the miraculous

Sounds like the charismatist version of the Anglican three-legged table of scripture, tradition and reason.

[mike]

Some Czech Orthodox sites cite that he is a Saint and that that had been supported by St. Nicholas Velimirovic in his writings and that the SOC also considers him a Saint. Any ideas?

I know I'm a necro.

edit:

for not to be ungrounded:

Nikolaj Velimirovič: Svatý Jan Hus. Stať slavného srbského biskupa a kazatele o svatosti Mistra Jana Husa (z r. 1915) z pravoslavného hlediska; k 2. českému vydání připravil arcibiskup Kryštof; doplněno úvodem a přílohami. Vydala Pravoslavná akademie, 2003. (K dostání ve vnitrocírkevní distribuci.) Stran 48, formát A5. Cena 40 Kč.

Nicholas Velimirovic: St. John Hus. An article of the famous Serbian Bishop and preacher on the Sainthood of Jan Hus (ed. 1915) from the Orthodox perspective, modified by Archbishop Christopher to the 2nd Czech edition, an introduction and annexes added. Published by the Orthodox Academ, 2003. Available in Church stores. 48 pages, format A5, price 45 Kč.

[biro]

Um... can't you write a new thread, after seven years?  Just let people find the old one, if they want.