Jan Hus and his followers, many of whom later created what is today called the Moravian Church, were also strong proponents of public education for girls and women. The Moravians opened the oldest/longest running school for girls and women in 1772 in Winston-Salem, NC. Their schools were also early to allow Native American and African American females to enroll at their school. These institutions are still located in the historical district of the Moravian settlement called Salem, and are now known as Salem Academy and Salem College. The historical district is called Old Salem and it’s a beautiful place to visit especially around Christmas. They have historical re-enactments and many of the original buildings are now shops and museums. They have a really interesting history here in the US.

@josueolivas6109

Ай бұрын

Could you tell me what the difference between the Hussites and the moravians because am confused are they the same Don t they both come from Jon Hus .

@daliborbenes5025

Ай бұрын

@@josueolivas6109 Hussites split into two factions: The conservatives merged back with the Catholics under the provision that they could receive the Eucharist in both kinds. The more Protestant-minded Hussites were infuenced by the ideas of Petr Chelčický, who was an advocate of Pacifism in the face of the bloodshed of the Hussite wars. This movement was called Unitas Fratrum - Unity of the Brethren. They had very good contacts with the early Lutherans, and later much of the Brethren turned to Reformed Calvinism. Once the 30 years war was ended, Catholicism became the only religion of Bohemia. Those Brethren who could afford it fled to Protestant countries, where the laity and the clergy merged with the denominations there. Many Brethren bishops were installed as Lutheran bishops or Calvinist pastors in places like Prussia, Sweden and Holland, and were eventually fully absorbed. After more than a hundred years of religious oppression, the poorer Brethren who remained in Bohemia in secrecy started leaving for Germany. These people mostly came from the region of Moravia. A lot of them accumulated in the lands of count Zinzendorf, who was a Pietistic Lutheran. These are the ones later called Moravians. The Moravians were met with great enthusiasm by count Zinzendorf, and their community flourished there, eventually forming missions, to places like America, where they famously converted the natives on the East Coast. There, there were met by John Wesley, who was deeply influenced by their piety. The Moravian church claims the title of Unitas Fratrum, and even has a direct succession of bishops from the original Unity of Brethren. However it has been influenced quite heavily by Lutheran Pietism.

Studying John Wesley (some of my ancestors were Methodists) I learned that whilst he was sailing to the New World he encountered a group of Moravians, followers of Hus and the Bavarian Reformation. He was so impressed and humbled by their strong and simple faith in God which meant they were not afraid during a particularly bad storm. I've always loved that story.

Thank you very much for the beautiful video. As a person living in Prague, I would like to add a few points of interest. Public gatherings were held everywhere where the Bible was read in Czech. At the time, the Pope complained that Czech women knew the Bible better than any cardinal. Hussites had many directions, some were more like reform Catholicism, others we would describe as charismatic. The Moravian Church, founded in the 15th century, emerged from the Hussites - this church, among other things, translated the Bible from the original languages into Czech, and this translation is so accurate that it is still used today.

I think that due to this video, my capstone project for my BA in history will be about Jan Hus and the Hussites. It’s such a great story that deserves to be told more than it has been.

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

awesomeness

@jeremus725

Жыл бұрын

@@TruthUnites I apologize if I missed it in the video, but do you have a list of recommended sources on the topic? I know you mentioned a few in the video, but do you have any more that you did not mention? Thanks in advance!

Jan Hus, when I first read the account of his martyrdom I cried. He imitated Christ in both life and death. De Ecclesia was my first book on Ecclesiology and combined with Hus’s own life it inspired me to no end. To this day I have not found a better treatment of when to disobey or to submit onceself to human authority. If I were to choose one quote from him as a favorite, it would be when the mitre entitled Heresiarch was placed on his head: “My Lord wore a heavier crown than this.”

@JustAskingQuestions8571

3 ай бұрын

This is what bothers me the most about the Catholic Church. I've never felt hostile to it for some reason, yet, logically, if Hus is imitating Christ in his life and death... The Catholic Church must have been imitating the Pharisees/Sadducees right? I think Catholic Apologists realize how dangerous this possibility is, which is why the knee-jerk response seems to be to demonize Hus or say it was justified. But I'll tell you the one thing Satan's side never does. It never apologizes. If the Catholic Church just admits that it was imitating the Pharisees/Sadducees in its torture and killing of those it deemed heretics, admits that it is not infallible (they could in theory still be the one true church even if they're not infallible, not that I believe that), and admits that Protestants and Protestants like Dirk Willems and Jan Hus were Martyrs, then this wouldn't be such a big problem.

@JustAskingQuestions8571

3 ай бұрын

This is what bothers me the most about the Catholic Church. I've never felt hostile to it for some reason, yet, logically, if Hus is imitating Christ in his life and death... The Catholic Church must have been imitating the Pharisees/Sadducees right? If the Catholic Church just admits that it was imitating the Pharisees/Sadducees in its killing of those it deemed heretics, admits that it is not infallible (they could in theory still be the one true church even if they're not infallible, not that I believe that), and admits that Protestants and Protestants like Dirk Willems and Jan Hus were Martyrs, then this wouldn't be such a big problem.

I'm glad people are honoring these men of God.

Lord, what have we done in Your name? Lord, have mercy!

I saw Mike Winger who have watched for a long time, recommend this channel. I’ve gained so much insight from it. Thank you for doing what you’re doing! You’re helping me to go out and do good things.

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

Great to hear!

@saintejeannedarc9460

Жыл бұрын

That's great that Gavin is on Mike Wingers radar now and he was giving him a shout out. I like Winger too. He's pretty against Catholicism, and doesn't quite have the irenic spirit, though Winger isn't triumphalist or despising of them. He does fairly point out some false doctrines.

To downplay Jan Hus' high profile murder/execution is to downplay the cause of the Bible in the hands of the common man. Which is probably the thing most responsible for enabling and providing our lofty public perspectives today. New fan of the channel. I like the scholarly, open, fair-minded approach. My father was really into Jan Hus - probably from the movie that was made about him and the significance he has in Biblical history (literally, the journey of the Biblical writings through history).

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

glad to be connected to you!

Catholic apologists, pay close attention to this. This is an Achilles heel that just has not been given the treatment it deserves by anyone (I’ve read catholic answers on some of this stuff regarding burning heretics and it does more harm than good). This is a big deal and has caused many to not be Catholic (thinking of philosopher Dr. Vallier here who chose orthodoxy over Catholicism due to this and some other issues, but this was a big one he cited). Personally as a catholic I’ve struggled with the responses regarding this issue. Many faithful Catholics denounce burning heretics as being immoral and absolutely evil, such as Steve Ray, but Steve is not a truly trained theologian and philosopher. His opinion only goes so far. It would be nice to see actual apologists and philosophers denounce burning heretics, because this is something that just has not been addressed. Jimmy Akin gave a really unsatisfying answer to this topic a few weeks ago. I hope the insanity of the times does not cause people to be extremist. Christ first and above all.

@kevinmc62

Жыл бұрын

Great. So now that a catholic apologist can’t respond adequately I’ll have to convert to Orthodox now.

@kevinmc62

Жыл бұрын

@YAJUN YUAN this will sound offensive but only 2 legitimate options in my humble opinion.

@kevinmc62

Жыл бұрын

@YAJUN YUAN must be a rhetorical question.

@computationaltheist7267

Жыл бұрын

I don't think any Church is safe from such criticisms. I remember reading a Calvinist website called Triablogue where they revealed that the Orthodox were willing to use violence against dissidents. What about the Orthodox willing to give confessional details to the KGB? They also have their own abuse cover ups. I tend to be wary of using such arguments against any denomination because it seems to be an argument that shoots itself in the foot. My own Anglican Church has done some ugly stuff in the past. Now, if you play the numbers game, why shouldn't one become a Jain rather than a Christian since Jainism has a less history of violence than Christianity? Plus, I wouldn't be too confident of using Dr. Vallier as a good example. Looking at his blog posts, the good philosopher is definitely a liberal in areas that Conservative Christians would dare not follow. His support for the legalization of marriage for the alphabet community will definitely raise eyebrows within the Orthodox community.

@computationaltheist7267

Жыл бұрын

@YAJUN YUAN I don't think pacifism makes sense. Neither do I think seventh-day Adventism makes sense either. It has its own issues just like Rome.

Excellent video as usual. I feel passionately about this subject as I feel as a Wesleyan these people are part of my spiritual family tree. Most people don't realise the influence the Hussites have had on modern Christianity. The Unitas Fratrum, were remaining followers of Hus after the persecution and a group of them ended up as refugees on the estate of Count Zinzendorf in Saxony where they started the original 24/7 prayer movement and after a resulting powerful move of the Spirit, the Moravian Pentecost, the Moravian church became perhaps the great missionary sending church ever. They were instrumental in the conversion of the Wesleys and influenced their methodology for discipleship and so were pivotal to the Methodist revival in the UK and US and of course you could trace much of the modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movements back to roots in Methodism, Truly Tertullian was right the followers of Hus show that “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church,”

I remember years back researching a bit of him but i didn't have access to meterial. I think i would have struggled to read if it was academic work. So thank you for bringing this great Church history to the lay man. Thank you again. Please make more.

Thank you for shedding light on my ancestral heritage. To our modern sense of things, it is so frightening to imagine not being able to openly question church teachings.

@saintejeannedarc9460

Жыл бұрын

Yes, modern Catholics that have had Catholicism in their families for generations and just don't question it, do not realize how powerful and tyrannical the RCC once was. It got as big as it was, because it had amassed so much political power. I don't think it was a matter of godly unity that Catholics stayed united and there was no protestant reformation sooner, it was power and might that stopped it from happening much sooner.

I was just thinking about this in regards to the Inquisition last night. It seems like many Catholics I talk to totally minimize these historical atrocities committed by the RCC. If I was a Catholic, I would want to know all the things that actually happened in that church. If you want to choose a church which has done all these things, at least do it with knowledge of what happened in the history of that institution. These things shouldn't just be swept under the rug. Why do people think the Bible is so full of stories of Israel's failures? These things need to be remembered.

@thecatholictypologist5009

Жыл бұрын

I agree, the truth - even the ugly truth - sets us free in a variety of ways.

@computationaltheist7267

Жыл бұрын

The problem with your argument is that the Protestant Reformers were no better. They also burned and drowned heretics with Luther and Calvin being prime practitioners. Does this mean that people should be wary of Protestantism because of its tragic past?

@Nolongeraslave

Жыл бұрын

Maybe they are not willing to repent! It has to do with the idea that the Church can't be wrong ~ especially when it comes to Reformation and Reformers who are viewed as enemies of the Church.

@candyclews4047

Жыл бұрын

I was just that kind of Catholic. I believed their lies and false doctrines and it took me years to leave the RCC, without fear of being damned for all eternity (which is what they tell you, even today).

@saintejeannedarc9460

Жыл бұрын

@@candyclews4047 What was the main doctrine or doctrines that you had issue w/, that started you wanting to leave? I'm always fascinated by ex Catholics and how and why they broke free. I see so many testimonies of Christians that convert to Catholicism and somehow become convinced that praying to saints and praying to Mary is the better way to serve Christ. There are testimonies of people coming out, but they don't seem as organized on channels and as triumphalist. I do find the standard Catholic gloat to be irksome: "welcome home". Heaven is home for the faithful Christian.

Thank you so much for these historical videos, I enjoy them very much, please continue. The spread of the pentecostal and baptist church in the comunist eastern Europe is also very fascinating. My grandfather and great grandfather were imprisoned shortly in Romania because they belonged to the pentecostal church.

Gavin, if you haven't already read the following, I highly recommend: "Five English Reformers," by J.C. Ryle.

I've started going to a hussite church in my city (i am Czech), it is very traditional

Thank youe Gavin I Read almost everything about this ...i was very touched....i feel proud to be Hussites brother in Christ ....we will see all of them in Heaven ....i pray to have just a snall bit of their courage ....i spoke about this to many friends also ....was very passionate too ....since i live in majority Roman Catholic land

thank you for your work. the reformation was a great work of God through the ages of which modernist like to gloss over and as always serves as a means to relive history. better to study it than relive it. i think.

Thank you brother for the great content, as usual.

"You will not be underwhelmed...," so true. Whenever the church takes up the sword of state, she cuts herself more severely than her enemies.

@stevenhazel4445

3 ай бұрын

Sounds like separation of church and state heresy

@ike991963

3 ай бұрын

@@stevenhazel4445 My king said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Take note that bohemia was in an area that passed back and forth between Western and Eastern Christianity. The Eucharist in both kinds and for children is very Eastern.

Great video. Thanks again. May your tribe increase 😁

This was SO INFORMATIVE! Thank you for addressing the errors and downplaying of the persecution.

Just found your channel and love it. Your style is representative of A Christian. Your scholarship is unique and engaging.

Hey Dr Ortlund, thanks for another great video and promoting Hus and his story. I am here via Dr J. Cooper's channel (I am a Lutheran). I also found Hus to be most inspiring character. I am not aiming for a doctorate but doing some post graduate studies. At the moment I am working through Hus' short Latin tract called "Sufficientia Legis Cristi" (Corpus Christianorum 274). Videos concerning Hus or the medieval period in general are very muchn appreciated. Thanks and God bless!

Great job! Love the time stamps!. Imagine. Some people don't think history is important let alone church history. Keep up the great work. God bless. 🙏❤️🙏

Never heard of this in my life. Very interesting. Thanks for the video!

Good stuff, thanks Dr. Ortlund.

This was a great video. Thank you for the research.

History can repeat itself....

I hope to God that history of this sort will never be repeated.

@theeternalsbeliever1779

Жыл бұрын

You are hoping in vain. Revelation says it's going to happen again in the very near future. As long as false religion(especially counterfeit Christianity) exists, it's the only thing that can be expected. Deceived religious ppl always think they are doing God a service by murdering ppl they don't agree with.

What was the Hussite platform? 1. Bible preaching in the vernacular. 2. Participation of women. 3. Excessive wealth in the Church. 4. Moral corruption among the clergy. 5. Piety, personal relationship with God. 6. Eucharist for all in both kinds.

Funny you should say that the Hussite wars would make for a fascinating movie. As a matter of fact there is such a movie and it was released and in theaters just a few weeks ago. It's called Medieval and it's about Jan Zizka one of the greatest of the Hussite military leaders.

@adamfiser7645

Жыл бұрын

There is an older Czech movie trilogy Jan Hus (1954), Jan Žižka (1955) and Proti všem (Against All, 1956). It is, however, to some extent influenced by the communist propaganda. There is also a newer Czech three episodes movie Jan Hus from 2015.

An unrelated comment but someone at my church recommended Dane Ortlunds gentle and lowly book and then we had a guest speaker mention it also. I think I just found out he is your older brother...as a follower of your channel the question came to my mind and now it's been answered through an interview Dane did online regarding the book. So I'm definitely going to get the book now!

@bethl

5 ай бұрын

I’m on my third time through Gentle & Lowly. We used it in small groups at church and I’m now using it to disciple other ladies. However, it is based heavily on Puritan teachings of Scripture, which I don’t 100% agree with sometimes, but it’s a terrific jumping off point to really dig into God’s character & what He says about himself in his Word.

@Adam-ue2ig

5 ай бұрын

@@bethl outstanding. I liked the book.

Also love the Waldensians

@chaseadams8018

Жыл бұрын

Me too. Dr ortlund has a great video on them as well

Supremely interesting. Definitely going to buy that book you're referencing. It's like $150, but it looks worth the financial sacrifice. Been binging your content the last 2-3 days Dr. Gavin! Your content is TOP NOTCH. You're doing amazing work. Can't say it enough.

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Nate!

Do you know if 'Bohemia', where the Hussites were from, and the notion of something being "bohemian" (meaning an unconventional way of living) are historically connected? Otherwise amazing vid Dr Ortlund! I am so wowed you make these video essays publicly available, it feels like I’m getting a seminary-level education for free. I hope to soon be able to give something toward your work because you so deserve it. Much love and respect

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

So glad the videos are useful!

@adamfiser7645

Жыл бұрын

In the first half of the 15th century there were large groups of Gypsies moving across Europe, typically from the East to the West. Many of them stayed in Bohemia and then moved on. When they arrived France, they introduced themselves as "Bohemi" (people from Bohemia). Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, was also the king of Bohemia at that time. He issued a safe conduct to these Gypsy group. In his signature he used the title "Rex Bohemiae" (king of Bohemia) which basically confirmed that these Gypsies were "from Bohemia". And of course, Gypsies were known for their very specific lifestyle later known as "bohemian". The name Bohemia comes from "Boiohaemum", meaning "home of Boio". Roman historians and geographers used it as an annotation for the territory populated by a Celtic tribe Boio.

@godisreality7014

Жыл бұрын

I think "Bohemia" was a headquarters for Tiglath-Pilneser (Plzen), an Assyrian King.

For references mentioned in the video: 1655 Piedmont Massacre en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmontese_Easter & en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians Ratramnus and Radbertus debate the Eucharist en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratramnus

It would be fascinating to learn a bit more about the history and development of the Moravian church. They don't seem to receive a lot of coverage in most church history textbooks.

Gavin, I just happened upon your videos, last week, having watched the Tongues, Healing, Prophecy: For Today? I'm thankful for your scholarship and all that is highlighted from it. I know your family well, from my days at LEFC. It is good to become acquainted with your work. I believe I'll be edified by it.

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

Ken, I remember you well! Oh man, some fun times playing basketball in that carpeted gym. Hope you are doing well brother. Glad to be connected with you. My channel is fairly academic but hope it will be of use in some way. Take care!

@uthrus

Жыл бұрын

@@TruthUnites Thank you, Gavin. I'm looking forward to listening to many more of your Vlogs. Blessings, brother.

It's gotta be pretty satisfying for the Hus to look down from Heaven and see Catholics practice comunion in two forms more and more, allowing only a brief hour long fast before the eucharist and not even treating it that strictly, as well as getting more abd more ecumenical with the protestants and apologetic about their radical steps back in middle ages. The truth did win mr Hus.

You should do a follow up video on Peter Chelcicky the peaceful non-violent Hussite who continued Jan Huss work . Mention the Hussites divided into 3 camps necessarily : 1. the Utraquists who compromised with Rome to produce a church in Prague acceptable to Rome, 2. The Taborites - the violent defenders who fought back against Roman Catholic invaders defensively but then took the offense and committed equal atrocities as invading Catholic soldiers . Mention the Taborites were led by Jan Zizka whom after his death they made a drum of his skin to beat that drum in battle; 3. Peter Chelcicky and the peaceful Hussite reform movement preaching non violent resistance to the evils of Rome in the 1400s ok??? I love your videos and am watching from India

@samueltomjoseph4775

Жыл бұрын

Played aoe2?

@TheGraceAdventure

Жыл бұрын

@@samueltomjoseph4775 I don’t understand . What is aoe2 ?

@samueltomjoseph4775

Жыл бұрын

@@TheGraceAdventure age of empires 2. We have a scenario on Jan zizka

Thanks for this. I (and others I talk with) would be really interested in more like this - if not a whole series. Often there is little that seems clear and it feels hard to get any certainty on the truth . To what extent where proto-protestant groups truly heretical and not victims of defamation/propaganda? Over at TGC Fred Sanders had an article in 2017 that's surfacing again now as we near Reformation Day - 'Why the Refomation Should Make You More Catholic'. In it he warns against two Protestant attitudes - "I fear that in our contemporary setting, it would be easy to find Protestant Christians who would give a rather flippant and uncatholic answer: “So much the worse for the whole history of Christianity down to 1517!” The pseudohistorical narrative of “the fall of the church” between the death of John the apostle and the rise of the Reformation would throw a shadow of pagan gloom across the first three-fourths of Christian history. Not much better is the sectarian tall tale that traces a thin trickle of faithfulness down through the craggy dark ages, finding anonymous Protestant outposts here and there among the marginal and heretical groups. Neither approach (a time-capsule gospel or a thin-trickle gospel) can deliver Protestants from the charge, and the reality, of being uncatholic. The reformers knew better than to take either option. " More insight into this area of church history is going to prove more important than many of us realise, I think.

Please do a video on the Donatists too

Would you have any resources to read more? Thanks for all your work in this!

There was also a kind of similar movement in Russia called Strigolniki, though their doctrines are more ambigious.

Gavin, is there a single book/volume that adequately covers all of the “proto-Protestant” groups throughout history that you would recommend? Thanks. Love your channel!

@truthisbeautiful7492

Жыл бұрын

Waldenses, Lollardy and Boehmia. But the imperial state church was already divided in Greece. Plus Egypt, Ethopians, Persia, Greece. Luther was keen to put out Huss and the Greeks but he was happy to see that God brought sinners to faith in Jesus wherever the Word is. For Lutherans, that includes baptism.

There's manga about this called Otome Sensou. Its good if you like battles

The idea of indulgences itself is basically prosperity gospel but the reward of indulgences for comitting sins oh boy.

There is a recent movie about this era, 'Zizka' about the hussite, undefeated military genius Jan Zizka

What are some books you recommend on learning about the difference between secular and ecclesiastical authority? Most books tend not to cover this.

Hey Gavin I appreciate the video. I wanted to offer some reasons why I think you get that "Dismissive" response from Catholics. First off I want to state that an explanation is not an excuse, you can explain why someone does something without agreeing with it. I also wanted to get my biases out in the open, since we all have them. I'm Orthodox, though I was raised Catholic, all of my family is Catholic and most of my friends are Catholic. Most of my life I have had the “Catholic Experience” I understand why Ortlund didn't like the "well everyone does it, it all evens out" argument. But I feel obligated to push back on that a little bit and say "Well, it is kinda true though" Catholics, Protestants and, Orthodox Christians and their institutions have all done terrible things in the name of religion. Worrying who has the larger body count begins to drop into the realm of discussions that are on par with reducing people to numbers, a morbid type of accounting. "Chairman Mao is actually worse than Hitler because more people died under him than Hitler" type stuff. So why don't Catholics like to read and talk about bad things done by Catholics 500, 600 years ago? You could say the same reason most Protestants don't enjoy reading about terrible things protestants have done I suppose. But I think it goes beyond that actually, you will find a certain amount of defensiveness, especially by Catholics in the English-speaking world. I think that defensiveness springs from 500 years of oppression and bigotry by protestants directed at Catholics in the English-speaking world. I think this, more than anything else is the reason why most Catholics "Just don't want to hear it." Anti-Catholicism is a big part of Anglo-American Pop culture and propaganda for a very long time. Just as an example, even something as ordinary as "hocus pocus" started out as profoundly offensive and profane slur against the eucharist. A lot of aspects of what has been termed by some as the "Spanish Black Legend" are accepted uncritically as historical fact. I remember on a specific occasion a fundamentalist baptist was telling me about how many people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition and I questioned him on the number since it was over half the population of Spain at that time. His response? "Stop downplaying the atrocities" Alot of the Racism and bigotry that Hispanics face (even to this very day) find their roots in the Anti-Catholic/Anti-Spanish Black Legend. I think that is pretty common and I think most Catholics who encounter that have fatigue from dealing with exaggerations. This isn't really Ortlund's fault, hes very honest and tries to represent things correctly, but that is why I think he encounters apathy or defensiveness. I personally (when I was a Catholic) did not encounter any “serious” persecution, to the tune of not getting hired for jobs, admission to college, etc. I have however encountered many people who thought the Catholic Church was the “Whore of Babylon” or I wasn’t a “Real” Christian. Even as an Orthodox person, my in-laws think we are some sort of exotic Catholics. They call out Icons “Idols” dispite being told that isn’t what they are, they call us Pelagian dispite my best efforts to explain that we are not. These are from people who view themselves as behaving as Chartiable Christians, people who say they “love me” but yet when it matters do not show respect. Their Protestant upbringing in the south has made them think that their behavior is normal and acceptable. All of that pales in comparison to what my Grandparents delt with. They did deal with people who, in addition to all the above would discriminate against them for things like Jobs, College admission etc. The religious trauma my Grandparents had passed down from my great grandparents is terrifying. KKK burning Crosses on their yard level terrifying. Having their statues smashed in their garden terrifying. “Irish need not apply” level terrifying. The Anti-Catholicism played a roll in the Victorian English allowing a million people to starve in Ireland during the potato famine. Religious bigotry played a major roll in this. Look at the English Protestant Propaganda of the time. Those that left for America were met with hatred and bigotry. I don’t think most Catholics actively think about these past traumas, but it is burn into the generational psyche. Hundreds of years of oppression makes people defensive or apathetic. That doesn’t make it ok, but it makes it very understandable. Most Catholics are tired of "Catholic Bashing" be that by the secular media or by other Christians. If you haven't been Catholic, it can be hard to understand, but it is very real. Another point, and this is just an observation about Protestants in general, but It seems like Protestants would like Catholics to take ownership of terrible things that Catholics have done, but no one feels like they need to take ownership of the terrible things Protestants have done. I think this has to do with the fractured nature of Protestantism. Breaking off into a new group means you get to dump the baggage as you go. Does anyone feel like they need to apologize for the Salem Witch trials? No, of course not, those were another type of protestant, not my church. What about the fact that Protestant Countries burned far more "Witches" than Catholic Countries did? Again, we at 2nd Baptist Church were not directly responsible, so not our problem. Those Hispanic Catholics down the road tho? They are somehow more responsible for something that happened in Central Europe 600 years ago, than we our for our great grandparents burning crosses in yards 100 years ago. I see a lot of sympathy for Jan Hus in the comment section. People are deeply touched by him. I've read the account myself and find it moving. There are many aspects of the Hussite movement that I find compelling. I’m Orthodox after all. If you are moved by Hus I would highly encourage those same people to check out Edmund Campion, a Catholic Priest who was tortured and murdered in England. Do you cry when you hear about Protestants torturing Edmond on the rack for the 3rd time for not giving up his faith? Shouldn’t that also make you mad, indignant? As a historian, on one hand I think it is good to know the past, the good and the bad. But on the other hand maybe there is some prudence to saying “Eh, it all evens out in the End” and not try to open old wounds, It isn’t wise to throw rocks when you live in a glass house.

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

hey steve, thanks for the thoughtful comment, I understand where you are coming from but I think there are three crucial distinctions that must be appreciated: 1) persecution from the Catholic Church occurred as an expression of official Catholic theology and the claim the spiritual sword has authority over the temporal sword, which is reflected in magisterial teaching (Unam Sanctam, Ad extirpanda, Fourth Lateran Council, etc.). So the issue bears directly on claims about ecclesial infallibility, doctrinal development, etc. This is different from Protestant persecution. Also different would be the frequent use of indulgences to motivate Crusades. This is unique to Catholicism. 2) Catholic persecution of Prots and Prot persecution of Catholics are simply no comparison in terms of scale and quantity. That is why I addressed this with the metaphor of saying, "yeah, Texas may be big, but so is Rhode Island." 3) Perhaps the biggest thing is that Catholic apologetics is often marked by a pretty thick triumphalism. It is frequently asked "where was your church before the Reformation?" as if this was an obvious knock out. I feel these episodes are important as a response to that triumphalism.

@mrjustadude1

Жыл бұрын

Hey Gavin, I appreciate your kind response. I think there is something to all three of those responses you made. 1) I would agree with you. I would perhaps nuance it a little bit by mentioning the protestant princes and byzantine emperors who happily took up a sword "for the church", but I would agree that the Crusades are uniquely problematic. I would also say in regard to the crusades (well at least the ones to retake the Holy Land) that they started with good intentions, but they quickly became a disaster. I have an even more negative view of the other "Crusades" be they in the Baltic States, France, Bohemia, etc. Indulgences are profoundly concerning to me as well, and using them to fight wars compounds the problem and makes it even worse. I do genuinely have a lot of sympathy for the reformers dealing with these obviously terrible abuses. 2) I think you might be underestimating the scale of the Protestant persecution of Catholics. RI is incredibly small lol. Not that long ago the UK controlled 1/5th of the world. Even if globally your comparison was more accurate, in the English-speaking world, the numbers are flipped. In America and the UK Protestant on Catholic Persecution is Texas and Catholic on Protestant is RI. Since your audience is English-speaking the Catholics in the Audience are going to mostly be the decedents of people from that perspective. 3) I hear you on that. I think Triumphalism is obnoxious as well. I think that is a particular problem with Catholicism, but I don't think it is limited to Catholicism. The "Orange Men" in Ireland who supported Protestant Ascendancy are not a group I imagine you would get behind. Their Protestant Triumphalism and Absentee Landlord and land stealing practices were a major part of why a million people starved to death. That really ties into point #2. The history of Catholicism in America is the story of people who were oppressed before they arrived and after they arrived. It is a story of people who were told they couldn't be Catholic and "Real Americans" at the same time. It's only within my parent's lifetime that being a Catholic has been fully accepted as "Respectable" or "Normal" I think some of that Obnoxious Triumphalism is a result of that, and some of it is from the Counter-Reformation. It can be annoying, and they do the same thing (granted less so) when dealing with Orthodox. On the other hand, I find it silly when people celebrate "Reformation Day" but, as Orthodox people, we celebrate the Sunday of Orthodoxy and Process around the church each holding our Favorite Icon. Both of those are a type of Triumphalism if they are silly or annoying or not is really a matter of perspective.

@mrjustadude1

Жыл бұрын

You may have already watched this video because you seem to have a real interest in the topic, but in case you hadn't already I thought this was a pretty interesting explanation of the unique battle tactics the Hussites employed: kzread.info/dash/bejne/q3uJp9Osqqu4p6w.html

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

@@mrjustadude1 thanks Steve. Under point 2, do you think the persecution you are thinking of is killing/murder, mainly? I certainly oppose all mistreatment or persecution, of any kind, including from Protetstants. I just want to be accurate in the framing of things, because the quantity of killing/murder in the late medieval West is pretty amazingly high. I'm open to considering new information.

@mrjustadude1

Жыл бұрын

@@TruthUnites Hey, sorry for not responding for so long and sorry in advance for how long this is….I think that is a really important distinction, but I think it is hard to separate the two. I would say what form the persecution takes places really depends on the place and time. Naturally, you will see abuse of power by those who actually have it. I would agree with you in the Late Middle Ages nearly all of the state sanctioned religious violence is going to be from the established Catholics against whatever dissidents you might have. Once Protestants find themselves in established places of power, you will find they do the exact same things that Catholics once did to them. You will find some specific individuals who attempt to “take the high ground” against Catholics. But over all, it really seems like a large number of Protestants have a similar attitude towards the use of violence to defeat who they view as heretics as Catholics do, and you will often find that "Taking the high ground" Still involves murdering (Less) women and children and burning heretics, witches etc at the stake. The Taborietes are a great example of this, being related to the Hussite Wars. As soon as the Crusade was no longer a threat the Hussite factions fought each other. Petr Kanis and Martin Huska who were part of the Adamites (who completely rejected the Eucharist) were burnt as heretics under the orders of Jan Zizka, a follower of Hus after they were defeated in 1421 Far from a radical, Zizka, actually had issues with the radicalness of the Taborietes. For example, Zizka didn’t believe in putting all prisoners to the sword and when his solders did so on an occasion he ordered his troops to pray for forgiveness. Jan Zizka was moderate for his time and yet he still believed in burning heretics at the stake. This action had full support of his (pseudo?) protestant clergy, no different from their Catholic counterparts. Once you get into the actual reformation it doesn't really change. 50+ People were executed by order of John Calvin. (He also burnt bibles that he did not like, no different from Catholics who felt that "defective" bibles posed a spiritual threat) Luther had no problem with using violence to deal with people he felt were a threat. He played a major roll in the defeat of the Peasants Revolt.100,000-300,000 People died in the German Peasants Revolt. Men, women, and children. Far from feeling any remorse, In 1526 Luther wrote: "I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead." Once the Wars of Religion get started it is hard to untangle which atrocities are motivated by religion and what are motivated by Geo-politics. Whatever complaints people might have about the middle ages being allegedly violent, the Wars of Religion dwarf that entirely. Both sides committed horrible atrocities at basically every chance they got with few exceptions. The Swedish king Adolphus liked to portray himself as a "Protestant Champion" on some version of a crusade of some sort and was very successful with propaganda. However the Swedes committed plenty of atrocities and were terrible in Poland and Central Europe. They were particularly sadistic with their "Schwedentrunk" It might be more fair to characterize Adolphus's action in the war as politically motivated rather than religiously motivated based on how he behaved, but he had the full support of the Lutheran Church of Sweden and clearly stated that his was indeed a religious war so I'll take him at his word. Catholics committed plenty of atrocities in the war as well too, no one is getting off the hook here. I think something like 20,000 people were murdered in Magdeburg when Catholics took the city? Most people are aware of the st bartholomew's day massacre. My Point isn't that Protestants are the only ones that commit atrocities, but that, given the opportunity to, they will, just like their Catholic Counterparts. I think that one of the "Myths" of the reformation is that it was the revolution of the people rising up against the powers that be. That is very attractive to our American sensibilities. While that is largely true on the continent it isn't necessarily true in the Anglo-sphere. In the UK Protestantism was in many cases pushed from the top down, on the English people by aristocrats who wanted to steal land and treasure from the Monasteries. A great example of this is the Prayer Book Rebellion (1549) where English Catholics revolted because they didn't like that they were forced to accept Reformation Theology in the form of the Book of Common Prayer. Interestingly among the things that the Catholics did not like were how stripped down the service was, and how men and women were segregated for communion. During the rebellion was the infamous Clyst Heath Massacre where 900 bound and gagged prisoners where murdered by having their throats slit, systematically. Even after the revolt had been defeated orders were issued by Protestant bishop Thomas Cranmer to continue the onslaught and mercenaries in Cornwall and Devon murdered many more people before the violence finally ended. Again, this is protestant clergy approving of this. Funny enough, as a result of this rebellion, the English did not translate the bible or book of common prayer into Cornish, but instead systematically destroyed the language and made everyone speak and pray in English. Then of course there is Ireland. I mean you could have an entire library full of that. I would push back a little bit from the idea that the "Penal Laws" are a categorically lower status of persecution and that of "Killing/Murder" The simple fact is they (the Penal Laws) were designed to and did often kill people both directly (killing of clergy or people hiding them) or starvation. Cromwellian conquest of Ireland is little more than a genocide and enslavement of a population by an oppressive theocracy. Atrocities were committed on both sides, no doubt, but it is pretty clear the majority of the atrocities burning of crops, murder of civilians, systematic hunting down and execution of priests was done by the Protestant side. Besides the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of direct killings, The Penal Laws that followed had serious consequences and caused many deaths. Something between 15%- 50% of the population of the Island died as a result of the war, the famine and the plague that came with the war. Many modern historians consider the whole thing to be an ethnic cleansing and genocide (I'm inclined to agree) Even after the war the oppression of Irish Catholicism included murder of Catholic Priests. The persecution was so bad that there were designated rocks where people would say Mass because you couldn't do that in a church. Oppression continued right until the Irish Revolution Irish Catholics depending on how anti Catholic sentiments were going in England Irish Catholics varied from being 2nd and 3rd class citizens. Legend has it the the distinctive Irish dancing tradition of keeping ones arms at your side is because since it was illegal to Irish dance, they kept their arms down so if patrols looked in the window from the road, you just seemed to be walking around the house. Even after some of the most strict persecution was lifted, the Victorian British still allowed a million Irish people to starve to death, while still exporting food from the country, under guard. This genocide was used as a tool to steal land from people who were desperate and starving to death (as the English had been systematically doing for hundreds of years at this point) and to hurry the death of the Irish language. Anti-Catholicism was a cornerstone of this policy and the legal backing of the property laws. In addition to the above, Irish Protestants have historically been part of hate groups such as the Orangemen who terrorize minority Catholics in Northern Ireland, even to this day. They have a (Thankfully declining) tradition of parading though predominately Catholic areas to celibate July 12th. (see Drumcree conflict) in about the most distasteful triumphalism one could imagine. You may already know all of this, in that case, sorry for beating a dead horse. Again, I'm not trying to argue that Catholics have not also committed their share of murders and genocides, they have. So have Orthodox Christians, since we are being frank here. I have ancestors from both sides of these conflicts, I actually have Dutch and Ulster Scots heritage. I'd readily admit my people did bad things in the name of Protestantism. Same for my Catholic heritage. I'm not Catholic or Protestant. I don't really have a horse in this race in that sense. What I am trying to convey is I honestly don't think there is a categorical difference between Catholics and Protestants (in general) when it comes to oppressing people they disagreed with. Like sure, the Catholics have a larger body count, but that is because they had a head start. They started with more chips to play with. And yes, before Protestantism is really a "Thing" in the Late Medieval West, all of the Persecution of religious minorities is going to be done by Catholics, who else is there to do it? Protestantism showed up at the perfect time in history to attempt to catch up and seem to have made their best effort of it. Based on some estimates I saw more people were killed during the 30 years war than all of the crusades combined.

Hi Dr. Ortlund This is a great video. Excellent, excellent, important work. I'm a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and I'm working on documenting magisterial contradictions or proclamations that were "harmful to souls". Jan Hus was right. Wycliffe was right. And as a result, the Protestant cause is fundamentally right. Would you be willing to chat a bit about an argument raised against papal and magisterial infallibility from documented contradictions or teachings thar were indeed harmful to souls? Not sure of the right medium to chat...

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

great to hear you're at TEDS! I did a postdoc of sorts there 2017-2018, and lived in Libertyville growing up while my Dad taught there. Your project sounds great; unfortunately I am too swamped to chat right now but I am glad you are pursuing it. Yeah, what they did to Hus definitely counts as "harmful to souls!" God bless.

@Matthew Broderick...fast forward to 22:30 ;)

Just an example as to how prevalent Crusades were in Europe, the entire south shore of the Baltic was subject to crusades led by the Teutonic Knights.

If you like video games everyone here should check out Kingdom Come Deliverance. It's an RPG set in 1403 Bohemian. You play as Henry, the son of a blacksmith. The main conflict comes from sigismund and his brother vying for the crown of Bohemia. VanHoose and his teachings are mentioned quite often. I really hope the sequel is set during the the hussite wars.

Please do "Cranmer's 'damn hand'"

I think Francis Chan is going to be in Nashville for the "Send." Since you're here now, you should meet up while he's here.

I thought this was going to be about the calvary group, hussars, but still enjoyed it nevertheless.

Hussites are badass

Dr. Ortlund, do you think the death penalty for heresy is immoral even though God commanded it? (Deut. 17:2-7)? I’m generally asking because I’ve been wondering about this and how it affects the claims of the Magisterium.

The video game Kingdom Come Deliverance introduces the narrative of Jan Hus at the end of the game and I suspect he will be a prominent character in the sequel. Of course I doubt that anyone cares :-)

@permanenceaesthetic6545

Жыл бұрын

KCD is awesome! :-)

Jan the goose God bless him

Gavin, as a high church, conservative Anglican, I deeply appreciate what you are doing. You have helped me to become not only more settled in my reformational history, but truly proud of it. Bless you.

@truthisbeautiful7492

Жыл бұрын

It is amazing how many people think "everybody" was Romanist Before Luther, and they forget Bohemia and Lollardy and Waldenses, not to mention Greece and Egypt.

@ri3m4nn

Жыл бұрын

@@truthisbeautiful7492 and Messianic Judaism.... literally the first church, until the clear distinction in Acts 15.

@truthisbeautiful7492

Жыл бұрын

@@ri3m4nn well, messanic Judaism is actually a recent movement, you can study it's recent history.

@truthisbeautiful7492

Жыл бұрын

@@bersules8 what is your point? Have you ever read Moore? Do you agree with his ideas? What makes you think he is a saint?

@ri3m4nn

Жыл бұрын

@@truthisbeautiful7492 ah, no. The word is new, but not the denomination. Jewish-Christian Churches were literally first for the first 15 years after Christ. Acts 15 is when the split began to happen.

This is just so sad.. what are we to make of this?? Who is the enemy here??

Dr. Ortlund, do you have any theories/ideas about what mechanism there is to make Christians one in faith again or keep Christians one. It just seems to me that there aren’t any feasible mechanisms outside of a single authoritative church

@captainkrajick

11 ай бұрын

I would believe it would just need to be the Nicean Creed, or basically that we all have our faith based on the Gospel

O Sancta Simplicitas!

What did Penal indulgences actually mean

Czech here, their ideology went beyond religion, as far as to be essentially communist before socialism was even a thing. It was one of those utopian and therefore unsustainable movements, in the case of Hussites, it was mixed with contemporary European trends of believing that the end of the world is coming. And when it didn't come, the ideology started to lose steam even faster than if it only was utopian. They were very innovative in many ways yet in some ways it was the opposite. In those ways it was comparable to today's conspiracy theorist movements, especially those within Christian communities in the west which are also essentially destructive and they are also mistaken about the end times coming soon. All those prophecies of monotheistic religions keep creating trouble over and over.

I have had Catholics and Orthodox Christians try to convert me for years, yet I still remain non-denominational because even though I consider myself to be a conservative Christian, I always treat the Bible as my compass in my Christian journey because Scripture tells that it has the final authority over bishops, priests, pastors, deacons, and lay people to discern between truth and false teachings. If I were to sit down with Jan Hus, I’m sure we would disagree on some things but we would both most likely agree that the Bible has authority over church leaders and that all believers should have the freedom to receive communion.

@markrome9702

Жыл бұрын

The Bible never says it has final authority. That is a Protestant man-made tradition which is unbiblical, unhistorical, and unworkable.

Beard game is coming along...Me likey.

How about them Waldensians?

@j.athanasius9832

Жыл бұрын

Dr. Gavin already did a video on them too

@bethanyann1060

Жыл бұрын

@@bersules8 lol

Thank you for sharing the inspiring story of Jan Hus. I do think he was a holy man who was taking his stand on beliefs against a corrupt system that bought and sold grace. It's so sad that the church's shepherds have abused their authority like this. In hindsight the way this council should have played out is that the Hussites should have been allowed to say Mass as they wanted and give the chalice to the laity. They in turn should have respected the way the mainstream Catholic Church wanted to say Mass and give only the consecrated host to the laity. In hindsight it was never worth causing a schism over something like this, since it's not is a sacrilege or a loss of grace to communicate under one species only but if there are no health or other circumstances interfering with reception of both kinds it is better for everyone to receive both signs as Jesus had the apostles communicate with both kinds the Last Supper.

Rome became the new Sanhedrin

@saintejeannedarc9460

Жыл бұрын

Yes, in many ways it did. They also became the new Pharisees, adding many traditions, and putting these tradition over scripture. Like what they call icon veneration,which does veer into idolatry in some instances. Nothing wrong w/ the statues and pictures, but bowing and praying to them is definite idolatry. Yet they have endless loophole and excuses, as well as renaming of things to get around that.

Hi Gavin, I just had a question I hope its ok. Since the immaculate conception (that Mary was not tainted by original sin at conception) is a dogma, is the belief that Mary remained sinless and was morally perfect throughout the rest of her life included as a dogma as well? What is the Church's official position on that? Thanks

@1984SheepDog

Жыл бұрын

She was always without original and actual sin for her entire existence. That is the official position of the church

@jonahsanctus9839

Жыл бұрын

@@1984SheepDog So like Mary being sinless for the rest of her life is a dogma and not just a doctrine right?

@1984SheepDog

Жыл бұрын

@@jonahsanctus9839 Yes I believe so

@thomasfolio7931

Жыл бұрын

@@jonahsanctus9839 Yes and it does make no sense if you omit the context that it is not due to her own merits or independent of God, but that it is a special privilege granted to her so a pure vessel could bring about the Incarnation. It was maintained by her full cooperation with God's grace. Since she was and remained a human woman, it does not elevate her to something other than what God intended for us all before the Fall. She still needed the redemption of Christ on the Cross. The difference is that she was granted this privilege in the same manner as a man who is pulled back from falling into a manhole while he walks down the street is saved from that fate, just as a man who falls down the manhole (us sinners) and pulled out of the pit are saved, the manner is different, the means are not.

@carlosrodas423

Жыл бұрын

@@thomasfolio7931 Is it possible that the Marian dogmas are just a way to justify Marian idolatry? John MacArthur preached about and against Marian dogmas and I cannot help to see the idolatry and Marian veneration as a huge barrier to many Protestants who might consider Roman Catholicism. RC apologists give explanations for these practices that are not convincing at all. I was born and raised in Latin america, and my father was born and raised Roman Catholic, and received religious education through high school in a boys school adjacent to the nation's cathedral. My family must have been Roman Catholic for many centuries before that, since Spanish Catholicism didn't allow any other religion to exist in their territories. There doesn't seem to be a real need for Mary to have been born immaculately or be ever virgin, or for these doctrines to be considered necessary/obligatory for Christians, as the RCC teaches and requires, since the work of Christ is in no way diminished should she had been born subject to a sinful nature or would have consummated her marriage after the birth of Christ. There's a special grace given to her, but she may have been righteous in the same sense that Enoch was. My dad used to get defensive when Protestants would criticize catholicism. But then after that he could not remain Roman Catholic as the ubiquitousness of idolatry within the RCC was too glaring, despite the official doctrine. The reality on the ground is, specially in historically Roman Catholic countries, that the official doctrines, which are questionable, have led to gross idolatry, and even worse the folk religion permitted by the Church.

I think it's misleading to say that late medieval Christians "were being starved of the eucharist" (by the clergy?). That it was only being given in one kind does not equate to an outright denial of it. As for it being given once per year, I'd appreciate a citation for that - what seems more plausible to me is that people were only receiving once per year, perhaps due to a scrupulous fear of 1 Cor 11:27-30. This would also explain the emphasis placed on the elevation and veneration of the host, for it enabled those who didn't communicate to nevertheless adore Christ in the eucharist. In short, I can see a lot of this being self-imposed by the laity.

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

thank you -- yes, to clarify, it was typically received once a year, but this was not the clergy forbidding it, but just the general custom. I realize my verb "given" could be misleading on that, my bad.

@toddvoss52

Жыл бұрын

@@TruthUnites there is an echo of this custom that remains in one of the 5 precepts of the Catholic Church . That the faithful are to receive the Eucharist at least once during Easter season. It arose in an era where some weren’t even receiving once a year - just because they weren’t inclined to participate for whatever reason. So the Church then mandated this minimum and of course in the last 100 years or so encouraged frequent reception .

@truthisbeautiful7492

Жыл бұрын

Nope, it was commanded by authority and resisted by many and people died for it - Boehmia and during the Reformation. Christ says Drink this ALL of you. Multilating the Sacrament in direct opposition to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ is a big deal. Should I listen to Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church, or listen to the "Pope" who contradicts what Christ expressly said? Drink this, ALL OF YOU I'd what Christ said. Not 'some of you' or 'only the pastors.' would you dare to reject what Christ literally said?

@truthisbeautiful7492

Жыл бұрын

Nowhere does Christ command an elevation or adoration of the Sacrament, but He does say Drink this ALL of you.

I am tired of hearing people say ignorant stuff about the holocaust. The NYT came out with an article in 1905 in which they said that the Tsar of Russia was responsible for holocausting 6 million Jewish families from 1890 to 1905. In 1921 the NYT came out with another article about how the communists in Russia were holocausting 6 million Jews (no reference at all to the previous holocaust). If I remember correctly, it was as early as 1936 (or 1938?) when the NYT started talking about Hitler holocausting 6 million Jews (when modern historians say that he didn't even get the idea for it until WW2 and didn't actually do it until 1942). There are more than 100 other such articles about holocausts of 6 million Jews from the NYT during that time period, but most of them don't refer to Jews actually dying ("holocaust" had very broad meaning back then I guess). There is an obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this, but KZread will automatically censor me if I say it explicitly.

@permanenceaesthetic6545

Жыл бұрын

Careful there Brendan. You’re using your brain again. 😉

@1984SheepDog

Жыл бұрын

Lol

Just because there were some people who disagreed with real presence, doesn't mean Francis Chan's statement is inaccurate. There are always competing views, but the dominant view in Chan's context is memorial, just as the dominant view for the first 15 hundred years was real presence. So, it is not inaccurate. Pointing to some outliers does not refute the claim. Also, it is definitely true that there came to be more emphasis on the sermon in Protestantism. Of course, you can find outliers, but in general, it is still true that the Eucharist was the climactic and most central moment in the liturgies of east and west in the first millennium, and even to this day, whereas Protestant churches do not put the eucharist as central but rather the sermon. And yes, it does often create a cult of personality for the community. Not always, but often.

@mj6493

Жыл бұрын

While it may be true that “there came to be more emphasis on the sermon in Protestantism”, it is still the case that the Protestant reformers restored many practices that are generally thought to be more “Catholic” today. Receiving both the body and blood in the Mass, more frequent offering to the laity, more congregational participation. As for the real presence, Luther made it abundantly clear at Marburg, “This is my Body!”. I don’t think we can call Luther an outlier. An emphasis on every variation indeed can obscure the general trends of a religious movement, but sometimes ignoring the specifics can mislead as well. One problem is that modern Protestant churches, particularly those of the non-denominational variety, have neglected their historic roots in the Reformation. It’s no wonder that Francis Chan seemed flummoxed. He was reading his own experience back into the Reformation.

@adecarion

Жыл бұрын

@@mj6493 Martin Luther is not an outlier, but he is also a former Roman Catholic priest, and he believed in doctrines like the perpetual virginity of Mary, and he believed in the sacrament of confession, and baptismal regeneration. I think it would be great if Protestants started going backwards a bit. They would be getting closer to the tradition of the Church.

I don’t think the early Christians would be accused of cannibalism if they held to a Reformed Baptist view of the Eucharist. “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of me, this is my body”; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, “This is my blood”; and gave it to them alone (First Apology, 66).

The Hussites had multiple factions that held different views and opposed each other lol... Proto Protestantism alright.

“Offensive” - the most overused and bastardized word of the 21st century. Requires instant dismissal of video

@HearGodsWord

Жыл бұрын

That comes off as short-sighted.

So why aren't all Protestants also Hussites? I believe that there is a Moravian Church in existence today. What exactly was it that the Roman Catholic Church objected to? Apparently the Hussites were saying that Holy Communion under just one species is invalid, which is enough to convict for heresy, then and now. They also apparently opposed fasting before Holy Communion, which would get them convicted for sacrilege (the current fasting requirement is for one hour for both liquid and solid food, but from midnight for alcoholic drinks). Standard procedure then was trial by an ecclesiastical court, followed by handing over to the civil authorities after conviction, who would then burn the convicted heretic. In the Papal States the Pope was also the civil power. Elsewhere procedures were obviously streamlined and predictable. This video isn't giving us enough detail.

@ahumblemerchant241

Жыл бұрын

> Why aren’t all Protestants Hussites? There’s actually a quote from Luther remarking that he had unknowingly been preaching the same points as the Hussites all along-I believe many Hussites eventually melded in with the various Protestant groups. The Moravians would later convert John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement. As for why we’re not Hussites-theologically speaking many of us are similar, but it’s almost like asking an English Protestant, “why aren’t you, a member of the Church of England, a Czech Protestant?” To which the answer is likely, “well, I’m not Czech, I’m English” and not necessarily from theological disapproval. I’d personally recommend the biography of Hus by David S. Schaff. Hus’s own written works, his letters and De Ecclesia, are pretty easy to access and give a good insight of his doctrine from his own mouth and also his character which endeared so many. If I could briefly state (from memory) he was burned under a wide display of charges, most of which he denied ever preaching or teaching (such as falsely being accused of teaching a Quadrinity of Persons in the Trinity, among a multitude of other things). What he did say and didn’t deny saying was that the Papacy was an invention of man and not necessary for the Church’s existence as an institution, this was added to his heresy charge’s even though he used the Father’s to defend what he had said (articulating a theology that is strangely reminiscent of the visible/invisible church distinction found in lager Protestants-primarily because both used Augustine heavily to construct their ecclesiology). He was summoned with a promise of safe conduct to Constance both there and back to Bohemia to “discuss” his views. He was treacherously arrested and tried. He attempted to clear up what he exactly he held to and defend the positions he did actually hold at Constance but was mostly jeered, harassed, mocked, and bullied all the way to the stake. Where the foregone conclusion of his burning was enacted. Infamously, he called out the King who had written him safe conduct on the reneging of that promise. The king blushed and it was quite the embarrassment-Constance attempted to massage the King’s ego by claiming oaths, even one’s made invoking the name of God, “were not to be kept with heretics.”

@david_porthouse

Жыл бұрын

@@ahumblemerchant241 Quite simply, not a lot is known in my country about Jan Hus and the beliefs of the Hussites. To me it's yet another Protestant sect. I may have misrepresented their beliefs about Holy Communion under both kinds, but I am following the Constance text quoted in the video. If we deny the Papacy, then we just end up with a church which is merely a collection of sects. Look at the Orthodox Church today! I would say we need a Papacy to co-ordinate doctrine, that Pope is the successor of St Peter in a special sense, and people who contradict this may be excommunicated after a trial, as of 2022. There is a certain circularity in abrogating a promise of safe conduct. In practice it can only be done once.

@david_porthouse

Жыл бұрын

@YAJUN YUAN Do they though?

@david_porthouse

Жыл бұрын

@YAJUN YUAN The idea is that the only banquet is Holy Communion itself.

@ahumblemerchant241

Жыл бұрын

@@david_porthouse Roman Catholicism seems to be intensely divided under the surface. I find the SSPX Tradcaths to be completely irreconcilable with the moderate American Caths who are completely irreconcilable with most expressions of Catholicism in Latin America. They’re certainly not unified in doctrine, and even if they all nominally “submit to Rome” I don’t really see that as anything more than a unity in name only. To contrast. I, an Anglican, exist in a different ecclesiological structure from the Presbyterians. Yet, I have few major points of theological dispute, I regard them as my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and I freely intercommune with them. I know Tradcaths who refuse to set foot in a non TLM church; which of us are more unified?

It is so sad to hear of the thousands of Catholic Christian Priests and laymen, martyred by Protestant extremists as well! Sadly, there is abuse of authority in every Religion! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink, and His Church built on Peter the rock

Fix your map.Where u put Bohemia is land of Silesia.Bohemia is part of Czech republic/Bohemia and Moravia and part of Silesia.Czech kingdom =Bohemia,Moravia,Silesia,Lusetania.

Wow, Dr. Ortlund, I am really shocked of this unbalanced and incredibly inaccurate account of Hus and the Hussites. Like honestly I am wondering what is your goal with this video. Is it really presenting a historical picture of these events, … or something else? I am going to assume that you really did not study this issue in depth and that the materials you have available in English are not that good, rather than thinking that you deliberately misrepresented these events. First of all, the king´s safe conduct did not mean ultimate protection. Hus was still under condemnation and he was banned from certain activities like serving masses and preaching to people. Hus was well aware of this. If really the intention of the prelates was to put Hus into jail, they would do it immediately after his arrival to Constance. But as we know this was not the case. The problem was that Hus ignored the fact that he was not allowed to preach and his disobedience to church authorities was deliberate. That is why he ended up in jail. Scholars and historians agree on this, including Jiří Kejř and others. I am kind of surprised you don´t know about this. The safe conduct had its limits, it did not work as if Hus could do whatever he wanted and the council had no other choice than to tolerate this. Especially heretics are submitted to the judgment of church authorities, not to the king. You are describing the prelates as if they wanted to put him to death no matter what. Really? All the prelates and council fathers were trying to convince him to change his position, as if they wanted him to be alive even more than Hus. Hus´s trial was a minor issue to solve in Constance, the much bigger problem was the schism. This fact cannot be denied, since Hus was given very generously three hearings which had no precedence! Even Baltazar Cossa (John XXIII) did not get the chance like this. So you giving a very unbalanced portray of the council at least to say. Further I am honestly shocked about your claim that scholars debate whether the trial was legal. I personally owe Jiří Kejř´s book called „Husův proces“. Jiří Kejř, an expert on medieval history and canon law, and who was evangelical by the way, did an in depth research on this very issue, who studied the trial and the background of the canonical law for years, and the legal status of the Hus´s trial. For his massive work was awarded the title Commander of Pontifical Order of Pope Saint Sylvester by the pope in 1999, since his work was groundbreaking. Guess what, he concluded it was legal. Not only that, he concluded that according to the church law of that day, the council fathers „had no choice“ if they wished to follow the canon law of those days! I am not aware of any scholar who studied this issue on such a level like Kejř did and concluded otherwise. You can perhaps clarify and name those scholars and historians and canon law experts. Please feel free to do that. I am all ears. Now lets go to the military actions financed with money from indulgences. Actually Jan Hus was on king Wenceslaus´s side on supporting neutrality (i.e. supporting the third pope, Alexander V from Bologna). Actually it was the successor of Alexander V, John XXIII who conducted military attacks against pope Gregory XII, who had to fly in exile. The attack was financed from indulgences of course. How ironical. Now lets be fair, Hus opposed John XXIII, but afterwards Hus was criticized by king Wenceslaus, who still supported John XXIII, because the king wanted to gain back the title of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Well, if Hus would not chose to side with the king, just in order to get rid of the archbishop of Prague, Zbyněk Zajíc, perhaps things would happen differently. Hus should have known better. Hus godly and pious man? Dah!! Read my comments to your video about Hus again and challenge it. Hus´s contemporaries like Štěpán z Pálče had at least the guts to go to Rome and defend the Wycliff theology. Hus did not have this courage. Hus and preaching the Bible in vernacular? Yeah, but that is overstated. Actually the majority of his sermons are in Latin ! Only till the end of his life he wrote his sermons in the national language. Have you read his stuff? His sermons? I did. Regarding the eucharist. Yeah Hussites wanted to achieve receiving it „sub utraque specie“. However they were not trying to achieve this peacefully. Actually they forced Catholics to receive the Eucharist in this manner, if they did not obey, they were threatened, and even killed. I agree with you Dr. Ortlund that we should encourage people to read and get know about contemporary historians, Husite historians, like Lawrence of Březová. In his chronicles „Historia Hussitica“ he wrote about all the atrocities that the Hussites did, like the genocide in Klatovy, the brutal murder of catholic in Bechyně in 1422, in Mohlenice 1424 where catholic pledge to rather die than to convert to the Hussite movement. Of course they were all burned in the local church (around 700 dead including women and children), around 1500 Catholics thrown on spears from windows in Havličkův Brod, same way in Trutnov, etc. etc. You can read about all these in the chronicles of Lawrence, the Hussite historian. So lets not pretend as if Catholics did all evil and the Hussites were saints. And the Hussite terror did not cost only human life. Many churches were destroyed. The famous Charles university, founded by King Charles IV, underwent a huge decadence under the control of the Hussites. This university was famous in whole Europe and was flourishing before the Hussites gained control over it. I could go on and on with all these negative impacts of the Hussite terror. Taken all together, it seems to me Dr. Ortlund you are limiting your rhetoric to one side of the coin. But remember that truth unites only if the whole truth is said. No offense, but this video is rather an idealized and surrealist picture of Hus and the Hussites which has very little to do with factual history. Anyone who understand the Czech language should read at least Jan Sedlak´s work (Mistr Jan Hus), František Palacký´s histories about Bohemia, František Michálek Bartoš, České dějiny II/6: Čechy v době Husově. Petr Čornej, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny České V. Jiří Kejř, Husův proces. Vlastimil Kybal - Václav Novotný, Jan Hus. Read especially Jan Sedlak and Jiří Kejř who used plenty of primary sources from archives. Actually even Fudge is dependent on these scholars.

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

Seems like you are trying to assume a scholarly superiority here, but your points are either wrong or overstated. To take the legality of Hus' trial as an example: it's pretty standard in the scholarship that this is one of the points of dispute. Fudge outlines the two schools of thoughts in the early pages of his book on the topic. Here is one representative arguing against its legality: David R. Holeton, “The Celebration of Jan Hus in the Life of the Churches,” Studia Liturgica, 35.1 (2005), 58: “it can be demonstrated that the trial at Constance did not follow the legal norms of the time.” There are many others. Even Kejř discusses the canonical irregularities that make this a live question. So your language of "honestly shocked" and "incredibly inaccurate" is unwarranted rhetoric. I could go through the other points as well but I won't cover every detail. Briefly, safe conduct most certainly did mean a promise of not being arrested and jailed without proper food or medical care. That is also not generally disputed. This is why Sigismund was embarrassed at Hus' trial. The matters for which Hus was tried by no means emerged *after* his arrival in Constance, and there *were* bishops who were scheming against him from the beginning. Here is Fudge on Hus' character: "Hus was a good man, a person of virtue and integrity, a faithful priest who strove for honesty, conviction, and truth in the practice of his faith” (Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus, 347-48). The idea that the reason Hus didn't go to Rome because of a lack of courage is a pretty tainted interpretation of motive. Regarding Hussite violence: these various acts occurred *after* they were attacked and war had begun, so I don't see them as remotely comparable to the Catholic Church offering indulgences for a crusade against them. It is true that some Hussites became somewhat fanatical as things went on. I discussed that a bit in the video. Anyway, take care.

@davidszaraz4605

Жыл бұрын

@@TruthUnites Thank you for your reply. I am not assuming scholarly superiority, I just try to be accurate as possible and looking at all the facts. How are my points overstated? I am just reading scholars on the topic.I am not making up things. Regarding the legality of the trial, you cited Holeton (more precisely Fudge is citing him). I looked up Holeton´s article. 1. Holeton´s expertise is not on canon law, but liturgy. The description of the author in the article is: "he RevdDr David R. Holeton ,an Anglican,is Professor of Liturgy at The Charles University in Prague," So Holeton cannot be compared to Kejř, who invested many years in researching just the canonical law in regards to Hus´s trial. 2. His article is not about the deliberations of the trial and its legal background, but Hus in the liturgy. 3. The only part, where he mentions the legality of the trial is on page 58 of his article: "Those churches that commemorate Hus today celebrate him as saint for the whole church.Just as his illegal condemnation and death at Constance is the shame of the whole church,his ultimate vindication and the acknowledgment that he is numbered among God's elect is, consequently, a part of the joy and glory of the whole church." Here Holeton cites none else than Kejř in the footnote: "Imputing illegality to Hus's trial is not an anachronism when it can be demonstrated that the trial at Constance did not follow the legal norms of the time. To have a judgment overturned because the trial itself did not follow the legal procedures of its own time is a matter of simple justice. See: Jiři Kejř, Husovo odvolani od soudu papežova k soudu Kristovu [Hus's Appeal from the Papal Court to the Court of Christ] (Prague 1999) and idem, Husuv proces [Hus's Trial] (Praha 2000), particularly 200ff." So actually Fuge is citing a secondary source (Holeton), an article that is not about the legality of the trial. Now I am wondering why is Fudge doing this, since in the Bibliography of his book he claims to have used Kejř´s book. The problem is Kejř´s conclusion is that the trial was legal and the judgment was given according to the canon law, and "the council had no other choice". Yes it is true there were some discrpancies during the trial, however these had no major affect on the verdict. Just as it wasn´t the custom of the trials to give 3 hearing to the heretics. Jan Hus got 3 hearings! It was almost as if the council fathers were begging Hus to change his position so he won´t be killed. Kejř is very clear on this. Why do you think he was awardwd by the pope himself? I honestly don't understand Holeton's conclusion based on Kejř. I have Kejř's book, if you are interested I can send you scans of the pages, if you wish to translate it for yourself, or I can write some parts here out.

@davidszaraz4605

Жыл бұрын

No my language of "honestly shocked" and "incredibly inaccurate" is not unwarranted rhetoric. You see Kejř´s research caused quite an uproar among evangelicals here. They were expecting something else. Hus´s figure was grossly abused during the communist regime for the justrification of the persecution of Catholics. Kejř did an amazing job and moved the position of the status of Constance from "you bad catholics, you killed Hus" to a totally different level. Now it seems the trial in Constance wasn´t about killing Hus, no matter what. So yes its shocking to me if someone portrays Hus´s trials as communist did here in Czechia in those days. We should move forward and go with the recent scholarship. Hus´s trial is not that black and white as you think. I don´t doubt what Sigismund promised to Hus in that document. The question that needs to be answered, did Sigismund have this competence? Was that document extended to Hus´s deliberate disobedience in Constance? Could the document be applied even if Hus is going to transgress the church law? Is this document above the decision of the council? I am afraid you are puting too much weight on the safe conduct. Rather you should focus on the reason of his imprisonment. It is irrelevant if some bishops were scheming against him. It is generarly acknowledge that Hus ignored his condemnation and was preaching to the prople in Constance. That is without a doubt. You cannot let a heretic diseminate heresy and pretending that nothing is happening. The safe conduct is irrelevant in this matter. Hus had respected the authorities, he would not get into prison. Further I don't know how prisons looked like in the medieval era but I would not assume prisoners were generaly kept in good standards with enough food and medication. You seem to focus always on the consequences of Hus's behaviour - the imprisonment, rather than the cause of his imprisonment. Why Dr. Ortlund? It is absolutely not true that the atrocities of the Hussites started after the attack from Catholics. The years 1411-12 represent an escalation of Hus's camp violence. In his sermons and university lectures, Hus describes the part of the clergy that stood on the Archbishop's side as morally corrupt without exception. This led to the fact that the rabble and ragtag attacked clergymen and religious people. *Former Hus's friend and now the opponent of Stěpan* (Stephen) of Paleč writes that “many holy priests were persecuted… some killed, others robbed, others expelled from their own churches…” In Klatovy and Žatec some of the priests were burned or drowned. We do not know anything about the number of killed clergymen, nor do we know their names except for a Dominican priest Jan called Malík from Klatovy. These atrocities were a direct consequence of Hus's hateful sermons, and he himself never stood up for the victims of these spiritual sacrifices. You need to do better research on the atrocities of the Hussites. Seems you are lacking a lot of information.

@davidszaraz4605

Жыл бұрын

Further in your previous video "Why was Jan Hus burned?" you cited David Schaff´s work on hus and you disagreed with me that Hus approved the burning of heretics. I don´t understand how could you overlook this fact in Schaff´s book. Protestant Palacký shows that Hus thought and approved death penalty for heretics: „Jednau sročen byw s osmi protiwníky swými na Žebrák před raddu králowu, když ho winili, že nepodal článkůw swých písemně děkanowi theologickému, jakkoli o to často napomínán jsa, odpowěděl, že neučiw nikdy podtají, ale wždy weřejně, nemůže stíhán býti, jakoby učení swé ukrýwati chtěl, že hotov wšak hotov jest podati články swé i písemně, budauli protiwníci jeho, ježto jej z kacířstwí wíní, chtíti se zawázati k dostatečnému průvodu žaloby swé, a to pod pokutau (poena talionis), totiž pod upálením, jakowéž na kacíře slušeí. Zaražení nad náwrhem takowým doktorowé odpowěděli po krátké poradě, že chtějí wydati k tomu jednoho ze sebe, když ale HUS na tom stál, že nepřátelé jeho užíwajíce ruky společné w obwiňowání, mají také w pokutě newytrhowati se zní, králowa radda učinila hádce té konec napomínaním jalowým, aby hleděli srownati se mezi sebau w pokoji.” (Fratnišek Palacký, Dějiny národu českého w Čechách a w Morawě: dle pu̇wodních pramenů, Díl III, 1850. , page 127, accesible on the internet archive) Schaff only says this: “In an audience before the king at Zebrak, Huss, in vindication of his views, offered to undergo a test on condition that each of the other eight doctors did the same, each of them as well as himself submitting to the ordeal of burning as heretics in case of failure to make good his position. All of the eight were present at the audience and refused to yield to Huss´s suggestion. The situation was aggravated rather than appeased by the audience.” (John Huss, year 1915, page 127, accessible on the internet archive) Schaff fails to present the fact, that the opponents offered one of them to accept his challenge - one on one. Rather it was Hus who asserted that all the eight doctors have to submit themselves to the ordeal of burning, not only one of them. This was Hus´s condition, otherwise he refused to deliver the articles to the Dean (who repeatedly asked Hus to declare his writings, which Hus didn´t do, yet still taught Wicliff´s teachings on the university). I just wonder why Schaff didn´t write it down, as in his preface he claims he used Palacký´s works in German (Geschichte von Böhmen, year 1864), also he writes in his preface where he presents the Modern Works he used: F. Palacky …. Best authority on Bohemian history. I checked the german translation on the internet archive, and it doesn´t miss that passage from Palacký. (Geschichte von Böhmen, Dritten Bandes - Third volume, year 1845, page 283, accessible on the internet archive). And indeed Palacký, who was an evangelical protestant, is still considered a reliable historian, he is called „the father of the nation“ in Czech Republic. Whatever, the point is, Hus had no problem with the burning of his eight opponents, in case they fail to justify their claims, moreover he refused that only one would be burned, he wanted all eight of them, in case they lose the challenge. Palacký writes: “totiž pod upálením, jakowéž na kacíře sluší” which in translation means: “by burning, as it is appropriate for a heretic” From Constance, however, Hus writes to his friends’ letters in which he protests passionately against the death penalty for heretics, this is another proof of hypocrisy.

@davidszaraz4605

Жыл бұрын

@YAJUN YUAN you are not addressing my questions from my comments above regardung the safe conduct and why Hus got imprisoned. Rather you are comparing uncomparable things.

Yes, murdering and killing in the name of religion is wrong and we should not be afraid to say or discuss these topics. However, it seems you (like many Protestants) are using this issue as a reason to justify not being Catholic which would be in err. Seems doctrinal or theological reasons should trump any of this nonsense, since the official teaching of the Church is none of this.

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

Not sure if you watched the video but I addressed how this was official Catholic theology in the medieval era and gave multiple examples

@christophergrillo5099

Жыл бұрын

@@TruthUnites I did watch the whole video, but still don't see how a decision to be Catholic in 2022 should be based on medieval theology (as you say) or some fear that we're going to return to burning people at the stake. I appreciate your work, response and charitable approach to apologetics, but I'm just a cradle Catholic re-vert trying to learn more about your perspective. I aspire to participate in apologetics someday and need to learn what you'll are saying!!

@TruthUnites

Жыл бұрын

@@christophergrillo5099 Thanks Christopher. Yeah I think the challenge is that the claim of authority over the temporal sword comes from magisterial teaching (Fourth Lateran Council, Unam Sanctam, etc.) that is held to be infallible and irreformable. It is another example of supposedly irreformable teaching that actually gets reformed under the umbrella of "doctrinal development," so it is a concern for me.

@theeternalsbeliever1779

Жыл бұрын

Catholics have a very known history of murdering ppl who refuse to convert their religion once they acquire political supremacy. Protestants are no better because their own religion with similar horror stories, all the way down to the religious violence that is perpetrated by the Protestant white supremacist groups.

Must the Eucharist be received under both species or kinds (bread AND wine)? Those who say yes, rely on what Jesus said in John 6:54 (emphasis in capital is mine) "he who eats my flesh AND drinks my blood has eternal life." Those who say no, rely on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 11:27 (emphasis in capital is mine) "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body AND blood of the Lord." Either eating the bread OR drinking the cup unworthily will profane the Body AND Blood of Christ. The verse uses "OR and AND", neither "OR and OR" nor "AND and AND" (KJV translates the verse as AND and AND). In John 6:59 said "he who eats this bread will live forever". This is the basis why the Catholic Church teaches receiving under one species (bread or wine) we receive both flesh and blood of Christ. Receiving both species is neither forbidden nor condemned. To the best of my knowledge in Eastern Catholic churches both species are given to laity. In the past even the Western church did the same. For interested readers, what were declared in Council of Constance can be found online at www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum16.htm The decree on session 13 on June 15, 1415 deals with the above issue. John His was condemned not only in this issue. The council has a list of 30 of his condemned teachings. Only one (number 25) may have something to do with the Eucharist where he gave support to John Wycliffe's teachings.

@davidszaraz4605

Жыл бұрын

I like especially number 23. "The pope ought not to be called “most holy” even by reason of his office, for otherwise even a king ought to be called “most holy” by reason of his office and executioners and heralds ought to be called “holy”, indeed even the devil would be called “holy” since he is an official of God." This can be found also in Hus´s sermons called "Postilla", where he criticizes the pope for being called "his holiness". You know, when Hus was condemned, he wrote a letter to John XXIII on the 1st of September 1411, (to the very same person who was selling indulgences to organize military forces against the real pope Gregory XII, who indeed was a pious man). Now, what is the most intruiging about this letter is that Jan Hus calls John XXIII "his holiness" . Since Hus was asking John XXIII to remove the condemnation, suddenly the "pope" can be called "his holiness". Here is the passage: "Z té příčiny, nejvyšší Kristův náměstku, milost *Vaší Svatosti* pokorně vzývám, abyste mne ráčil skrze milosrdenství Boha všemohoucího osvoboditi milostivě od ospravedlnění osobního a ostatních dalších následků ... " In English: "For this reason, the highest vicar of Christ, I humbly ask the grace of *Your Holiness* to grant me, through the mercy of God Almighty, to free me graciously from the justification of personal and other consequences" So much about Hus´s piety.

@ahumblemerchant241

Жыл бұрын

@@davidszaraz4605 > (to the very same person who was selling indulgences to organize military forces against the real pope Gregory XII, who indeed was a pious man). Now, what is the most intruiging about this letter is that Jan Hus calls John XXIII "his holiness" . Since Hus was asking John XXIII to remove the condemnation, suddenly the "pope" can be called "his holiness". To your first point, Hus condemned the selling of indulgences for such a war and, indeed, for prosecuting such a war at all in 1412, a year after the letter was sent to Gregory. To your point about "the real pope" this is a bit pedantic. Most authors from that time was confused over "who the real pope" was. John XXIII was from the line selected by the Council of Pisa. The Council of Constance was only able to affirm Gregory in hindsight due to the Pope's respective reactions to being asked to resign. The awkwardness of that Schism had left none of the contenders without suspicion towards their lineage. Now you seem to be accusing Hus of Hypocrisy--I fail to see this. As the Postilla was after he left Prague, in 1412. The letter was sent 1411. It seems to have been a change of his opinion on the usage of the title being correct or not. > So much about Hus´s piety. So this is an awfully uncharitable attempt to impute conniving into Hus's motives. It would be funny if we examined how the delegates of the Council of Constance gladly kissed the feet and adored John XXIII with all sorts of fanciful titles (much greater than the common pleasantries Hus once offered) up until the very day they felt politically secure enough to depose him without backlash--whereas Hus, having already denounced Him, was burnt. Under your opinions of piety, surely that should be worthy of some criticism? And it would be even funnier if we examined the delegates of Constance, all three of the Papal Lineages of that time, and questioned their usage of prostitutes and concubines compared to Hus--who actually bothered to maintain his chastity. Wouldn't it be humorous to examine all of these men by your standards of "piety"?

@davidszaraz4605

Жыл бұрын

@@ahumblemerchant241 "To your first point, Hus condemned the selling of indulgences for such a war and, indeed, for prosecuting such a war at all in 1412, a year after the letter was sent to Gregory." True, I even affirmed it elsewhere in a comment. By the way Hus sent the letter to John XXIII, not to Gregory. But one problem still remains, Hus sided with king Wenceslaus (who chose to support neutrality - Alexander V) purposely to gain back the title Emperor. Wenceslau was an adultarer and drunk. Hus chose to support the king just to get rid the archbishop of Prague. So Hus was quite involved in these affairs. And his decision supporting the king´s decision to go with the third pope escalated in these problems. They should have remained with Gregory. That is the irony in all this. "Most authors from that time was confused over "who the real pope" was." Incorrect. The "third pope" was elected last, namely Alexander V. There were two popes for a time, but Gregory XII at least was willing to abdicate if Benedict XIII does the same, however he refused. Gregory XII had to fly to exile due to the military forces of John XXIII. Further it is not true people were confused. Certainly not in Bohemia. The archbishop and the clergy in Bohemia were always under the obedience of Gregory XII, the archbishop Zbyněk Zajíc ramined faithful to Gregory even after the election of the "third pope", in fact the archbishop never changed his position. He was wise enough to know that a third pope does not solve anything. It was King Wenceslau who chose otherwise for a purpose. And Hus supported this change, for a purpose. "Now you seem to be accusing Hus of Hypocrisy--I fail to see this. As the Postilla was after he left Prague, in 1412." Irrelevant, this position against the pope was just "written down" in that year, however he took this position much earlier. Just read Jan Sedlak´s book. I only mentioned the Postilla as an example, not as ultimate proof for his hypocrisy. And even if he would change his mind regarding the title to the pope only after his letter, what difference it makes? He should have supported Gregory XII who was moral. Shouldn´t he follow him? Why chosing to obey the third pope? Makes no sense. And why refusing the title "his holiness" only after John XXIII was selling indulgences? I mean there were problematic popes even prior John XXIII, why only refusing the title to him when Hus has a negative experience with the pope? "And it would be even funnier if we examined the delegates of Constance, all three of the Papal Lineages of that time, and questioned their usage of prostitutes and concubines compared to Hus--who actually bothered to maintain his chastity." Source? I certainly don´t have a problem to admit there was a problem among part of the clergy. Even the archbishop of Prague knew this and even fought against this. In the beginning he even liked Hus´s zelous position against immorality. Noteworthy, Hus wasn´t the first to fight against immorality. You need to dive deep more in this issue.