www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Hus and the Catholic Church

Dear Friends,

As I've been invited to leave the forum, permanently this time, due to my trouble-making ways, and as I've no wish to be an object of derision of certain individuals, I will.

But I just wanted to clear up the misinformation concerning John Hus.

The Pope himself has stated his sorrow about the burning of John Hus and a new Vatican committee has been established to investigate his case with the view to clearing his name.

Those who are quick to condemn Hus should remember that St Joan of Arc herself died by being burned as a heretic - and was later rehabilitated.

The same is true of Jerome Savonarola. Other great saints of the Catholic Church, including the great Thomas Aquinas himself, were, at one point or another, either condemned for heresy or else under suspicion of heresy.

But the reaction against Hus is understandable, insofar as it is largely due to ignorance of both history and current approaches to Hus in the Catholic Church today. The RC Archbishop of Prague participates in public cermonies in honour of the national hero, Jan Hus and this the Pope has acknowledged publicly - and without doing any "heretic" hysteria whatsoever.

In addition, there are many out there, including Roman Catholics, who do venerate Hus, Savonarola and others. There are Orthodox Christians who regard St Francis of Assisi as a madman as well. Drawing the lines can be difficult, but we do our best.

I also want to go publicly that while I have been guilty of impropriety in the past, more specifically, before Christmas, I feel that there is a decided unbalance here in the way some moderators treat outright offences given to posters.

Hurtfulness can be quite objectively evident in words that do not contain obscenities, as was demonstrated above.

And public offence should be atoned with public apology. That offence is informed by misinformation or willfuly ignorance is no excuse.

If that is not part of the ground rules here, it should be.

And it most certainly is in the secular world that does not hold to a particular religious confession of any kind, or aspire to proclaim itself to be following the charity of Christ.

Alex

What did Alex do to get ousted from the Forum? He only complained about being treated rudely. I don't blame him! I'd be upset too if someone said my brains had blown away in the wind!

You notice he did not complain about Arturo's objections to his akathist. That is because Arturo was not insulting about it.

And Daniel's final response was NOT an apology - it was another joke!

If I get ousted for defending Alex on this, so be it. It's no fun around here without him, anyway.

Tammy

Was Alex really asked to leave?

Keep in mind that Joan of Arc did not start a whole heretical movement--she was tried illegally by political enemies. Savonarola also did a lot of things that were way out of line. The comparison is not fair.

Dear LT,

Whether or not Alex's akathist was appropriate was not the issue. The issue was that Alex was insulted and an apology was not given.

As far as the appropriateness of the akathist, I submit that since the akathist was written for and at the request of a Lutheran, it was not improper. If I were asked to make an Anglican rosary, I would - even though Anglicans are protestant. I would not give that Anglican rosary to a Catholic, nor would I use it. If I normally had my rosaries blessed before shipping them to the buyer (which I don't), I would not have that one blessed. Alex did the same thing, but with words. A Lutheran friend asked him to write an Akathist to Jan Hus, and he did. He did not take it to his parish and request they use it. His post was just excitement that this little thing he wrote had made such rounds, and had converted people along the way. He did not deserve to be insulted for it.

Tammy

Alex is a member of the Forum in good standing. He has not been invited to leave.

I am very confused at his statement as neither I nor any of the moderators have invited him �to leave the forum, permanently this time�.

I know Alex is offended by Daniel�s post and has stated that he will not return until Daniel apologizes.

--

I have edited my post since I have confused �daniel n� with Daniel / �Byzantine Ascetic�. Daniel / �Byzantine Ascetic� is the one who has be less than charitable in his posts. I apologize to daniel n for the confusion. I also recommend that he choose a slightly different name. Might I suggest �Daniel in Ohio�?

I apologize for my post. I certainly did not expect Alex to take offense at what was clearly [I thought] a humorous comment; he has always demonstrated a good sense of humor in the past. I had a problem with his akathist for Hus and thought my objection would be better received in a humorous post than in a serious one. I did not at all intend to offend him, let alone stir up all this bruhaha.
Seriously, though, I am among those who revere Savanorola. And St Joan of Arc. Hus was treated treacherously and apparently was a man of good character. However, while Savonorola and Joan were orthodox in their beliefs the same cannot be said of Jan Hus. That is my objection.
Again, Alex, sorry, but I thought of all people you would recognize an affectionate jest when you saw one; after all that is your specialty!

Dear Tammy,

Thank you for representing my side in a way that I could not for my current state of upset.

I have also written an akathist to an Anglican saint.

I have written akathists on Roman Catholic themes that I have been personally told by Eastern Catholics in private are totally inappropriate for the Eastern Church.

I have had several of these "Catholic" akathists first placed on an Orthodox site and then these were unceremoniously removed when their "Catholic" character was discovered - Dave Brown knows all the details of this and he can attest to them, although I don't wish to get him involved.

And the fact is that Hus is on the way to being rehabilitated by Rome. He is personally venerated by Protestant converts to both the Catholic AND Orthodox Churches.

They have a right to venerate him. The fact that heretic movements were named after Saints - that happened several times in history.

But Hus' Calixtine movement, rather than the Protestant Utraquist group, eventually reconciled with the Catholic Church.

One Englishman, John Payne by name, was a Hussite and went to Constantinople where he became an Orthodox bishop and died in Prague serving the numerous Hussites that had become Orthodox - as is also happening today in the Czech Orthodox Church, as I have it on good authority.

I say this only to make a case for Hus - who was maligned and concerning whose violent death the current Pope has apologised and has directed that a commission open his case.

His formal condemnation as a heretic by Rome can be dropped.

Meister Eckart's condemnation as a heretic has been dropped and, in Savonarola's case, it was discovered that Alexander VI withdrew his excommunication of him just before his death.

Thomas Aquinas' condemnation as a heretic was also dropped, I believe . . .

I think Catholics today would have more problems with St Photios.

Did not members here say they have icons of St Alexis Toth the Orthodox Confessor?

Has anyone ever read his diaries where he calls Eastern Catholic missionaries "jerks?"

Let us judge with right judgement always.

And after some unhappy correspondence with the administrator and the moderator here, I do feel that it has been suggested to me that it would better for me to leave this forum.

I may miss the mark on many things, if you will, but I always did well in basic reading.

Alex

Alex,

since you feel the need to reference in public our private correspondence, I will respond in kind.

As I read your response to Daniel's first comment on the now closed topic, you made reference to the counsel of your Spiritual Father regarding your activity on this forum. That reference has since been deleted from your post. I merely suggested that you follow his counsel. As the Administrator has stated you are a member in good standing and your privileges have not been revoked by anyone here. Anyone is certainly free to follow or disregard the spiritual counsel of their staretz .

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear all,
I am in great dismay over this whole topic, but I cannot help but keep firm in my objection. It may very well be that Jan Hus might be rehabilitated by Church authorities, but this does not make him a saint, or someone we should imitate. The fact is, he was stubborn in the face of the legitimate authority of the Church over doctrinal matters, and that is what got him burned at the stake. He refused to submit. This is a sign of pride. Where he ended up, only God knows, and I will not speculate.

Alex, I recall you being very harsh in your words once about Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He too was excommunicated, but as a schismatic and not as a heretic, and not by a church council or the Pope, but by a mechanism of Canon Law (excommunication ipso facto for the consecration of a bishop without permission of the Holy See). What would be the difference in me posting an akathist that I wrote to this "schismatic" archbishop, and your akathist? (I did not write one, but let's just say I did). You might be a bit flabbergasted, since Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by a "nice Pope" and Hus by a "mean" Pope. And since it is in vogue in the Vatican to praise the sometime "heretics" of the past (did not JPII call Luther "a profoundly spiritual man"?), what makes it unlikely that they will not rehabilitate the schismatics of the present? Where do we draw the line? Have we been so open minded that anyone who anyone else venerates is a saint, regardless of the firm decisions of the past, just because it is the style of the moment? Or are the only one's who are excluded are the enemies of ecclesiological ambiguity (no freedom for the enemies of freedom)?

The fact is, this open ecclesiology makes me profoundly uncomfortable. I have come a long way since I was a Latin integrist, and I have now seen the sanctity of the Orthodox Church with my own eyes. I am now convinced that the Holy Spirit dwells in Her as well, and the schism between East and West is a product of sinfulness on both sides. But I am equally convinced that schism and heresy do exist, and are alive and well. It is a hard tight rope to walk, between Christian tolerance and charity, and Christian firmness and zeal for the truth. But it must be walked, and distinctions cannot be abolished. I can only suggest that you exercise your literary skills on writing services to less controversial and dubious persons, or at least not present them to an audience that would be less than receptive to them.
If this post has offended you in any way, please forgive me in advance. Thank you.

Arturo

Eternal Glory !

I don't know where he (Hus) ended up (heaven, hell, other....). I do however wonder were those 'dogmaticaly correct Christians' ended up who had him BURNED AT THE STAKE for not "submitting" to church doctrine due to "pride issues" ?

The Catholic church had Galileo Galileo tortured until he recanted his theories about the Universe. Several scholars have indicated that if he had not been of nobility he would have been burned at the stake immediately. The church's scholars knew he was correct, but feared a loss of credibility in regards to the congruency between the old testament and modern science. Galileo eventually recanted because he feared death more than 'pride' in his scientific work.

After several hundred years the Church has now rehabilitated Galileo (years after modern satellites have travelled to outside solar systems)perhaps because they were left with little choice.

I know probably 1% of what you know about Hus. But you should realize that the church has been wrong before, and re-evaluating a historical person's life should not be filled with such fear.

Yes, St. Joan of Arc did not start a movement. One of the things she was condemned was she refused to wear woman's clothes. (Its in the book of Numbers in the OT). Now today we even tolerate nuns wearing pants.

Savarnolga didn't attach doctrines of the Church. His cause has now been introduced.

But John Hus attacked basic doctrines of the Church. (He denied the doctrine of the priesthood.)

Galileo probably was condemned because he was as layman and living in Italy. Corpericus had the same idea but live in Poland.

Galileo was condemned because he quoted the O.T. "From the rising of the sun to its setting your are great, Oh Lord among the nations.", and the battle of Jerico where the sun stopped. He said we had to change the Bible to conform to his ideas. There were a group of people in Northern Europe who were saying the same thing. They were called Protestants. Now we realize that its not the Bible we have to change but our interpretation of it. We have groups of Protestant Evangelicals today who are are called "Fundametalists" who believe in a literal translation of the Bible and try to reconcile it with science. But they are taken seriously. (Books saying that the Grand Canyon is only 4,000 years old according to the Bible are being sold at the Federal Park Service Book Store at the Grand Canyon.) But people still condemn the Catholic Church for its condemnation of Galileo for his audacity.

Galileo was a bit of a hot dog, who managed to loose a lot of friends who otherwise might have helped him. He had an acrimonious fight with the Vatican astronomers about the nature of comets (both sides were wrong), and put the argument of a former friend and patron in the mouth of Simplicio in his dialogues. This friend did not help Galileo during his second trial; as he had become Pope he might have made a difference.

Copernicus was more circumspect about drawing conclusions, both about the nature of the universe, and usurping the role role of the Magisterium. Copernicus' measurements were not so good, and his model (circular orbits) not quite right. The refined Ptolemaic system still gave better predictions of celestial phenomena than the moel of Copernicus.

The work of Brahe and Kepler was needed to get to hit the nail on the head. Interstingly, while the German-speaking regions were being partitioned into Catholic and Protestant areas, Kepler's work was considered so importnat by the Vatican that, although he was Lutheran, he was given special permission to stay in Graz.

Ironically, Galileo was still adhering to the Copernican model, rather than recognizing the beakthrough of Kepler. Informed scientists of the day knew that he was incorrect .

At a classical level, there isn't any fundamental significance as to what point is taken as the origin of a fixed coordinate reference frame for expressing the equations of motion. They are merely considerably simpler when the frame is centered in the sun.

THe idea of the Catholic Church being anti-science is just propaganda. The stimulus for advancing astromical observations to get improved observations and theory was the Vatican, whose goal was to to make an accurate calendar. Copernicus, Kepler, etc. were supported by Catholic institutions. The birth of modern science, for better or worse, was driven by the Catholic Church.

Dear djs and Arturo,

The birth of modern science is most definitely a product of the Catholic church as djs pointed out. This can be said for astronomy (better church calendars) and biology (originally to prevent reoccurance of great plagues). Also, as Arturo pointed out, unlike some of the Protestant sects, the Catholic church is not anti-science.

BUT......

The Catholic church is by it's very nature universal and must interpret the bible for ALL of it's members. Historically this has been difficult to do because people have different levels of education. This problem is compounded by the fact that science is evolving (excuse the pun) at an ever increasing speed. It is further complicated by the fact that we have people within our church with no education, and some with post-doc PhDs.

Within my lifetime my grandparents (grade 3 education) were revolted by the very thought of human evolution. Their whole generation spent enormous amounts of time fighting this theory. Evolutionists in their minds were anti-Christian. I'm not sure at what point the Vatican understood that evolution was probable, however, it was not eager to publicly accept it for fear of loosing members who could not understand that the two could in fact be very compatible.

We couldn't even discuss the issue my grandparents even though our Catholic high school taught us (1970's) both evolution and creation side by side. We didn't think they were incongruent, but 'oij Bozhe' if you were to mention it to 'baba' or 'dido'. Don't get me wrong. My grandmother was the nicest person I ever knew.

My father (with some high school education) still frowns when we discusses evolution but feels he has to accept it because the church does.

With the advent of the Human Genome Project (completion of the analysis of human DNA) we will be faced with having to re-interpret the Bible again. Some sinful behaviour as interpreted by our forefathers will be found to have a genetic basis. We will have to deal with those bridges in an intelligent and holy manner when we come to them (they are very close). We will seem like heretics to our ancestors (and probably a lot of people around us) but I'm sure in the end with guiding from the holy spirit we will be able to re-interpret the bible again.

This of course was my point with Galileo. The Roman Catholic scholars at the time also believed that the Earth was not the 'physical center' of the universe but that this did not mean that it was not the foccal point of God's kingdom. The hierarch also understood that the average member of the church (with probably 'no' education) was not ready to accept this. To the less educated person, 'physical' and 'spiritual' centers were the same. So the Catholic hierarchy repressed the truth by forcing Galileo to recant until it could be accepted by all members several hundred years later.

Dear Mike C.

Just one more point on Hus - he NEVER attacked the priesthood.

He attacked the immorality of the priests of his day in his writings such as "Dzerka" (The Daughter) and others.

He promoted the language of the people in the liturgy and the Bible, he promoted a married priesthood, and Communion in both Kinds and just a few other things.

He was accused of teaching "four persons" in the Trinity and other things that later Catholic scholars refuted.

But he was so offended by all these false accusations that he refused even to answer them, since he knew it would be not much use as the council had already decided to make an example of him.

He was also caught in the middle between the Germans and the Czechs in their political struggles too.

As the New Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Hus died forgiving his enemies, reciting the Creed and invoking the Name of Jesus Christ.

Alex

Dear Hritzko,

It was the problem of dealing with the emerging facts in an intelligent and holy manner that really got Galileo into trouble, coupled with theparticularly bad timing of assuming authority to interpret scripture in the midst of the counter-reformation (and his ego).

From the human genome project, I don't forsee paradigm shifts in the area of the causes of sinful behavior. The idea that our human inheritance entails a nature inclined to sin is not news. Except, perhaps to those who maintain other, niche perspectives on Original Sin. Behavior is so complex that it is unlikely to be connected to single irresitably causative factor. Nevertheless, there may be a temptation for scientists to leap from their observations to rationalize sinful behavior on genetic grounds. Then we are back to Galileo.

I am curious to hear your thoughts on what might emerge.