Correcting Misconceptions About The Inquisitions

[jmdrake]

You're not getting my point. Many times the church restrained the secular authorities, and capital punishment was the penalty for traitors.
Hus was not just a heretic. He was a revolutionary and had multiple opportunities with leniency that he refused. You can read about it.
The Hussite Wars also killed and displaced many Catholics. Remember, this was not merely about a theological difference. It was about
kingdoms and empires, and to overthrow the Church meant to become the new owners of that bounty.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars

LOL So you complained about someone using Wikipedia and then you source to a Catholic propaganda site and Wikipedia.

Edit : And even your own source proves I'm right! Hus was condemned by the Counsel Of Constance which was an ECUMENICAL COUNSEL! Part of its mission was THE REPRESSION OF HERESY! Hus was burned at the stake for his beliefs. I think that's evil. You're okay with it. We just disagree.

 

[Snowball]

LOL So you complained about someone using Wikipedia and then you source to a Catholic propaganda site and Wikipedia.

Edit : And even your own source proves I'm right! Hus was condemned by the Counsel Of Constance which was an ECUMENICAL COUNSEL! Part of its mission was THE REPRESSION OF HERESY! Hus was burned at the stake for his beliefs. I think that's evil. You're okay with it. We just disagree.

No, we don't "just disagree". You haven't read anything I post or link to. I posted to wikipedia for one because you guys use it and it had an outline for the Hussite Wars. You're not addressing any of my points. This makes discussion impossible. To disagree suggests an on-par absorption and appreciation of history, and I'm not getting that here with yourself and Clayton. So, time to move on.

 

[jmdrake]

No, we don't "just disagree". You haven't read anything I post or link to. I posted to wikipedia for one because you guys use it and it had an outline for the Hussite Wars. You're not addressing any of my points. This makes discussion impossible. To disagree suggests an on-par absorption and appreciation of history, and I'm not getting that here with yourself and Clayton. So, time to move on.

I REFERENCED YOUR CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA LINK IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU! It clearly says Huss was condemned by an ecumenical counsel and burned to death for heresy. Maybe YOU haven't read your own links.

 

[ClaytonB]

You're not getting my point. Many times the church restrained the secular authorities, and capital punishment was the penalty for traitors.

OK, let us suppose that the serial killer Dennis Rader "many times" refrained from murdering someone he could have murdered. So what? The litany of the church of Rome's murders is practically endless. The Jesuit cardinal Robert Bellarmine wrote, "Almost an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put to death [by the ancient church]" and this justified (according to him) the ongoing use of violence and murder by the Roman church of his day. You can't have it every which way. When Rome doesn't have political power (as it does not, yet, in America), it's blameless and a hapless abuse-victim of the mean and cruel secular kings who simply refuse to listen to the pleadings for mercy by the church. But when Rome has political power, it transforms into super-Cartman "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH"-mode and anyone who dares to deviate from church dictates by even a millimeter somehow magically turns up burned, quartered or otherwise viciously murdered. Of course, it's the secular State who does the actual wetwork, despite the hand-wringing pleas of the church to "show mercy", and to the heretic to "recant" so the church can "protect" them from the State. The silk-robed murderers in Rome are supremely skilled at the art of appearing blameless of the inevitable end result of their manifold labors, but it's a proven charade -- not once (which would be sufficient to declare the moral bankruptcy of the Roman church), not twice but, as the Jesuit above admitted, an infinite number of times over. The case that the church of Rome (as such!) is a vicious hive of murderers is not a 50/50 referee-call, it's a slam-dunk case.

 

[Treebeard]

Agreed that there is blood to go around on all sides, and that's precisely the problem. All believers in every branch of the church must universally affirm that the use of violence for the advancement of the Gospel on any grounds, whatsoever, is abhorrent, and there has never been a time or place where this has been excusable on any construction. Insomuch as the church of Rome had enormous influence with the European sovereigns, what it ought to have done was set the example of Christian peace, even at the cost of martyrdom, which is the example that Jesus set. Flagellating yourself, and then going into the next room in order to conspire with the secular powers and help them construct some moral justification for why they may commit murder or illegal war is the opposite of crucifying the self. It is self-gratification, wrapped in the camouflage of showy self-abuse. The problem is not merely that such blood-thirsty men have wormed their way into the church. The real problem is that the church of Rome has never, until this day, truly and sincerely renounced all forms of this kind of activity with binding force. Instead, this behavior has been winked at all through the ages, and it is the nature of such things that what is permitted might as well be commanded, since the blood-thirsty have a boundless incentive to obtain what they (falsely) believe is a moral license to commit murder, from the church.

Also, I understand that a lot of the accusations leveled against the church of Rome (and other churches) are false, twisted, exaggerated, etc. But the problem is that even discounting all of that, Rome's hands are still soaked in blood -- especially the blood of believers in Jesus. (And so are many Protestant churches.) What terrible shoes will those be to stand in on Judgment Day, the shoes of the bishops who authorized the murder of sheep of Jesus's own flock on the outrageous and obviously false construction that those sheep were "of the wrong church". In other words, they had the wrong paperwork. The churchmen throughout the Ages (and I admit, they are a minority, not the majority) who have authorized this kind of murder of believers in Jesus are rank idolators and secret pagans. They believe in a "god" made in their own image -- a petty, vindictive bureaucrat slavering for some excuse, however minor, to execute the innocent. But, then, this should be very easy for the modern church to denounce and vehemently censure, with the light of so much hindsight. Churchmen who give their blessing to men with blood on their hands should be given the same treatment as would be given to clerics who protect sex-rings. But that's exactly the problem: the church of Rome really has bloodlust and uses its immense moral revulsion at sexual sins as cover for its bloodlust. This is utterly transparent guilt-transferrence, such as when a toddler wants to bring attention to the fact they wee-wee'd on the floor to take attention away from the fact that they were caught with their hand in the cookie-jar. It doesn't matter to God at all how seriously you take sexual purity if you're engaging in murder, especially murder of God's own sheep!!

I don't disagree with your general stance; I am just saying that the Church of Rome and its leaders were far more the loving maryter than you think and less the bloodthirsty conquerors. For example, it was against canon law to convert by force and was condemned time again by popes, bishops etc


And there is not a Catholic alive (including Medieval saints) that would claim to be perfect or that no leader of the Church was. They view the Church as the OT Isreal. God's chosen but fallible.

 

[Snowball]

I REFERENCED YOUR CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA LINK IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU! It clearly says Huss was condemned by an ecumenical counsel and burned to death for heresy. Maybe YOU haven't read your own links.

That's merely an encyclopaedia. Basic. But if you read it carefully you would see mentions of the various times Hus would not stop using Catholic churches and seminaries to preach his heresy, and even foment uprisings. The Hussite Wars followed. I'm only trying to tell you there's more to it than mental indignation. The Protestant revolts changed governments. When governments change, there are winners and losers.

Hus didn't have to die. He chose to die, even at the end.

"Ulrich said to Hus : ' Dear Master, if you will repent of the heresy for which you are to suffer, then will I willingly shrive you ; but you, being a priest, know that one cannot shrive nor grant absolution to a heretic' Hus had already confessed that morning before leaving his prison ; he now answered, ' It matters not, I am not in mortal sin.' He assured the bystanders that he was innocent of the sins laid to his charge, and tried to preach to them, but this Count Louis would not permit.^

...The executioner then led Hus to the stake. Two ******(word defaulted as profane by forum bot, even though it is not) s of wood were placed beneath his feet. He was standing facing east, and some of the spectators objected that a heretic should not face the rising sun ; so he was made to stand facing west. A chain was placed round his neck, and he was bound to the stake ; wood and straw were then piled round him until they reached his chin. Count Louis and Marshal Pappenheim then advanced and asked him if he would recant and save his life. Hus lifted his eyes to heaven and said..."

https://archive.org/details/popejohntwentyth00kitt/page/400/mode/2up?q=stake&view=theater

 

[ClaytonB]

I don't disagree with your general stance; I am just saying that the Church of Rome and its leaders were far more the loving maryter than you think and less the bloodthirsty conquerors. For example, it was against canon law to convert by force and was condemned time again by popes, bishops etc

And there is not a Catholic alive (including Medieval saints) that would claim to be perfect or that no leader of the Church was. They view the Church as the OT Isreal. God's chosen but fallible.

Are the critiques of the church of Rome by the secularists accurate? Sometimes, but not often. They look at history through a pure "guilt-by-association" lens. The atrocities of any king or lord who claimed to be Christian, however heathen they may have been in reality, are treated as though the Pope was personally out on the battlefield, slitting throats. Clearly, this is erroneous. So we agree on that. My critique is more to the heart of the church of Rome -- she has long tolerated and even encouraged the vicious violence of the kings she was supposed to be fearlessly preaching the Gospel to. In other words, the clergy of Rome have, for many centuries, taken the path of Ahab's prophets, telling him what he wants to hear, rather than the path of John the Baptist decrying Herod's incestuous marriage, at the hazard of his head, or Jesus denouncing the entire religious and political Establishment at the hazard of his life. All the examples of how God's people are to relate to the carnal powers are dangerous, but the clergy of Rome has consistently chosen the cowardly path of ingratiating themselves to the carnal powers. That many of the Reformers would later fall prey to the same temptation does not excuse the church of Rome, either. It's just more evidence in the heap of evidence against the hypocrites in the church.

I see the church of Rome as a duality. There is no doubt that she has within her the Gospel -- Martin Luther and the Reformers were Catholics! Clearly, there are believers and followers of Jesus in the church of Rome. The problem is the pride of the church of Rome, particularly the pride of its clergy. The Roman apologist will be quick to retort, "But aren't you equally proud by setting yourself up as your own mini-pope? Why should anybody listen to random-Internet-protestant?" And that's a great question, but it sidesteps the real issue -- the real issue is that God has manifestly applied the rod of correction to the church of Rome, not just once, but many times, and she has not yielded a single inch to his divine correction. Read the first 3 chapters of Revelation, nobody on Earth is exempt from the Lord's rod, no matter how fancy their robes and hats. So, even if I were to convert from Protestant to Catholic, the question facing me would still be the same: Why isn't this church repenting of its sins, even in the face of blatantly obvious divine rebuke that anybody with two eyes can see, whether "Pope" or pauper?!

The problem with claiming to be the head of the worldwide church is that it proves too much. If Rome is the head of the worldwide church, it is obviously incompetent and should recuse itself from that position to someone else wise and competent unto it. Instead, Rome just doubles down in its pride and blames everyone else in the world for its own failures, adding carnality to pride. Recanting the false claim to be the head of the church on earth (which only Jesus is, obviously), and repenting of the flagrant idolatry and blasphemy of the papacy is the very first step that the church of Rome would have to take in order to address its manifest sins for which the Lord has beaten them severely with his shepherd's rod for centuries, without even the first hint of repentance from them. What is the likelihood of that happening? To all human appearances, zero. This was the main critique of the Reformers (among many other similarly weighty issues) and it remains the main problem with the church of Rome 500+ years later. Stubbornness in service to God is a blessed virtue, but stubbornness, like fire, is very dangerous. When it turns against its proper use, it becomes not a blessed virtue, but the most cursed vice.

As you yourself said, the church is the Israel of the New Testament. But see the original pattern in the Old Testament. Stubbornness. Idolatry. Complete blindness and insensibility to God's obvious rebuke. This is spoken in humility not in judgment, as I am a sinner. Nevertheless, reality is reality, and if I can see it, so can anybody else who actually looks at the facts-in-themselves, without partisanship.

 

[jmdrake]

That's merely an encyclopaedia. Basic. But if you read it carefully you would see mentions of the various times Hus would not stop using Catholic churches and seminaries to preach his heresy, and even foment uprisings. The Hussite Wars followed. I'm only trying to tell you there's more to it than mental indignation. The Protestant revolts changed governments. When governments change, there are winners and losers.

Hus didn't have to die. He chose to die, even at the end.

"Ulrich said to Hus : ' Dear Master, if you will repent of the heresy for which you are to suffer, then will I willingly shrive you ; but you, being a priest, know that one cannot shrive nor grant absolution to a heretic' Hus had already confessed that morning before leaving his prison ; he now answered, ' It matters not, I am not in mortal sin.' He assured the bystanders that he was innocent of the sins laid to his charge, and tried to preach to them, but this Count Louis would not permit.^

...The executioner then led Hus to the stake. Two ******(word defaulted as profane by forum bot, even though it is not) s of wood were placed beneath his feet. He was standing facing east, and some of the spectators objected that a heretic should not face the rising sun ; so he was made to stand facing west. A chain was placed round his neck, and he was bound to the stake ; wood and straw were then piled round him until they reached his chin. Count Louis and Marshal Pappenheim then advanced and asked him if he would recant and save his life. Hus lifted his eyes to heaven and said..."

https://archive.org/details/popejohntwentyth00kitt/page/400/mode/2up?q=stake&view=theater

Nothing you have said is at all true based on your own source! There is NO mention of Huss supporting "uprisings" in your own source! There is mention of Hus supporting the "heresy of Wycliff" and being against Papal bulls for the selling of indulgences (license to sin) to support the Crusades in your own source. I'm going to copy and paste your own source here. If you can find where the world "uprisings" is used or even anything that implies "uprising" please quote directly as opposed to just making stuff up.

At an early age he went to Prague where he supported himself by singing and serving in the churches. His conduct was exemplary and his devotion to study remarkable. In 1393 he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts from the University of Prague and in 1396 the master's degree. He was ordained a priest in 1400 and became rector of the university 1402-03. About the same time he was appointed preacher in the newly erected Bethlehem chapel. Hus was a strong partisan on the side of the Czechs, and hence of the Realists, and he was greatly influenced by the writings of Wyclif. Though forty five propositions of the latter were proscribed in 1403 by ecclesiastical authority, Hus translated Wyclif's "Trialogus" into Czech and helped to circulate it. From the pulpit he inveighed against the morals of clergy, episcopate, and papacy, thus taking an active part in the movement for reform. Archbishop Zbynek (Sbinco), however was not only lenient with Hus, but favoured him with an appointment as preacher to the biennial synod. On the other hand Innocent VII directed the archbishop (24 June, 1405) to take measures against the heretical teachings of Wyclif, especially the doctrine of impanation in the Eucharist. The archbishop complied by issuing a synodal decree against these errors — at the same time he forbade any further attacks on the clergy. In the following year (1406) a document bearing the seal of the University of Oxford and eulogizing Wyclif was brought by two Bohemian students to Prague; Hus read it in triumph from the pulpit. In 1408 Sbinco received a letter from Gregory XII stating that the Holy See had been informed of the spread of the Wycliffite heresy and especially of King Wenceslaus's sympathy with the sectaries. This stirred up the king to measures of prosecution and aroused the university to clear itself of the suspicion of heresy. At the June synod it was ordered that all writings of Wyclif should be handed over to the archdiocesan chancery for correction. Hus obeyed the order, declaring that he condemned whatever errors these writings contained.

About the same time a new conflict broke out on national lines. The king agreed to the "neutrality" plan proposed by the secessionist cardinals at the Council of Pisa and endeavoured to have it recognized by the university. The Czechs fell in with his wishes but the three other "nations" refused. The king then decreed (18 January, 1409) that in the university congregations the Czechs should have three votes, and the other "nations" should have only one vote between them. In consequence the German masters and students in great numbers (5,000 to 20,000) left Prague and went to Leipzig, Erfurt, and other universities in the North. The king now forbade communication with Gregory XII and proceeded against those of the clergy who disregarded his prohibition. In consequence the archbishop placed Prague and the vicinity under interdict, a measure which cost many of the loyal clergy their position and property. Hus, who had become once more rector of the university, was called to account by the archbishop for his Wycliffite tendencies and was reported to Rome with the result that Alexander V, in a Bull of 20 December 1409, directed the archbishop to forbid any preaching except in cathedral, collegiate, parish, and cloister churches, and to see that Wyclif's writings were withdrawn from circulation. In accordance with the Bull the archbishop at the June synod of 1410, ordered Wyclif's writings to be burned and restricted preaching to the churches named above. Against these measures Hus declaimed from the pulpit and, with his sympathizers in the university, sent a protest to John XXIII. The archbishop, 16 July, 1410, excommunicated Hus and his adherents. Secure of the royal protection, Hus continued the agitation in favour of Wyclif, but at the end of August he was summoned to appear in person before the pope. He begged the pope to dispense with the personal visit and sent in his stead representatives to plead his case. In February 1411, sentence of excommunication was pronounced against him and published on 15 March in all the churches of Prague. This led to further difficulties between the king and the archbishop, in consequence of which the latter left Prague to take refuge with the Hungarian King Sigismund. But he died on the journey, 23 September.

Hus meanwhile openly defended Wyclif, and this position he maintained especially against John Stokes, a licentiate of Cambridge, who had come to Prague and declared that in England Wyclif was regarded as a heretic. With no less vehemence Hus attacked the Bulls (9 September and 2 December 1411) in which John XXIII proclaimed indulgences to all who would supply funds for the crusade against Ladislaus of Naples. Both Hus and Jerome of Prague aroused the university and the populace against the papal commission which had been sent to announce the indulgences, and its members in consequence were treated with every sort of indignity. The report of these doings led the Roman authorities to take more vigorous action. Not only was the former excommunication against Hus reiterated, but his residence was placed under interdict. Finally the pope ordered Hus to be imprisoned and the Bethlehem chapel destroyed. The order was not obeyed, but Hus towards the end of 1412 left Prague and took refuge at Austi in the south. Here he wrote his principal work, "De ecclesiâ". As the king took no steps to carry out the papal edict, Hus was back again at Prague by the end of April, 1414, and posted on the walls of the Bethlehem Chapel his treatise "De sex erroribus". Out of this and the "De ecclesiâ" Gerson extracted a number of propositions which he submitted to Archbishop Konrad von Vechta (formerly Bishop of Olmütz) with a warning against their heretical character. In November following the Council of Constance assembled, and Hus, urged by King Sigismund, decided to appear before that body and give an account of his doctrine. At Constance he was tried, condemned, and burnt at the stake, 6 July, 1415. The same fate befell Jerome of Prague 30 May, 1416. (For details see COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE.)​

 

[Snowball]

Nothing you have said is at all true based on your own source! There is NO mention of Huss supporting "uprisings" in your own source! There is mention of Hus supporting the "heresy of Wycliff" and being against Papal bulls for the selling of indulgences (license to sin) to support the Crusades in your own source. I'm going to copy and paste your own source here. If you can find where the world "uprisings" is used or even anything that implies "uprising" please quote directly as opposed to just making stuff up.

You actually ignored the book I posted there. Anyway, I am going to post this and leave the thread. I've said enough. It is not incumbent on me to substantiate every comment I make. History was my major. I'm very well-read. I understand history; I don't just "make stuff up".

I believe this should be enough. Here are thousands of results for "Jan Hus" and "uprisings" and "uprising" form history books in Google's scanned database:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="Jan+Hus"+++"uprisings"

https://www.google.com/search?q="Ja...gCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB9kB&sclient=gws-wiz-books

 

[Treebeard]

@ClaytonB, I don't have any problem with the Crusades, and for someone with Islam issues, I don't know why you would, other than you see everything through an anti-Catholic lens. I regard the Kingdom of Jerusalem to be one of the best of all governments in the Holy Land, historically. It recapured the Holy Land which Christians held for centuries before the Mohammedans and Jews took that place over by bloodshed. (See Mamilla Pool massacre link here).
I'm glad the Church went back there and took it back. I wish we never lost it.

I also LOVE the Kingdom of Jerusalem as well. It was one of my favorite kingdoms ever! Very libertarian!

 

[Treebeard]

The death penalty in a religious context post the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ is indeed evil.

In Revelation the harlot (the church of the antichrist) is identified in part because of religious persecution.

Revelation 17:6
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Revelation 13:15
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

The remnant of God are identified as those being persecuted.

Revelation 12:11
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Revelation 6:12
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Jesus told his followers that they would be persecuted. He never said they would persecute others.

John 16:12
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Notice how Jesus predicts this "We're killing heretics to help God out" mentality. God doesn't need your help or the Catholic church's help exacting judgment. Jesus specifically said "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world the would my servant's fight to prevent my capture." John 18:36.

What did Jesus say to do about those who did not accept the gospel?

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Matthew 18:10

And what to do about someone in the church that does not comply with church discipline?

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Matthew 18:17.

In Matthew 18:10 Christians were already instructed to "wipe the dust of your feet" and move on from those who never accepted the gospel and in Matthew 18:17 the same is applied to those who were once in fellowship but, for whatever reason, no longer were.

There is not a single example of New Testament Christians putting anybody to death or beating or stoning anyone. Annanias and Sapphira was slain by the Holy Spirit.



The whole point of the American experiment, more than for any other reason, is to have a land where people were free to worship God as they pleased without the threat of religious persecution. "Secular education" has nothing to do with this. Americans understood that religious persecution was wrong back when there was still prayer in public schools. Yes there were the Salem witchcraft trials but that was nearly a century before the United States was formed and almost universally seen, even back in the 18th century, as a travesty and dark chapter on U.S. history.

Thank you for your perspective my brother in Christ! As I said before, due to time I need to limit what I engage in, just know that entire books have been written that would disagree with you as would the majority of protestant through history! But I think you carry Misconceptions of the historical nature as well and my next article will address those. And no, no one has said a Christian should kill someone, but the governance does have the ability to render Biblical justice.

Not everything American is automatically good, just see where we are today! America was flawed from its origins that inevitably led to where we are today.

 

[Treebeard]

Please re-read what I wrote.

The death penalty in a religious context....is indeed evil.​

If you kill someone in self defense or in defense of your wife and child then 1) that's not a "death penalty", it's self defense and 2) it's not in a "religious context.'

For something to be a "penalty" it is applicable even if the threat is no longer there. Someone who is secure in prison for life is no more a threat to your wife and kids than someone on death row. Killing them is a penalty. But even then, that person isn't being killed in a "religious context." They aren't being killed because the "sinned." They are being killed because they broke a secular law. An atheist country can have a law against murder, and in fact they all do. An atheist country isn't going to have a law against blasphemy.

And again, this is in the New Testament and beyond. In the OT Yahweh did indeed institute the death penalty for all sorts of things, many being a "religious context."

Then I think your posts stems from a misunderstanding of the Inquisitions, they never killed anyone for merely holding the wrong religious views!

 

[Treebeard]

No, the point is that people who know next-to-nothing about history shoudn't attempt to form opinions on it, especially in important matters, and those who need to quickly pull up "muh wikipedia" in order to find a hot line that supports their bias should perhaps not be making wide historical judgements.

There not even a "Fourth Crusade" anyway. The armies sacked Constantinople against papal orders. It's an example of the beginning decline in Catholic power in European kingdoms and the East/West schism. If they did what Innocent III wanted, (the Pope is supposed to call and direct the nature of a Crusade), then there wouldn't have been a grimy Sack of Constantinople, that happened because secularist politics and Venetian powers interfered, like ClaytonB's precious Republics of which Venice was one.

Clayton should direct his ire against those who disobeyed Innocent III and followed Republicans.

Agreed.

 

[jmdrake]

Then I think your posts stems from a misunderstanding of the Inquisitions, they never killed anyone for merely holding the wrong religious views!

That's simply not true. And my view of the facts are not based on any "misunderstanding." I'm going right from a Catholic source. Hus was burned at the state for holding the wrong religious views.

 

[jmdrake]

You actually ignored the book I posted there. Anyway, I am going to post this and leave the thread. I've said enough. It is not incumbent on me to substantiate every comment I make. History was my major. I'm very well-read. I understand history; I don't just "make stuff up".

I believe this should be enough. Here are thousands of results for "Jan Hus" and "uprisings" and "uprising" form history books in Google's scanned database:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="Jan+Hus"+++"uprisings"

https://www.google.com/search?q="Ja...gCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB9kB&sclient=gws-wiz-books

I went from the link that you posted! And no I'm not going to go on a fishing expedition to look through all possible source to see who else, beside you, is out to spread misinformation on this subject. You posted a link. It clearly said Hus was burned at the stake for supporting Wyclyff's heresy. The Jewish leaders made up lies about Jesus too.

Edit: One more thing. It's might odd that your source, which is pro Catholic, supports my position. In law when someone states a fact that goes against his own position it's deemed more credible because, after all, who's going to lie against himself? A Catholic source saying Hus was burned at the state for heresy is far more credible than 1,000 Catholic sources that say Hus was executed for fomenting uprisings.

 

[jmdrake]

Are the critiques of the church of Rome by the secularists accurate? Sometimes, but not often. They look at history through a pure "guilt-by-association" lens. The atrocities of any king or lord who claimed to be Christian, however heathen they may have been in reality, are treated as though the Pope was personally out on the battlefield, slitting throats. Clearly, this is erroneous. So we agree on that. My critique is more to the heart of the church of Rome -- she has long tolerated and even encouraged the vicious violence of the kings she was supposed to be fearlessly preaching the Gospel to. In other words, the clergy of Rome have, for many centuries, taken the path of Ahab's prophets, telling him what he wants to hear, rather than the path of John the Baptist decrying Herod's incestuous marriage, at the hazard of his head, or Jesus denouncing the entire religious and political Establishment at the hazard of his life. All the examples of how God's people are to relate to the carnal powers are dangerous, but the clergy of Rome has consistently chosen the cowardly path of ingratiating themselves to the carnal powers. That many of the Reformers would later fall prey to the same temptation does not excuse the church of Rome, either. It's just more evidence in the heap of evidence against the hypocrites in the church.

I see the church of Rome as a duality. There is no doubt that she has within her the Gospel -- Martin Luther and the Reformers were Catholics! Clearly, there are believers and followers of Jesus in the church of Rome. The problem is the pride of the church of Rome, particularly the pride of its clergy. The Roman apologist will be quick to retort, "But aren't you equally proud by setting yourself up as your own mini-pope? Why should anybody listen to random-Internet-protestant?" And that's a great question, but it sidesteps the real issue -- the real issue is that God has manifestly applied the rod of correction to the church of Rome, not just once, but many times, and she has not yielded a single inch to his divine correction. Read the first 3 chapters of Revelation, nobody on Earth is exempt from the Lord's rod, no matter how fancy their robes and hats. So, even if I were to convert from Protestant to Catholic, the question facing me would still be the same: Why isn't this church repenting of its sins, even in the face of blatantly obvious divine rebuke that anybody with two eyes can see, whether "Pope" or pauper?!

The problem with claiming to be the head of the worldwide church is that it proves too much. If Rome is the head of the worldwide church, it is obviously incompetent and should recuse itself from that position to someone else wise and competent unto it. Instead, Rome just doubles down in its pride and blames everyone else in the world for its own failures, adding carnality to pride. Recanting the false claim to be the head of the church on earth (which only Jesus is, obviously), and repenting of the flagrant idolatry and blasphemy of the papacy is the very first step that the church of Rome would have to take in order to address its manifest sins for which the Lord has beaten them severely with his shepherd's rod for centuries, without even the first hint of repentance from them. What is the likelihood of that happening? To all human appearances, zero. This was the main critique of the Reformers (among many other similarly weighty issues) and it remains the main problem with the church of Rome 500+ years later. Stubbornness in service to God is a blessed virtue, but stubbornness, like fire, is very dangerous. When it turns against its proper use, it becomes not a blessed virtue, but the most cursed vice.

As you yourself said, the church is the Israel of the New Testament. But see the original pattern in the Old Testament. Stubbornness. Idolatry. Complete blindness and insensibility to God's obvious rebuke. This is spoken in humility not in judgment, as I am a sinner. Nevertheless, reality is reality, and if I can see it, so can anybody else who actually looks at the facts-in-themselves, without partisanship.

Well said!

 

[jmdrake]

Thank you for your perspective my brother in Christ! As I said before, due to time I need to limit what I engage in, just know that entire books have been written that would disagree with you as would the majority of protestant through history! But I think you carry Misconceptions of the historical nature as well and my next article will address those. And no, no one has said a Christian should kill someone, but the governance does have the ability to render Biblical justice.

Not everything American is automatically good, just see where we are today! America was flawed from its origins that inevitably led to where we are today.

Disagree with me on what? I'm sorry but you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one had you say "The church have never killed anyone based solely on his religious beliefs." Then you come back and say I'm wrong for saying that it's wrong, post the cross, for a follower of God to kill someone based solely on his religious beliefs. I don't care if a lot of Protestants in history "disagree" with my position on that. They were wrong. And YOU should agree with me on that! Oliver Cromwell was in many ways a great leader, but he was wrong to persecute Catholics. And he wasn't simply wrong to persecute Catholics because they are Christians. He was wrong to persecute Catholics because Jesus has no interest in advancing His church or "protecting" His church based on killing people who don't agree or no longer agree with its teachings. If you don't understand that, then I just feel sorry for you.

 

[Treebeard]

That's simply not true. And my view of the facts are not based on any "misunderstanding." I'm going right from a Catholic source. Hus was burned at the state for holding the wrong religious views.

Please bring this up on my next article. I think it will address it and if you disagree, please ignite the circumstance.

My focus on this article is on the Middle Ages, 700-1300 A.D.

 

[Treebeard]

Are the critiques of the church of Rome by the secularists accurate? Sometimes, but not often. They look at history through a pure "guilt-by-association" lens. The atrocities of any king or lord who claimed to be Christian, however heathen they may have been in reality, are treated as though the Pope was personally out on the battlefield, slitting throats. Clearly, this is erroneous. So we agree on that. My critique is more to the heart of the church of Rome -- she has long tolerated and even encouraged the vicious violence of the kings she was supposed to be fearlessly preaching the Gospel to. In other words, the clergy of Rome have, for many centuries, taken the path of Ahab's prophets, telling him what he wants to hear, rather than the path of John the Baptist decrying Herod's incestuous marriage, at the hazard of his head, or Jesus denouncing the entire religious and political Establishment at the hazard of his life. All the examples of how God's people are to relate to the carnal powers are dangerous, but the clergy of Rome has consistently chosen the cowardly path of ingratiating themselves to the carnal powers. That many of the Reformers would later fall prey to the same temptation does not excuse the church of Rome, either. It's just more evidence in the heap of evidence against the hypocrites in the church.

I see the church of Rome as a duality. There is no doubt that she has within her the Gospel -- Martin Luther and the Reformers were Catholics! Clearly, there are believers and followers of Jesus in the church of Rome. The problem is the pride of the church of Rome, particularly the pride of its clergy. The Roman apologist will be quick to retort, "But aren't you equally proud by setting yourself up as your own mini-pope? Why should anybody listen to random-Internet-protestant?" And that's a great question, but it sidesteps the real issue -- the real issue is that God has manifestly applied the rod of correction to the church of Rome, not just once, but many times, and she has not yielded a single inch to his divine correction. Read the first 3 chapters of Revelation, nobody on Earth is exempt from the Lord's rod, no matter how fancy their robes and hats. So, even if I were to convert from Protestant to Catholic, the question facing me would still be the same: Why isn't this church repenting of its sins, even in the face of blatantly obvious divine rebuke that anybody with two eyes can see, whether "Pope" or pauper?!

The problem with claiming to be the head of the worldwide church is that it proves too much. If Rome is the head of the worldwide church, it is obviously incompetent and should recuse itself from that position to someone else wise and competent unto it. Instead, Rome just doubles down in its pride and blames everyone else in the world for its own failures, adding carnality to pride. Recanting the false claim to be the head of the church on earth (which only Jesus is, obviously), and repenting of the flagrant idolatry and blasphemy of the papacy is the very first step that the church of Rome would have to take in order to address its manifest sins for which the Lord has beaten them severely with his shepherd's rod for centuries, without even the first hint of repentance from them. What is the likelihood of that happening? To all human appearances, zero. This was the main critique of the Reformers (among many other similarly weighty issues) and it remains the main problem with the church of Rome 500+ years later. Stubbornness in service to God is a blessed virtue, but stubbornness, like fire, is very dangerous. When it turns against its proper use, it becomes not a blessed virtue, but the most cursed vice.

As you yourself said, the church is the Israel of the New Testament. But see the original pattern in the Old Testament. Stubbornness. Idolatry. Complete blindness and insensibility to God's obvious rebuke. This is spoken in humility not in judgment, as I am a sinner. Nevertheless, reality is reality, and if I can see it, so can anybody else who actually looks at the facts-in-themselves, without partisanship.

Great post.


All I was saying was that I was focusing on history, not the claim that Rome was the head of the Church. I am on your side regarding that issue.


But focusing on history, I would argue (and quote secular historians and give first-hand examples in my book Missing Monarchy) that many Popes and bishops resisted the kings and died for it. Over and again, they told them what they did not want to hear, limiting their power, influence, and ability to become tyrants. The Medieval Catholic Church (I also argue that it was not its modern form, nor was it the one Luther protested against) kept Liberty alive and prevented kings from becoming monarchs. It was only after its influence began to decay during the schism and 14th century that kings became true sovereigns and Monarchs, thus leading to tyranny.

 

[jmdrake]

Please bring this up on my next article. I think it will address it and if you disagree, please ignite the circumstance.

My focus on this article is on the Middle Ages, 700-1300 A.D.

Fair enough.