The purpose of this document is to shed some light on the
Jan Hus, a priest burnt at the stake by the Administration of the Roman
Catholic Church in the year 1415.
In utmost sincerity, we have never heard of Jan Hus until we
the following letter from a member of The M+G+R Foundation Family:
While watching a recent "history lesson" on EWTN, the subject of
the early Reformer Jan Hus came up. The Roman Church had always taught
me that Hus was "bad" and thus his burning
at the stake was to be considered justified. But I
also recall a Bohemian family members telling me the opposite when I
child, and roundly criticizing the clergy for its sins.
So, I looked up Hus in the Wikipedia (1). Below are some key
A critical passage: "....Hus (1369-1415)...... was a Czech
religious thinker, philosopher, reformer, and master at Charles
University in Prague. His followers became known as Hussites. The Roman
Catholic Church considered his teachings heretical, and Hus was
excommunicated in 1411, condemned by the Council of Constance, and
burned at the stake in 1415. Nearly six centuries later in 1999, Pope
John Paul II expressed 'deep regret for the cruel death inflicted' on
Hus. The pope then went on to suggest an inquiry as to whether Hus
might be cleared of heresy."
What was exactly was his "grave heresy" which
burning at the stake?
Answer: "Hus spoke out
against indulgences... stated that no pope or bishop had the right to
take up the sword in the name of the Church; he should pray for his
enemies and bless those that curse him; man obtains forgiveness of
sins by real repentance, not through money."
Also Hus condemned the then common definition of "the Church" as
pertaining solely to the clergy/hierarchy/Vatican/pope, and
".......considered (them) a
fraudulent mob of adulterers and Simonists
." At his trial -
after arrest and being cast into the dungeons of Dominican and
Franciscan monasteries - "The
doctors of the university required from Hus and his adherents an
approval of their conception of the Church, according to which the Pope
is the head, the Cardinals
are the body of the Church, and that all regulations of this Church
must be obeyed."
I do not support any of the Protestant reformers who may go
to the core, genuine truths, of the Faith. But on examination the
presented evidence, it does
not seem that Hus was guilty of that. Rather, he sought genuine reform
of ethics, morals, and governance in line with the true faith in Christ
and what He taught.
What did Hus contend in his writings, speeches,
and at his unjust trial?
"The book on the Church and on the power of the pope contains
the essence of the doctrine of Hus. According to it, the Church is not
that hierarchy which is generally designated as Church; the Church is
the entire body of those who from eternity have been predestined for
salvation. Christ, not the pope, is its head. It is no article of faith
that one must obey the pope to be saved. Neither external membership in
the Church nor churchly offices and dignities are a surety that the
persons in question are members of the true Church."
But it seems clear that Hus' efforts were predominantly
designed to rid the Church of its ethical abuses, rather than a
campaign of sweeping theological change. In explaining the plight of
the average Christian in Bohemia, Hus wrote, 'One pays for confession,
for mass, for the sacrament, for indulgences, for churching a woman,
for a blessing, for burials, for funeral services and prayers. The very
last penny which an old woman has hidden in her bundle for fear of
thieves or robbery will not be saved. The villainous priest will grab
To speak from solid ground, since we have never heard of Jan
Hus, we confirmed the Wikipedia information with a Roman Catholic
source and a
Protestant source. (2)
Generally speaking, the allegations were the same as Wikipedia reported.
With this information confirmed, we must then ask: Does the list of
complaints against the Roman Catholic Church Administration prepared by
Jan Hus have a familiar ring?
In case it does not, please review our position regarding the Catholic
our position regarding the Roman Church Administration (4)
and the position Jesus
holds regarding the Roman Church Administrators (5)
The correspondent closed his letter with:
would not doubt that if Hus were alive today and speaking out in like
manner against the very similar abuses of today's Vatican apparatus,
henchmen, and OD, he would likely meet the same fate. It would also
seem that what Hus said has coherence with what miguel de Portugal has
We differ with this kind writer on the fact "....that if Hus were alive today and
speaking out in like manner... he would likely meet the same fate.
"Today" they could not burn him at the stake; imagine the public
reaction. The techniques apparently used "today" are untraceable
assassination attempts, as miguel de Portugal has experienced in the
However, if we fast forward to Step No. 10 (6)
, burning at the stake
for heresy would then be
a plausible reality.
Without showing "our hand" we will say this much:
When the very few "of
kind" which will be left over in the world - just enough to
orchestrate the entrance of the False Christ - conduct an almost 600
old rerun, they will fully understand the meaning of:
are ye that weep now: for you shall laugh. [Luke 6: 21]
And the beast was taken, and with
him the false prophet, who wrought signs before him, wherewith he
seduced them who received the character of the beast, and who adored
his image. These two were cast alive into the pool of fire, burning
with brimstone. And the rest
were slain by the sword of him that sitteth upon
the horse, which proceedeth out of his mouth; and all the birds were
filled with their flesh. [John
They will also understand, on their own
flesh, that what we read "....his
sweat became as drops of blood,
trickling down upon the ground." [Luke 22:44] is not a figure
of speech nor abstract symbolism.