Not at all.
When Hus attacked the morality of Catholic priests and pressed for wider access to the scripture, he was not only accepted, but invited to the ecumenical synod of 1405.
He ran afoul of Church authorities on the doctrine of “impanation.” That is that the bread of the Mass remains bread, and the wine remains wine. Catholicism teaches that each the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity.
This may seem like a fairly dry academic point to charge someone with heresy. But, on the basis of the heresy of impanation, Hus asserted that the Sacrifice of the Mass was invalid when communicants received only bread or only wine. Since only priests could handle the Holy Sacrifice, this meant that at least two priests were needed at any time to offer mass: one to distribute what was in the form of wine, the other to distribute what was in the form of bread. This in turn meant that according to Hus, only those in the great cities had access to salvation, while those in the parishes of solo priests were damned to eternal hellfires... including the priest.
This was shortly after the University of Prague expelled all foreign faculty.
Thus, Hus had a basis for claiming that only he and his university elite were saved, whereas all those in the countryside who clung to traditional Catholicism were damned to eternal Hell.
While various Hussites taught exactly that while in his company, and it’s the logical conclusion from his theology, Hus claimed he didn’t teach that per se. Thus, when sentenced by the Catholic Church, he claimed, “God is my witness that the things charged against me I never preached.” Maybe not, we’ll never know. But he hardly effectively opposed his own followers from drawing and promulgating those very errors.
You may also still wonder why ANY heresy is deserving of death. I would concede that the death penalty is not the appropriate response. But also consider the stakes: Hus was a strict pacifist. He said that anyone practicing war went straight to Hell (and to explain how it was that so many Christians went straight to Hell despite their faith, recall his implication that no-one who receives only what had been bread was saved). The immediate prompt of this radical pacifism was a military skirmish between a pope and an antipope, but this was taught at a time when the Ottoman empire was rampaging across Christian lands; the Byzantine Empire was in utter collapse and the papacy was attempting to marshall troops for the defense of the Christendom.
For those interested.
And why is that? As for impanation, so for the lack of priests this doctrine was formulated? When was this doctrine first espoused?
Whatever.
I am so sure that rises to the level of “morally” being murdered by the Catholic church.
Well, Dangus, let us for the sake of argument concede your points. Then the only question that remains is this: By what right did the church condemn to death Hus, and see to the carrying out of the sentence? Where in all of God’s Word is this power given to the church of the New Testament? And corollary to that, if the church had such power, why does it not still possess and exercise such power?
Seems like a pretty poor reason to tie a man to a stake and burn him to death.
Where EXACTLY did Christ say the church should do that?
Chapter and verse if you please.
Thanks.
L
I can't find an ecumenical council in 1405.
I'm not certain it is the same council to which you refer, but the source posted below at #14 by SoFloFreeper gives a very different picture:
In November 1414, the Council of Constance assembled, and Huss was urged by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund to come and give an account of his doctrine. Because he was promised safe conduct, and because of the importance of the council (which promised significant church reforms), Huss went. When he arrived, however, he was immediately arrested, and he remained imprisoned for months. Instead of a hearing, Huss was eventually hauled before authorities in chains and asked merely to recant his views.
Cordially,