Violation of QSS
So I was perusing the site and I stumbled upon this page via the random button. I just noticed that it says "causa reformis in capite et membris - Sigismund was succesfull in this too (oppo to *here*) Articuli were accepted by the Council (although not seriously taken and fulfilled later). Then, 1419 became Sigismund Bohemian king and also Roman Emperor 1420 (instead of 1433 as *here*)."
I know when I first got here that there was a bit of confusion about what happened to Orthodoxy when I got here because at one point Catholicism's page said that the Orthodox Church was united subserviently to Rome, but way more references on the Orthodox Church point to it having no connection to the Roman Catholic Church, and that's the direction that we went with. I know we usually try to bridge two seemingly contradictory ideas together, but this little factoid makes my job so much harder. Can I request to have it removed, please? Misterxeight 13:40, 5 August 2016 (PDT)
- I think it means Holy Roman Emperor (yes, neither holy nor Roman nor an empire, I know), so that part should still be compliant with QSS. Juan Martin Velez Linares 10:40, 9/8/2016 (EDT)
Whoops wrong bit. Here's what I think needs to be removed: "As the result of Articuli, Church was decentralised, but united under pope. In 1439, as *here*, pope Eugenius IV. and byzantine emperor Jan VIII. Palaeologus unified the church, and it was supported by orthodox metropolits too (oppo to *here*). Church is now united through idea, not might, thus all the protestantism is more focused on ideological fight than political (no defenestrations in Prague, no hussite revolution, no 30-years war)." Misterxeight 20:07, 9 August 2016 (PDT)
- Could this be massaged to fit QSS? Could we limit it to Bohemia, of which this is a direct part? Or say that it started this way, and was later reversed? This has been here and unchanged since the wiki was hosted somewhere else, and I migrated it. This was all written by Jan II. Rather than rip it all out, can we tweak it instead -- especially where it could only be salient to Bohemia, and leave the rest of the world untouched? BoArthur 09:35, 10 August 2016 (PDT)
- To be honest, the only way to massage this to QSS would be to create a Uniate church in Bohemia and get rid of references to Byzantium, and I don't think there would be quite enough Orthodox Christians in the country to justify that. Maybe it's best to put it under the cutting torch. Of course, the union could just end up failing under the Turkish advance. Juan Martin Velez Linares 15:19 8/30/2016 (EDT)
- How would that Turkish advance play out to eliminate the Uniate Church? That would allow Jan II's information to stand, but then adapt to the other QSS items? BoArthur 12:46, 1 September 2016 (PDT)
when writing those lines, i was following the contemporary leading ideas about catholic church - that it is quite different from *here*. the schisma solution was my contribution to it. as i was never corrected before, i thought, it was a worth contribution. the very basic idea behind is hidden here all the protestantism is more focused on ideological fight than political. the de iure unified church may still be divided into west under direct influence of pope and east under metropolits, even with the basic differences existing today in interpretation of credo (the filioque thing; *there* in both is filioque, but has to major interpretations - west and east). west may perceive father and son as two sources of holy spirit, east according to st. augustine with father being the fons principalis. it just need to re-appear in a weak form some time later after the 1439, creating an orthodox movement, rather than schismatic situation, more like greek catholics church. my ideas may be naive or such, we may shape to smth more precise. for bohemia it is important that it eliminated appearance of hussite movement and later on allowed creation of unite bohemian church. Jan II. 05:02, 6 September 2016 (PDT)
That idea was never accepted. There is a Catholic Church in the West and an Orthodox Church in the East, with the former having Uniates (both ex-Orthodox and ex-Lutherans) and the latter having Western Rite vicariates.
All you need to do is remove any mention of the Orthodox Church from this. It doesn't add much to the story of Jan Hus, so there's no harm done if it's removed. I'm assuming much like in our world, the followers of Sts. Kyrillos and Methodios were kicked out of Moravia after King Radoslav died, so there was never a Moravian Church under Constantinople, so I doubt there was much of a population for the Czechs and Bohemians to force into Catholicism as Uniates by the 15th/16th Century. Misterxeight 12:13, 12 September 2016 (PDT)
- In all fairness, the fight between Catholicism and Protestantism *here* was mostly ideological, at least until good ol' Enrique Octavo got involved and made secession from the Catholic Church an explicitly political affair. With regards to the Thirty Years' War, it probably helps that there was no unified Iberian/Spanish monarchy (at most, maybe Hapsburg control of Portugal) and Calvinism/Reformed Protestantism in general never managed as much success as it did *here*. (Notably, no Protestant Western Helvetia.) In addition, the Hapsburgs in Bohemia seemingly accepted a Protestant Reformation of their country, which would have also defused any tensions that resulted in the Thirty Years' War. (Perhaps continued hostilities within the HRE, but certainly no massive pan-European conflict.)
- On a side note, is the Common Bohemian Church Hussite? IMO, that would be the most interesting course of action, as well as the one that makes most sense in IB--considering how strong the Catholic Church is *there*, there really is no need for a "Catholicism in all but name" church that doesn't follow the pope like with Anglicanism *here*, and any seeming attempts to write it in have always felt very forced and incompatible with the general vibe of Ill Bethisad to me. Juan Martin Velez Linares 9:13, 13/9/2016 (EDT)
the thing is - first, there was no hussite uprising *there*. how could that happen? my idea: roman king sigismund, instead of what happened *here*, he used armed supporters of jan hus and his teaching on better church to solve the great schism by banishing the popes and electing the one, getting the upper hand over him. he received the imperial and czech crown for that. that was a building stone of reformed catholicism tradition in bohemia. may be, later on after sigismund's death, the hussitism in catholic church was weakening, but remained strong in bohemia. second, along with division of habsburgian empire in 1612, it was a cause for no thirty years war. i do not much give about orthodox church :) i just need to "justify" those two.
common bohemian church is hussite, as it follows the four articles of prague, which makes it different from catholics - 1) preaching the word of god without human addenda /pope is not head of a church/, 2) communion under both kinds, 3) priests may have no secular authority, 4) jesus is the head of church, equality before god and law. Jan II. 07:06, 15 September 2016 (PDT)
- so, any proposals of mutually acceptable solution to this, which would violate QSS at the least? i am ready to work on it. Jan II. 00:04, 14 October 2016 (PDT)
There's only one thing that needs to be removed and it's this: " In 1439, as *here*, pope Eugenius IV. and byzantine emperor Jan VIII. Palaeologus unified the church, and it was supported by orthodox metropolits too (oppo to *here*)."Hell you could even just add "Pope Eugenius IV and Roman Emperor John VIII Palaiologos had a similar proposal to unify the Church to the unification plan accepted by the Latin Church in Bohemia." Something like that would be even less intrusive. Misterxeight 18:12, 14 October 2016 (PDT)
- if this is the only problem, i see no reason why not to modify it in this way: "Byzantine emperor Jan VIII. Palaiologos accepted in 1437 the proposal of pope Eugenius IV. to unify the Church. Despite the initial mutually open steps, it was already clear during the Council of Ferrata that the Church in East as whole would never consent to the Filioque. After moving the Council to Florence the negotiations proceeded, the reunion was concluded in 1439, but never fully supported, as only part of the eastern Church was open to unification. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 put a definite end to the agreement. The only church, which accept the proposal in full was the Latin Church in Bohemia right after the agreement in 1439." acceptable? Jan II. 04:04, 15 October 2016 (PDT)
It has a Catholic bias to it and in English it's "John," not "Jan," but I'd take that over what's currently written. Misterxeight 16:39, 15 October 2016 (PDT)
- ok, so to change jan to john and eugenius to eugene ;) and the story is taken almost entirely from what happened *here*, except for the last sentence ;) what would make it less biased iyo? Jan II. 23:38, 15 October 2016 (PDT)
Eugenius is fine.
I'd just be a little more careful. It was a political bargaining chip; the Papacy and the Catholic powers were exchanging supremacy for military aid against the Ottoman Turks. This wasn't a real attempt at union, it was a bargaining chip. I think that's a very important part of the story not being told here. Misterxeight 20:36, 17 October 2016 (PDT)
- so what about this way: "Byzantine emperor John VIII. Palaiologos accepted in 1437 the proposal of pope Eugene IV. to unify the Church in an attempt to save Byzantium facing Ottoman aggression, as the Catholic church saw an opportunity to exploit this situation to get its hand over the Church in East. Despite the initial mutually open steps, it was already clear during the Council of Ferrata that the Church in East as whole would never consent to the Filioque and its consequences. After moving the Council to Florence to proceed negotiations, the reunion was concluded in 1439, but never fully supported, as only part of the eastern Church was open to unification under these circumstances. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 put a definite end to the agreement. The only church, which accept the proposal in full, based on the local reformist movement, was the Latin Church in Bohemia right after the agreement in 1439." Jan II. 23:31, 17 October 2016 (PDT)
I'd say that's perfect! I am completely satisfied with this. I hope that you feel ready to proceed and throw up onto the page.
So, just to be clear, Hus' movement did rejoin Catholicism, right? There is no independent, pre-Luther Protestant eccliastical community that calls itself the 'Hussite Church,' is there? Someone just last week told me that Hus and his followers were sick of clerical abuse (economic and even sexual) which they felt that the celibate clergy exacerbated. Does that mean that the Hussite part of the Catholic Church allows married priests in IB? Do they use a more localized variety of the Latin Rite that they've preserved since the 1400's, one that was exempt from the liturgical overhaul of the 1960's? Misterxeight 02:11, 18 October 2016 (PDT)
- IIRC, the Hussites were Uniates with the church up until what would *here* have been the time period of the Thirty Years' War, when they separated and became the Common Bohemian Church. Jan II can elaborate, but he explicitly stated that the Common Bohemian Church is Hussite, and has also said that it hasn't been under papal authority since Bohemia split from the HRE. Juanmartinvelezlinares 07:18, 18 October 2016 (PDT)
- hus' movement was to reform the catholic church, *there* as *here*, hus wrote all his works, but instead of being burned in konstanz, he became a leading person in the bohemian latin church and a tool of sigismund to claim bohemian (agreement with aristocracy) and roman crowns (partially by force using fanatical and powerful army lead by höns šiška /aka jan žižka of *here*/). bohemian latin church adopted among others (such as quatuor articuli pragensis - compromise on hussitism between aristocracy and common people) the conclusions of council in florence in 1439, which fact later on lead to separation of bohemian latin church from main stream catholicism: 1603 the royal privilege about religious freedom, 1704 abandoning rome for good, 1726 official end of celibacy and start of common/general bohemian church. the decline of celibacy may be part of the equality of church and laymen before law, also similar to *here*, hussitism allowed women to become priests since 19cc. höns hus was since 15cc the icon of bohemian church and is still today. Jan II. 00:02, 19 October 2016 (PDT)
Thanks for the explanation, guys; I think I get the state of things in Bohemia now. Quick question: the 75k Czech-speakers in the autonomous okrug in Russian Kazakhstan would be members of the Hussite Church, right, and not say, Lutherans or Catholics? Misterxeight 20:42, 19 October 2016 (PDT)
- as they are czechs, not bohemians, i would say they are either orthodox, muslim or roman catholics. definitely, the czechs in volhynia are orthodox. nowadays are czechs radically anti-bohemian, at least in volhynia, in russian qazaqstan, i am not sure about it. anyway, czech church has to drift from the major bohemian hussitism to conservative or radical antihussite direction even during the time they were still living in bohemia. i suspect that czech catholicism is roman and centred around st. john of nepomuk (sw. gan nepomuckej), not hus. i play with an idea that they do not like st. wenceslaus either, because he was into consent with german empire, but rather idealise his fratricidal brother boleslav, who sided with ethnical czechs against western might. they may even feel him as a national secret saint and czech orthodox church may in fact canonise him.
- the common bohemian church is a kind of con-federative church and is not purely christian, the chief rabbi acknowledges the ecclesiastical authority of the church patriarch-king, and he is equal in power to archbishop of prague and other high representatives of other churches. Jan II. 22:44, 19 October 2016 (PDT)