600 Years Later: Rome’s Revisionist Re-Working of John Huss’ Martyrdom

600 Years Later: Rome’s Revisionist Re-Working of John Huss’ Martyrdom

John Huss, PDF format

John HussThe year 2015 marks the 600th anniversary of the burning to death of Jan Hus, or John Huss, accused of heresy, as commanded and brought about by the wicked leaders of the Roman Catholic institution.  For six centuries the blood of this Christian martyr has been on the Papacy’s hands, nor will the stain of it ever be removed, for the Roman Whore will never change.  She has been “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” through all her long history (Rev. 17:6).

  But now – in this anniversary year of Huss’ death – the Roman Antichrist, Francis I, Jesuit priest and pope of Rome, has slyly begun the process of historical revisionism with regard to John Huss, thereby causing the Papacy’s ecumenical movement to lurch forward another step.  What he is doing betrays the serpent’s subtlety, and naive “Protestants”, so enamoured with Francis and so desperate to rush headlong into the arms of the Harlot who persecuted their Protestant forefathers, are willing to let him do it with not even a whimper of protest.

  Before we examine what Francis is doing, a brief look at the life of John Huss is necessary, as so little is known of him today.  Then, against the backdrop of his life and martyrdom, what Francis is up to will appear all the more odious to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ and His truth.

Huss a Romish Priest; Studies the Scriptures and Wycliffe’s Writings

  John Huss was born on the 6th July 1373, in Bohemia (today a part of the Czech Republic).  This was over a century before the Protestant Reformation was to occur, and thus all of Europe was still Roman Catholic, apart from a few isolated groups, such as the Waldensians, holding the torch of the Gospel aloft in their high Alpine homes.  Huss became a Romish priest, and was a devout Papist at this time.

  When in 1402 he was appointed preacher of Bethlehem Chapel, in the city of Prague, he began to study the Scriptures so as to more effectively preach to his hearers; and by reading them he slowly began to question various aspects of what he had believed up until this time.   

  In the words of the historian J.A. Wylie, in his mammoth History of Protestantism,[1] Huss now “placed the Bible above the authority of Pope or Council, and thus he had entered, without knowing it, the road of Protestantism.  But as yet he had no wish to break with the Church of Rome, nor did he dissent from a single dogma of her creed, the one point of divergence to which we have just referred excepted [i.e. he placed the Bible above pope or council]”.  Clearly, Huss was still a devout Papist, and was therefore not a true Christian; for one is either a Papist or a true Christian – one cannot be both.[2]  On this point far too many Protestant historians and theologians have been greatly mistaken, to the great hurt of the truth, insofar as men may harm its cause in the world.  But although Huss was still held in the darkness of Popery, the dawn’s light was slowly beginning to rise on his horizon.

  Huss began to study the writings of John Wycliffe, the English Reformer.  Wylie writes, “He was far from able at first to concur in the conclusions of the English Reformer.  Like a strong light thrown suddenly upon a weak eye, the bold views of Wycliffe, and the sweeping measure of reform which he advocated, alarmed and shocked Huss.”  “The Bohemian preacher had appealed to the Bible, but he had not bowed before it with the absolute and unreserved submission of the English pastor.  To overturn the [Romish] hierarchy, and replace it with the simple ministry of the Word; to sweep away all the teachings of tradition, and put in their room the doctrines of the New Testament, was a revolution for which… Huss was not prepared.”  Again, this shows he was not a true Christian as yet, for a true Christian is a Bible believer, and obeys the Bible alone.

  Wylie then adds: “It may be doubted whether, even when he came to stand at the stake, Huss’s views had attained the breadth and clearness of those of Wycliffe.”  Indeed they had not; although by that stage, this brave man had indeed found salvation solely by faith in Christ.

  As Huss studied Wycliffe’s writings, he gradually began to agree with Wycliffe’s teachings more and more, and passed on what he had learned to his students (for he was made rector of the university of Prague in 1409).  This attracted the attention of Rome; and in due course he was condemned by the pope as a heretic.  Wylie writes, “Although the Church [i.e. the “Church” of Rome] was seeking to overwhelm him by her thunderbolts, he had not renounced her authority.  The Roman Church was still to him the spouse of Christ, and the Pope was the representative and vicar of God.  What Huss was warring against was the abuse of authority, not the principle itself.”  Huss was still a Papist, albeit an unhappy and troubled one.  But he gradually came to adopt the maxim “that God speaking in the Bible, and not the Church speaking through the priesthood, is the one infallible guide of men.”  This of course was a most un-Papist doctrine.

Converted, But… His Slow Progress in Understanding Biblical Truth

  In time, John Huss was truly converted, by the almighty work of God’s Spirit and the instrumentality of God’s Word.  When a Roman Catholic is converted to Christ, he is converted because the Lord opens his eyes to see that he is a sinner, and that only Christ can save him; that salvation is not through the “Church” of Rome or any other, but by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone.  At the moment of conversion he ceases to be a Roman Catholic, for Rome’s doctrine of salvation is diametrically opposed to the biblical truth, and to receive the latter is to reject the former.  However, although he is no longer a Roman Catholic he may still for a time attend the Roman Catholic “Church”, out of ignorance; for the light of divine truth dawns progressively, not all at once.  In time any true Christian will cease to attend Roman Catholic services, or to hold to Roman Catholic errors; but this may take some time as his knowledge of the truth increases.  This is especially so when a person has no one to teach him, no sound church to go to, no true Christian to instruct him.  This was the case with John Huss.  All his known world was Roman Catholic; there were no biblical churches meeting openly, with whom he could find fellowship.  He had Wycliffe’s writings, but no more.  His progress was slow.  The Lord delivered him from Romanism the moment he was converted, but the process of taking Romanism out of his mind was a gradual one, as more and more Gospel light shone on his path.  Wylie wrote of “the fetters still on [Huss’] arm” which greatly held him back.

  He still believed, falsely, that the priesthood was of God; but he now believed that it often erred and was therefore a guide, not the infallible guide.  This was not Popish teaching, and it was progress. 

  He came to see that the religion of Rome was iniquitous in doctrine as well as in practice.  He wrote a work entitled On the Church, in which he stated that the true “Catholic Church” (i.e. the true universal Church of Christ) is the assembly of all God’s elect.  In it he wrote, “It is, therefore, plain which faith is the foundation of the church – the faith with which the church is built upon the Rock, Christ Jesus, for it is that by which the church confesses that ‘Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God’.  For Peter spoke for all the faithful, when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’.”  This is biblical doctrine.

  In another work, The Six Errors, he wrote of the priests’ error in boasting that they made Christ’s body in the mass; the error of Papists confessing, “I believe in the pope and the saints”, whereas they should believe in God only; the error that priests could remit the guilt and punishment of sin; the error of implicit obedience demanded by ecclesiastical superiors to all their commands; the error of making no distinction between a valid and an invalid excommunication; and the error of simony. 

  Not only were these teachings of his not Roman Catholic teachings, they were an attack on Roman Catholic teachings.   

  He also attacked the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgences, saying, “God alone possesses the power to forgive sins in an absolute manner”, and, “The absolution of Jesus Christ ought to precede that of the priest; or, in other words, the priest who absolves and condemns ought to be certain that the case in question is one which Jesus Christ Himself has already absolved or condemned.”  Huss was slowly seeing through many of the Papacy’s lying doctrines.  As the above quotation shows, he still believed that priests could be ministers of Christ, and even that the pope of Rome could at times be a Christian.  This is shown by these words of his: “If the Pope uses his power according to God’s commands, he cannot be resisted without resisting God Himself; but if he abuses his power by enjoining what is contrary to the Divine law, then it is a duty to resist him as should be done to the pale horse of the Apocalypse, to the dragon, to the beast, and to the Leviathan.”  Although what Huss said about resisting the pope can hardly be called Popish doctrine, the fact remains that at this time he still viewed the institution of the Papacy as being of God.

  But as his knowledge of the Scriptures grew, he condemned more and more Popish doctrines, and upheld biblical truth.  He denied that there was any merit to be earned by abstinences.  He condemned the superstitious veneration of relics, bowing before images, or worshipping the dead.  He wrote a treatise called The Abomination of Monks, and then in another treatise he called the pope and his court the members of Antichrist.  These were the teachings of Roman Catholicism that he was condemning, and Huss was therefore certainly not a Roman Catholic anymore.  He was converted, he was a Christian, not a Papist; but he still held to other Roman Catholic teachings, for his knowledge of the Scriptures grew little by little.  Apart from Wycliffe’s writings, he had no one to teach him.  It was God’s Holy Spirit who gradually opened his eyes to one Romish error after another, just as He does for all who are converted from Romanism.

Huss Appears Before the Council of Constance

  When the Roman Catholic Council of Constance was held, Huss was summoned to appear before it to answer charges against him; and he went.  This shows that he still saw the institution of the Papacy as being something God could use, if it was reformed.  In this he greatly erred, but considering how alone he was, how utterly unassisted by any true Christian, we should rather marvel that he had already made as much progress as he had.  He was certainly not a Roman Catholic, but he was still confused about the nature of the Papacy. 

  When he arrived at the Council Huss was arrested, despite having the assurance of a safe conduct from the emperor himself.  As far as the Romish ecclesiastics were concerned, Huss was a heretic.  In the damp and unhygienic prison, he fell gravely ill with a raging fever and almost died.  Later he was moved to a castle prison, where he was heavily loaded with chains.

  From prison he wrote many letters.  In one he said: “The Lord delivered Jonah from the whale’s belly, Daniel from the lions’ den, the three children from the fiery furnace… and He can deliver me, if expedient, for the glory of His name and for the preaching of His word.  But if a death precious in the Lord’s sight should fall to me, the Lord’s name be blessed.”

  He also wrote: “I am trusting that God will raise up others after me, braver men than there are today, who shall better reveal the wickedness of Antichrist and lay down their lives for the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ”.

  When he appeared before his judges in June 1415, they accused him of various doctrines, some of which he held, but others were false accusations and misrepresentations of his teachings.  Yet when he asked to be permitted to reply, he was drowned out by the loud derisive shouts and accusations of those priestly wolves in sheep’s clothing who were present in the hall.  They would not let him speak.

Huss#2Huss Before the Council of Constance

  The next time he appeared before them, the accusation was read, and Huss and some of the “doctors of the Church” engaged in debate.  “After comparing these statements it appears to us,” wrote Wylie, “that Huss differed from the Church of Rome not so much on dogmas as on great points of jurisdiction and policy.  These, while they directly attacked certain of the principles of the Papacy, tended indirectly to the subversion of the whole system – in short, to a far greater revolution than Huss perceived, or perhaps intended.”  In this, however, Wylie was incorrect, for as seen above, Huss had attacked various Roman Catholic teachings with vigour.  Wylie added, “He appears to have believed in transubstantiation; he declared so before the Council, although in stating his views he betrays ever and anon a revulsion from the grosser form of the dogma.  He admitted the Divine institution and office of the Pope and members of the hierarchy, but he made the efficacy of their official acts dependent on their spiritual character.  Even to the last he did not abandon the communion of the Roman Church.”  Wylie’s statement about transubstantiation is confusing, for he himself had said previously that Huss condemned transubstantiation.  And in addition, as has been shown, Huss’ beliefs most definitely meant he was outside the communion of the Roman Catholic “Church”: he upheld the Bible as the supreme rule of faith; he said that Christ was the Rock on which the Church was built; that the true Church is the assembly of the predestinate; and that the Church did not need one visible head on earth (the pope).  These were not Papist doctrines, they were biblical ones.  And Huss’ faith was in Christ, not the pope.  He wrote to the people of Prague, “I commend you to the merciful Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, and the Son of the immaculate Virgin Mary, who hath redeemed us by his most bitter death, without all our merits, from eternal pains, from the thraldom of the devil, and from sin.”  This statement, despite its false Romish statement of Mary being “immaculate” and its Arminianism (“who hath redeemed us”, as if all the people of Prague were redeemed), shows that he saw man’s own merits will not save him, and only Christ can.

  Yes, he erred in hoping that the Papacy could be reformed – on this he had not as yet been given light, and did not yet clearly see the awful, antichristian, unholy nature of Romanism, root and branch.  But in both doctrine and practice he was no longer a Roman Catholic.

Condemned as a Heretic; He Trusts in Christ Alone 

  After many days of languishing in prison he was brought before the Council again, on the 6th July 1415.  The hall was packed.  The emperor was there, high dignitaries of the Roman Harlot “Church” were there, and a great crowd of common people was there as well.  

  From his prison he had written in a letter: “I, Master John Hus, in chains and in prison, now standing on the shore of this present life and expecting on the morrow a dreadful death… find no heresy in myself, and accept with all my heart any truth whatsoever that is worthy of belief.”

  He was upbraided for having appealed for help to Jesus Christ; at which point he lifted up his hands to heaven and said, “See, most gracious Saviour, how the Council condemns as an error what Thou didst prescribe and practice, when, overborne by enemies, Thou committedst Thy cause to God the Father, leaving us this example, that when we are oppressed we may have recourse to the judgment of God.”  Then he turned to the assembly and said, “Yes, I have maintained, and still maintain, that an appeal to Jesus Christ is most just and right; for He can neither be corrupted by bribes, nor deceived by false witnesses, nor overreached by artifice.”  His faith was in Christ alone.

  He was called “that obstinate heretic”, the accusations against him were read again, and he again refused to abjure.  The sentence of condemnation as a heretic was then passed upon him, followed by the ceremony of degradation – when the vestments of a Romish priest were put upon him, the chalice was placed in his hand as if he were a priest about to celebrate the mass, he was again asked to abjure, he again refused, and they then took the chalice out of his hand saying, “O accursed Judas, who, having abandoned the counsels of peace, have taken part in that of the Jews, we take from you this cup filled with the blood of Jesus Christ.”  To which Huss replied, “I hope, by the mercy of God, that this very day I shall drink of His cup in His own kingdom”.  They then removed all the priestly garments off him, cursing him as they did so.  And they placed on his head a mitre made of paper, on which were painted devils, and in the front the word, “Arch-Heretic”.  And as they did so Huss said, “Most joyfully will I wear this crown of shame for thy sake, O Jesus, who for me didst wear a crown of thorns.”

  Note that he said nothing regarding his being a priest, or having the powers Rome supposedly gives to a priest.  He had seen through this religious system, seen it for what it was, and had forsaken it.

John Huss  The bishops who had stripped the garments off him then said to him, “Now, we devote thy soul to the devil.”  John Huss lifted his eyes toward heaven and said, “And I do commit my spirit into Thy hands, O Lord Jesus, for thou hast redeemed me.”  Was he looking towards the Romish “Church” at all?  No.  Was he trusting in the Romish sacraments to get to heaven?  No.  He was trusting solely in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.  He knew Christ was the only Redeemer, and he said so.  He was standing against the entire hierarchy of this evil religion, which had condemned him as a heretic, and by contradicting their words he was in effect saying that they were the heretics, and he was the Christian.  It appears that, whatever false views he still had of the Roman Catholic “Church” right up until a few weeks before his death, things were different now.  Now, he knew that this “Church” called a man “Judas” when he was a disciple of Jesus; it sought to commit a soul to Satan who belonged to Christ; and instead of pleading with the leadership of this “Church” for mercy, he cast himself upon Christ, and Christ alone, by simple faith.

His Martyrdom: Burned Alive

  He was taken out to the place of death.  When he arrived, he knelt down and began reciting psalms, and praying.  He often was heard to say, “Lord Jesus, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.”  He was tied to the stake, and wood was piled around him up to his chin.  For the last time, he was asked if he would renounce his errors, but he replied, “What errors shall I renounce?  I know myself guilty of none.  I call God to witness that all that I have written and preached has been with the view of rescuing souls from sin and perdition; and, therefore, most joyfully will I confirm with my blood that truth which I have written and preached.”

  As the flames blazed up, Huss began to sing with a loud voice, “Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.”  And so he died.  Died a Christian martyr’s triumphant death.  He was a man in whom God the Holy Spirit began to work in a time of almost-universal darkness, and he was brought by irresistible grace to embrace the simple, glorious Gospel, casting himself by faith upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation. 

  Wylie says that Huss grasped the glorious truth of Christ’s sole mediatorship rather feebly, and “was never able to shake himself wholly free from a dependence on the intercession and good offices of the glorified.”  But Wylie was surely incorrect in saying Huss “never” did so, for it is very evident, from his words and actions on the last day of his life, that he cast himself only and completely upon the Lord Jesus Christ, as we have seen.

  But with these words of Wylie we can joyfully agree:

  “When the martyr bowed his head at the stake it was the infallible Council that was vanquished.  It was with Huss that the victory remained; and what a victory!  Heap together all the trophies of Alexander and of Caesar, what are they all when weighed in the balance against this one glorious achievement?  From the stake of Huss, what blessings have flowed, and are still flowing, to the world!”

John Huss
600 Years Later: the Jesuit Pope’s Serpentine Subtlety

  Now to come to the present day, six centuries later, and to an address given by the Roman pope, Francis I, in June 2015, when he received in audience a religious delegation of “Protestants” from the Czech Republic (the present-day name for the land of Huss), on the occasion of the 600th anniversary of Huss’ cruel death.

  “I welcome you, distinguished representatives of the Hussite Czechoslovak Church and of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren,” said Francis, “who are in Rome to celebrate, at the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul, a Liturgy of Reconciliation on the occasion of the 600th anniversary of the Reformer Jan Hus.”[3]

  Well, his opening sentence spoke volumes already!  Why would representatives of two supposedly “Protestant” denominations even seek an audience with the Roman pope, the modern incumbent of the very office which had condemned Huss to death?  Clearly these two “churches” are anything but Protestant today.  And what were they doing, celebrating a “liturgy of reconciliation” at what Rome claims– with no real evidence whatsoever – are the tombs of Peter and Paul?[4]  Is this what modern-day “Protestantism” has been reduced to – making pilgrimages to tombs like the heathen religions do, and like Rome does?  Apparently so.  Understand clearly then, dear reader, that this meeting was not between the representatives of a false religion and two Christian churches, but between three false religions.

  Then came Francis’ ecumenical overture:

 “This meeting gives us the opportunity to renew and deepen the relations between our communities.  In obedience to the will of the Lord Jesus, who on the eve of his Passion and Death prayed to the Father for the unity of his disciples (cf. John 17:21), we have the duty to promote increasing mutual knowledge and active collaboration.”

  The usual reference to Jesus’ prayer in John 17.  The Lord Jesus prayed for the unity of His disciples, certainly; but this prayer has been answered, in that all true Christians are, and always have been, spiritually united together, one in Christ.  He was not praying for visible, structural unity at all!  As for Francis’ words about the “duty” we all supposedly have to promote increasing mutual knowledge and active collaboration, there is not a word in all the Bible setting out this duty.  But that is no hindrance to Francis.  The Bible?  It means nothing to the pope of Rome. 

  Then he said:

 “Many disputes of the past call to be revisited in the light of the new context in which we live, and agreements and convergences will be reached if we address the traditional conflictive questions with a new look.”

  Just imagine it!  John Huss was burned alive at the stake by orders of the Roman Catholic hierarchy – and yet now we are being told by this man, the Antichrist of God’s Word, that the present “context” must cause us to “revisit” such “disputes”.  As if the burning alive of a man for heresy was the result of a mere dispute, and as if “a new look” and a ‘revisit in the light of a new context” will somehow change, or lessen, the horror of that deed! 

  Imagine what John Huss himself would have felt back then, if, as he stood at the stake seconds before he died an agonising death, he could have seen the future and said to himself, “Six centuries from now, my cruel death will be seen as a mere dispute between brethren, and will be “revisited” and re-evaluated in the light of the context of those future times.”  Would this have comforted him at all?  Would he have sighed with contentment, and rejoiced to know that although he was about to die in flames for biblical truths that were fundamentally at odds with the teachings of Rome, the day would eventually come when those very truths for which he laid down his life so bravely would mean so little to those claiming to be his followers, that they would visit the pope in his palace and listen with reverence to his words about the need to reach “agreements and convergences” in the light of “the new context”?  I believe I can say with absolute certainty that Huss would have derived no comfort at all from this knowledge, and would have been horrified at such a betrayal.

  The “new context”, of course, to which Francis was referring, is the ecumenical movement of modern times, as Rome gathers into her “loving” embrace all the various Protestant groups.  The Whore has a “new look” these days, for sure: she smiles at the “heretics”, and welcomes them.  But no smile on her face can hide the blood dripping from her mouth.

Francis Says Huss “Died Tragically”

  “Six centuries have passed,” Francis then said, “since the day that the renowned preacher and Rector of the University of Prague, Jan Hus, died tragically.”

  Died tragically?  Is that all it was, Francis?  John Huss was burned alive!  He was burned alive because your predecessor in the Papal office wanted him burned alive!  He was burned alive because the vile religion of which you are the current head declared that “heretics” should be burned alive!  It was a tragedy of your religion’s doing, Francis!  Just like the cruel martyrdoms of so many millions of others.

  “Already in 1999,” Francis went on, “Saint John Paul II, intervening in an International Symposium dedicated to this memorable figure, expressed his ‘profound regret for the cruel death inflicted [on him],’ and he numbered him among the Reformers of the Church.”

  Ah, here we go again.  Rome has a man put to death for his beliefs; centuries go by, and then – all of a sudden in this ecumenical age – a pope of Rome says he “regrets” what happened to him!  At least John Paul II called Huss’ death “cruel”.  That is better, just slightly, than that he “died tragically”.  But did he really regret it?  Not at all.  If Rome could get away with putting “heretics” to death today as she did in the past, she would do so in an instant.  What Rome regrets is that now, in this ecumenical age, such murders as that of John Huss are an embarrassment to Rome.  They are obstacles to her modern method of destroying Protestants, which is by ecumenism.  The tactics have changed, but the heart of the Whore never changes.

  As for numbering Huss among the Reformers of the Roman Catholic “Church”, this is simply dishonest. Yes, Huss erred in thinking – as so many others have done – that the false “Church” of Rome could be reformed.  But the Papacy rejected all of Huss’ teachings, and burned him for them; how then could he be a “Reformer of the Church”?  The Roman Catholic religion remains utterly unreformed, and in truth it cannot be reformed – for a false religion cannot be “reformed” into a true one.  It had no intention of reforming 600 years ago, and it has no intention of doing so now.

Francis Claims Huss Now “A Reason for Dialogue”

  “In the light of this approach, the study must continue on the person and activity of Jan Hus, who for a long time was the subject of contention among Christians, while today he has become a reason for dialogue,” said Francis.

  Actually, Huss was never the subject of contention among Christians; he was only a “contentious” figure to Roman Catholics, who hated him, branded him a heretic, burned him alive, burned his books, and have continued to hate him till now.  Christians have studied the person and activity of Huss for centuries, and rejoice that he stood against various errors of Rome, even unto death.  As for him being today “a reason for dialogue”, there was no “dialogue” when Rome’s blind servants declared him a heretic and burned him to death.  When he attempted to explain his beliefs they shouted him down, and refused to permit him the opportunity; so much for dialogue.  But now – in this ecumenical age, when Rome wants to win Protestants by smiles, her pope speaks of Huss as “a reason for dialogue”. 

  “This research, carried out without conditioning of an ideological type, will be an important service to the historical truth, to all Christians and to the whole society,” said Francis.

  In other words, research into Huss must not follow the Protestant “conditioning” of the past.  But no Vatican spin whatsoever can alter the plain historical facts: Huss was condemned by a Roman Catholic council, which declared him a heretic, and then murdered him.  Those are the facts.  “Research” could be done for a thousand years, but the facts will not go away.  Only “revisionist” historians would even attempt to re-package what Rome did to Huss, and such revisionism would not be “the historical truth”.

  Essentially, what Francis wants is for history to manipulate the facts, create new “facts” and alter the way the real facts are viewed, so as to minimise what Rome did to Huss.  This is what the Jesuits have always done with history, and Francis, the Jesuit pope, is simply following the orders he has received as a faithful Jesuit.  History must be made to say whatever those “revising” it want it to say, and nothing else.  This is Jesuitism.

  Francis then revealed his real motive in all this: “Vatican II stated: ‘the renewal of the Church,’ which ‘consists essentially in enhanced fidelity to her vocation… Hence, this renewal has a singular ecumenical purpose’ (Unitatis redintegratio, 6)…. And the visible communion among Christians will surely render the proclamation [of the “Gospel’] more credible.”

  The Vatican goal is to use the ecumenical movement to destroy what remains of Protestantism; to absorb all non-Papist bodies into the Roman Catholic system.  Everything must be bent towards this objective, as far as Francis is concerned.  “Get the Protestants back under the wings of Mother Rome!” is the cry.

Francis: “Let’s Be Friends”

  “Along this path [of reconciliation and peace] we learn,” continued the Antichrist of Rome, “by the grace of God, to recognize one another as friends and to consider others’ motivations in the best possible light.”

  Ah.  So, let’s see: poor John Huss, he failed to recognise the wolves in sheep’s clothing, gathered at the Council of Constance to condemn him, as the friends they really were to him.  If only he had viewed their motives in the best possible light, he would have understood that they only had his best interests at heart when they condemned him to the fires of hell, called him an arch-heretic, publicly humiliated him, tied him to a stake and set him alight.  How sad that he did not see their actions in the best possible light!

  And we who are Protestants today: how we should consider what those Papists did to Huss in the best possible light, and recognise their modern descendants as our friends!  There they were, trying their best to reconcile Huss to Rome, and burning him alive so as to protect the rest of Roman Catholic Europe from his infectious poison.  How compassionate they were!  How selfless!  How concerned for the welfare of others!

Huss Did Not Die in Vain

  Let us not be hoodwinked by Papal duplicity.  In this ecumenical age, the vast majority of falsely-named “Protestants” will fall headlong into this Jesuitical trap.  Only the Lord’s remnant will not be deceived.

  Did John Huss die in vain?  Did all those countless numbers of other Christian martyrs die in vain?  No!  Their deaths were not in vain.  Huss’ death was not in vain.  He died for the truth.  He died as a witness for Christ’s truth, and as a witness against Antichrist’s lies.  His brave, triumphant stand has come down to us through six long centuries; and in the pages of true history and in the hearts of the Lord’s true saints it will live forever, an encouragement to all true believers to stand firm for the Gospel of Christ, and an everlasting rebuke to the satanic cruelty and antichristian nature of that religious system on seven hills which calls itself Christ’s Church, but which is nothing but Satan’s greatest masterpiece. 

September 2015

Shaun Willcock is a minister, author and researcher.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.  For other articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below.  If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, to receive all future articles, please send your details.


[1]. The History of Protestantism, Part I, by J.A. Wylie.  Mourne Missionary Trust, Kilkeel, Northern Ireland, 1986.

[2]. See Are Some Roman Catholics Christians? by Shaun Willcock (pamphlet).  Bible Based Ministries.  Available on our website: www.biblebasedministries.co.uk.

[3]. Zenit.org, June 16, 2015.  “Pope Francis’ Address on Anniversary of Jan Hus’ Death.”

[4]. See Bones of Contention: Have Paul’s Bones Been Discovered in Rome? by Shaun Willcock (article).  Bible Based Ministries.  Available on our website: www.biblebasedministries.co.uk.

Bible Based Ministries

This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full


Contending for the Faith Ministries
695 Kentons Run Ave
Henderson, NV 89052
United States of America