Talk:Utraquism

Necessary for salvation?
My research has not come up with a satisfactory answer to whether Jacob taught (at least at some stage) that communion under both kinds was necessary for salvation.

It seems to me that


 * Catholic sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia say he did. But Andrew of Brod seems to have raised the issue saying that the unlearned would make this error when faced with Jacob' requirement that it be given under both kinds and was not subject to church alteration. (However, the Council of Constance only anathemized priests who offered under both kinds (not the recipients) and those who taught it: but it did not mention the claim that communication was necessary for salvation.)


 * Protestant sources, who want to make the Hussites all into proto-protestants, seem to ignore the issue altogether, as if all the Ultraquists wanted was not to be ruled by Rome and the issue of communion under both kinds was just the MacGuffin for this.


 * Academic material seems confused and contradictory on this.

My working theory is that the middle point is most likely: that Jacob communication under both kinds was an obligation instituted by Christ that must be under both kinds to get maximum sacramental benefit (i.e. not "necessary for salvation" as such as the Catholic claim), but that the Ultraquists regarded it as the fundamental issue (and therefore differed from the Protestants and Wycliffites). If anyone has better references, or a way to express this better in the article, please go ahead: it might be better in some subsection about legacy or subsequent interpretation. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
What's the source for Podebrad 'converting' Tábor to Utraquism? (Can one convert a town??)

--Michael Noel Jones 18:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't entirely agree with your edits on the Utraquism page, Cuivienen. Two points:

1. "Utraquism [...] was a branch of the Hussite movement"

"Utraquism" was the dogma. The term used for the group of Hussites was "the Utraquists". Perhaps I should split the page into two sections, defining each better.

Perhaps the first sentence would be best written:

"Utraquism was a dogma first proposed by Jacob of Mies, and adopted by the Hussites; the more moderate faction of whom became known as the Utraquists, or - from their use of the chalice, as the Calixtines (from the Latin 'calix', meaning chalice)"

2. "Their moderation...."

This addition just states what is in the next paragraph, with the addition of the word "moderation".

Comments?

--Michael Noel Jones 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone be mentioning Jan Hus in all of this as i think Jacob of Mies was a follower of him in the 1st placeImbored24 03:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ultraquists" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultraquists&redirect=no Ultraquists] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Godtres (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)