Freaky Chik Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Hey all I was just reading a few things, and I came across John Wycliffe. Basicaly the purpose of my post is to see what Catholics think of this guy... I wanna type out something that I read, and i would like to hear YOUR response to what it says. Please note.... I'm only quoting what a book says, okay? John Wycliffe was a student at Balliol College, Oxford, and gradually earned a great reputation as one of the ablest scholars in the University. He was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, but rejected transubstantiation, criticized the doctrine or purgatory, and generally expressed great dissatisfaction with the church. This naturally brought him into conflict with the bishops, but he was very popular with the common people, and also enjoyed the protection of John of Gaunt, the king's son. Wycliffe has been called the 'morning star of the Reformation' and that is undoubtedly a worthy title. In his questioning of the whole structure of the Roman church he was led to do two vitally important things. First, he organised bands of preachers known as the Lollards, who travelled the country preaching the Word of God. This was, by and large, the only instruction the people had in the things of God. SEcondly, this remarkble man was responses for the first Bible in the English language. And i also read... Four years after Wycliffe's death his secretary, John Purvey, issued a careful revision of his translation, preceded by an interesting prologue and accompanied by notes. The church, however, did not approve of the new Bible. in 1408 a dcree known as the Constitutions of Oxford was issued, forbidding anyone to translate or read any part of the Bible in the vernacular without the approval of his bishop or of a provincial council. Six years later a law was enacted which stipulated that all people who read the Scripture in their own languaged should 'forfeit land, catel, life, and goods from their heyres for ever'. The public demand for the Bible continued, however, in spite of the sever penalties attached to its circulation..." yeh anyways, i read this, and i would like to hear what the Catholic Church, and Catholics, say about it. thanks :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 he was a heretic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freaky Chik Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 could you please elaborate? cos i don't know much about this guy, and I wanna hear what Catholics say. And what is your response to that second paragraph i quoted? I'm coming straight to catholics to hear what they have to say about that it'd be much appreciated, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 the Church was trying to protect Her members from erroneous translations that could have carried agendas with them. it was out of respect for the Sacred Scipture that they banned reading such versions of Sacred Scripture, afraid that people with agendas against they Church may have subtly made translation choices to affect ones view of the Church. Wycliffe "morning star of reformation" isn't morning star "Lucifer" in Latin lol, that's just a misunderstanding anyway, but i thought it'd be funny to add that lil comment in. :rolling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 in hebrew Lucifer is morning star - Christ is also called the morning star as well though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 the misunderstanding i meant was that Lucifer isn't actually the name of the devil. the passage they got that from in the OT refered to someone else, and possible metephorically can mean the devil, but it was not originally intended to mean the Devil. it really was completely uncalled for of me to say that, but i wanted to make myself laugh :ph34r: :rolling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 This is meant with complete charity, but I don't see how he is being refered to as "the morning star of the reformation." He felt the Bible was above the Pope because the Pope and feudal-lord churchmen condemned themselves with wealth. The root of his arguments was not a justification argument like the other reformers. He was very popular until the moment he preached against the validity of the Eucharist as being the Blessed Sacrament, being that Britian was loyal to the Catholic Church at the time. Wyclif's teachings concerning extreme Christian poverty was more similar to the Albigensian heresy than to the 16th century Reformation. I don't agree how Foxe's Book of Martyrs and other sources that generalize Protestantism into one group of Saintly Reformers because all Protestantism is not the same. Wyclif is not the same as Calvin, Luther, or Zwingli. Outside of a few of his teachings, he was still way to "Catholic" to be called the "morning star." If he was a preacher today, his evangelical poverty postition alone would be enough to label him as being crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 could you please elaborate? cos i don't know much about this guy, and I wanna hear what Catholics say. And what is your response to that second paragraph i quoted? I'm coming straight to catholics to hear what they have to say about that it'd be much appreciated, thanks Read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15722a.htm God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now