Talk:John Wycliffe

message: :: A related issue is why having a Church Council  declaring you a heretic makes you a pre-cursor to Protestantism. It is phrased back-to-front. The thing that made Wycliff a pre-cursor, to the extent he was, was not the declaration of a Council but his actual theology and the revolutionary acts of the Lollards that sprang out of it. I have removed the phrase with weasel word "effectively".
:: As to Carissimi's point above about Luther never having heard of Wycliffe or Hus, I don't think it is a super convincing claim: the sensational events at the Council of Constance (and Lollards & Hussites) were only as far from Luther's time as WWWI is from our own, and of clear professional interest to any theologian. (Erasmus was certainly aware of them: indeed he claimed that Luther's doctrine of that everything happens by pure necessity was only found in Wycliffe's teachings and Manichaeus'.)
:: One way to look at the Lollards and the Hussites w.r.t. Protestants is to see to what extent the issues that they really believed in matched e.g. Lutheranism. We see that the Hussites were willing to re-integrate as long as they had communion under both kinds, married priests and so on: nothing to do with Luther's revised Paulinism.  The Lollards (under Wycliffe's Dominium theology) believed that a sinner could not have authority over saints, whether secular or spiritual, hence their murder of that Archbishop: this has no equivalent in Luther. 
:: The polemical agenda at work is that some Protestants want to legitimise their cause by saying there was always a subterranean movement of true religion at work, which surfaced occasionally (but divorced from politics);  similarly, some Catholics want to delegitimise Protestantism by denying any common threads between different dissenting movements (or by pointing out that the threads had non-violent Catholic expressions too). 
:: I think being aware of these agendas and biases--which are endemic to sources--is useful for editors in knowing how to phrase and balance articles.  For example, "proto-protestant" might better be called "so-called proto-protestant" because it is an analytical/polemic interpretation of facts, not a historical fact.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cart before horse 

message: In the section "public declaration", it is said that one of John Wyncliffe's great works was the Summa Theologica. The Summa Theologica was written by Thomas Aquinas, not John Wyncliffe  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.208.82 (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Declaration problems 

message: This was tagged by someone as possibly being OR in 2007. I think wikipedia needs to delete sections of articles as historically important as this, when an OR tag has been on it that long.76.218.104.120 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  My deletion of the OR tagged section on 9/9/2013 

message: This section in John Wycliffe is very clear in its meaning and implication, so clear that I even wonder if it is spurious.
While I agree with the positions expressed as more than merely consistent with Wycliffe's teachings, a reference to the source of these claims would be highly desirable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.116.82 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an old thread. But yes: the section on philosophy manages to avoid the practical implications of his positions: which mean it provides nothing useful on why Wycliffe might be considered a seditionist/heretic to politicians, or why the violent Lollard movement might owe itself to his teaching, etc. The section on philosophy treats it as an armchair box-ticking exercise, rater than something with  real politca implications. I have added a bit more about Dominium. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basal positions in philosophy 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lollardy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: - the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says Wycliffe was born c. 1320 (here), but the current Encyclopædia Britannica says c. 1330 (here). In the absence of other reliable sources the year of birth should be changed to c. 1330 as per Britannica. - Epinoia (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Birth 

message: It says, "Wycliffe was 64 years old" at the time of death. How do we know this if we don't know when he was born?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.231.124 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wycliffe's Age 

message: A link was added to the "Anti-Wycliffe synod" section to the website for WebTruth.org - is this a reliable source? Their "About Us" page says,  Because the source is biased doesn't mean that they get historical facts wrong, but the WebTruth article on Wycliffe is anonymous and cites only one source, and that's about Wycliffe's exhumation 30 years after his burial, so it seems rather sketchy as a source for the Wikipedia article on Wycliffe - I feel we need a better source - Epinoia (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source? 

message: "From his frequent references to it in later life, it appears to have made a deep and abiding impression upon him.". I have a feeling that means Bradwardine's book, not the plague.  Is that right? 82.69.198.222 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life