Talk:Lollardy

message: I don't see how it could be stamped out in the early 15th Century if Thomas Harding was not executed until 1532. -- David Martland 13:51 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:My question is also the one above.  This should be addressed.
Rlquall 20:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stamped out

message: 1) Lollardy appears not to have been stamped out, but rather rolled into the English Reformation.  However, references to it seem to dribble down after the 15th cent.  Erasmus mentions it as suppressed but not extinguished, according to Bartleby: http://www.bartleby.com/212/0216.html.
2) The article should probably clarify the relationship between the Lollards and Wycliffe.  My understanding is that the Lollards were direct followers of Wycliffe (source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09333a.htm) (source: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/varia/lollards/lollards.html).
3) There is a document which purports to be the Lollard confession called the 12 Conclusions of the Lollards.  Its source is one hostile to Lollardism (from one Roger Dymok, who presented it for the purpose of refuting the 12 Conclusions), but it is a primary source.  Perhaps it should be linked in?
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/varia/lollards/lollconc.htm
4) The withdrawal of John of Gaunt's support is alleged to be the result of Wycliffe's repudiation of transubstantiation.  This needs further research.  (source: http://www.island-of-freedom.com/WYCLIFFE.HTM)
--jrcagle 21:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. thoughts 

message: Is there any reason to qualify the word 'abortion' with the word 'even'. I really don't know so I didn't take it out. YAC (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good observation.  As a Church historian, my understanding is that Lollards did not take a position on abortion because it was not at the time an established clinical procedure; the Catholic Church itself did not decree its specific opposition to such procedures until 1884 (although of course the Church's objections to infanticide, and other general teachings later understood to support its stand against abortion, date back to Roman times).  I don't know of any documentation of Lollard expressions of belief about this issue from the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century; if anyone has a citation from a reliable source, they could re-insert and source said claim. Clevelander96 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To those who have re-inserted this passage: there are issues here which self-sourced Wikipedia refs don't really address. The original passage from the Twelve Conclusions reads: "for thou sleying of chidlren or they bin cristened, aborcife and stroying of kinde be medicine ben ful synful", which seems to refer to abortifacient herbs or remedies, the efficacy of which is uncertain.  On top of this, the "XII Conclusions" is a document only of what the authorities of the English Church claimed that the Lollards believed, not a statement of the Lollards' own avowed beliefs; it is in essence hearsay.  What would be needed here to source the statement as written would be a documented claim by an avowed Lollard or sympathizer that this was in fact their belief.  Dr. Anne Hudson's The Premature Reformation (Oxford UP) would be a good source to check.  Clevelander96 (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your skepticism of the "Twelve Conclusions" odd. The Wikisource page is referenced and matches the other versions that can be found online.  While the Conclusions are only preserved in a Lollard opponent's text, I haven't found anything that suggests that they are inaccurately preserved.  I haven't found anyone who suggests that the Conclusions are inaccurate, and several other sources use it as a basis for Lollard beliefs. Anne Hudson includes the Conclusions in "Selections from English Wycliffite Writings." (In Google Books, I could read the section with the text but I couldn't read any commentary, so I don't know what Hudson's exact take on the text is).The Conclusions also seem to fit with other sources of Lollard beliefs. Could you provide some reference that indicates that the Conclusions should be treated as "hearsay"? Also, the efficacy of abortifacients does not matter. When a group opposes something, they oppose it--even if it is ineffective.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If you can obtain Hudson's book in full, you will see the care she takes with this issue.  Hudson's view is that we should neither discard the 12 Conclusions nor should we see them as necessarily an accurate description of Lollard beliefs. It's kind of like relying on the McCarthy/HUAC hearings for accurate information about actual American Communists.  There are some issues listed among the 12 conclusions which seem to have been important only to a very few "Lollards" (e.g. members of the faculty of theology at Oxford who were among Wycliffe's early supporters) which there are others which seem to have been both widespread and persistent.  One should also recall that the claim that persons provided abortifacients were used against the Jews, Gypsies, and old village wise-women, so it may be partly or mostly innuendo.  I will have a look at Hudson's book the next time I am at the library and will quote in what I can find where she specifically addresses this specific conclusion.  Clevelander96 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your point regarding claims of people providing abortifacients. Thanks for looking up the Hudson. I don't have access to a decent library anymore.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs 

message: Moved from User talk:Jim10701
I just noticed your recent change to the caption in the image in Lollardy.  In fact, we do not know the extent of Wycliffe's personal contributions to the first translation of the Bible that came to bear his name; it may be that parts were done under his supervision, but it was (at least principally) the work of Nicholas of Hereford, John Purvey, and possibly John Trevisa. The second version, which was the one actually disseminated by his followers, was almost certainly not his work, as was dead by the time it was completed.  Thus, the idea of him personally sending forth "his" Bible into the world is apocryphal, although in symbolic terms quite understandable.  The caption was an (perhaps clumsy) attempt to clarify that -- I do think some sort of indication needs to be made.  Clevelander96 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and don't altogether disagree with your point, but is it really necessary to make it in the caption of this picture? Maybe I could have explained my change better by saying that the part I removed makes for a very ungainly caption that primarily just distracts from the article in which it appears; it certainly distracted me. You don't contest Wycliffe's influence on the Lollards, so why interject here a detail that is pretty much irrelevant to this article about them? As you noted, the symbolism of the picture is plausible, and that's what seems relevant here.Information about the extent of Wycliffe's actual contribution to the Bible translation named for him is in the articles about both him and the translation. Besides, saying he had "little to do with" the translation seems execessive. I'm no expert, but at least some who are credit him with translating some or all of the New Testament himself; even if later editors revised his work, that's hardly a "little" contribution. Maybe simply adding a link in the caption to one or both of those articles, where these issues are discussed in more detail, would be a reasonable solution. This caption just doesn't seem like the proper place to address such a complex and contentious issue.I think you'd agree that it's not entirely absurd that the translation is named for him, since it's unlikely it would have been made otherwise, at least at that time. Putting details about his involvement in this caption, though, seems not unlike reminding readers any time the King James Version is mentioned that King James did not actually translate it himself. That is true too, and there'd be better justification for that than this, in my opinion, but is making that kind of point relevant in every context?Thanks for taking the time and trouble to come here and express your point so thoroughly and clearly. If you feel strongly enough about it to undo my change, please do so, with my blessing. One of the delights of Wikipedia is that it is and always will be a colossal, imperfect, ever-morphing mess. Why should I object to one slightly imperfect caption?--Jim10701 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had another idea. Maybe the caption could say that the event pictured is symbolic, since Wycliffe himself was dead by the time the Lollards began using his translation. That, I think, would address your concern without opening a can of worms.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption of Wycliffe/Lollard picture 

message: If the word Lollard means mumbler, were these followers of Wycliff "charasmatic"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mumbler 

message: The map used in the article uses "Lollardry" with another 'r'.
"Lollardry" sounds, maybe, 100 or 200 times better than "Lollardy", which sounds like it should be a town in France.
A quick check online shows sites using the phrasing "Lollardry or Lollardy", assigning the precedence to the double 'r' version.
So why do we have "Lollardy"?
Varlaam (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lollardy" is the correct form. Godtres (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lollardy" or "Lollardry"? 

message: I agree that the Lollard beliefs on the Eucharist should be discussed in more detail but not in the overview of the beliefs section. This article is still really short! I will work on expanding it starting with a section about the Eucharist. Consubstantian is a bit complicated as scholars have written different things about it, and its influence on Lutheranism. We know Lollardy rejected the Catholic doctrine, this is the most basic version stated in overview encylcopedia articles and I think that is the version suitable for the general beliefs section. I would suggest discussing more complex views that are debated amongst scholars in a separate section, that way readers can read it if they are interested and skip it if they are not, because it is more specialized information and that is how we structure Wikipedia articles. Seraphim System (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi User:Seraphim System! I now understand your point. If you move the facts that prominent Lollards advocated consubstantiation to another party of the article, I can accept that as a compromise. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think consubstantiation is used by the sources, but I see it used in quotation marks, so I've added those. There seems to be some overlap with Lutheranism - the OUP article seems to have trouble distinguishing between them. I get the sense that there may be a backward reading of Lutheranism into Lollardy, as some sources I've seen seem to indicate that Wycliffe himself is something of a mystery - but I will go with how the majority of WP:RS treat it. I will write up something a little more substantial about this after I've reviewed the sources, as our main article on consubstantiation is not in good shape. Seraphim System (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine for now. With regard to consubstantiation, it is not a Lutheran doctrine, but a Lollard doctrine. Lutherans teach the doctrine of sacramental union and explicitly reject consubstantiation for a similar reason that they reject transubstantiation--it is a philosophical term that attempts to explain the nature of the real presence. I hope this helps. Cheers, AnupamTalk 23:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what the sources say "Lutheran consubstantiation" from Cambridge University Press Seraphim System (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A plethora of other sources, such as this one indicate that some erroneously and mistakenly refer to consubstantiation as a Lutheran doctrine, despite the fact that Lutherans have repeatedly rejected it; the Lutheran doctrine is called 'sacramental union'. I hope this helps, AnupamTalk 00:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucharist 

message: Whilst here is reported that the Latin LOLLUM is translated with VETCH, I can give you the Italian meaning of LOLLA which is CHAFF.
It was probably an insult to their opinion?
Fascinating. Alexem82 (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The article says:  "Lollards also believed that people deserved access to a copy of their own Bible. Many attempted to distribute translated copies..."
Note that the Latin Vulgate was a translated copy of the Bible, but the Lollards wanted people to have a Bible in their own language. The article says that the Lollards "were certainly considerably energized by the translation of the Bible into the English language." It also says that "Sixteenth-century martyrologist John Foxe described four main beliefs of Lollardy: opposition to pilgrimages and saint worship, denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and a demand for English translation of the Scriptures."
Therefore, I propose to replace the words "Many attempted to distribute translated copies" by "Many attempted to distribute English copies". Mksword (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My drive-by mistake, thanks for clarifying. I restored "English". Eric talk 11:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lollards attempted to distribute English copies of the Bible 

message: Redirect "Lollardy" to Lollard. I have never heard of Lollardy the practice, only of a "lollard", a lazy person, traceable back to a religious dissident in England as described in the wiki.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyvipond (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Lollardy is a common term, so a move should not be made on that ground. As as noted, Lollard has other meanings. On the other hand, I would note that the Hussites article is named after the people, not the movement unlike this one... Godtres (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to Lollard