[vladimir998]

“To light the fires under John Hus feet with Wyclyff’s bible, simply shows the hatred that existed in the Catholic Church in wanting people to know what the scriptures actually said.”

All of Wycliffe’s books were burned because they contained heresy. I have no idea if any copies of his translation were burned under Huss. Wycliff’e Bibles often had heretical notes.

“BTW-this was an interesting time in the Catholic Church when there were multiple popes running around.”

False. There was only one pope. There were several men claiming to be pope. Today there are no less than a dozen people in the world claiming to be pope. Only one of them is the pope - Pope Francis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#Modern_claimants_to_papacy

[HarleyD]

All of Wycliffe’s books were burned because they contained heresy.

Strange that they didn't burn Origen's (gnosticism) or Pelagius' (saved by works) writings who also wrote heretical doctrine condemned by the Church. There are all sorts of church fathers that wrote heresy.

But I did do a Google on John Wycliffe heresy documents and the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that they didn't like Wycliffe's view on Transsubstantiation. Please note the following:

Thus by 1380 Wyclif had set himself in open opposition to the property and government of the Church, he had attacked the pope in most unmeasured terms, he had begun to treat the Bible as the chief and almost the only test of orthodoxy, and to lay more and more stress on preaching. Yet he would have protested against an accusation of heresy. Great freedom was allowed to speculation in the schools, and there was much uncertainty about clerical property. Even the exclusive use of Scripture as a standard of faith was comprehensible at a time when the allegiance of Christendom was being claimed by two popes. It must be added that Wyclif frequently inserted qualifying or explanatory clauses in his propositions, and that, in form at least, he would declare his readiness to submit his opinions to the judgment of the Church. It seems to have been a time of much uncertainty in matters of faith, and the Lollard movement in its earlier stages is remarkable for a readiness of recantation. Wyclif's heretical position became, however, much more pronounced when he denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation. His own position is not quite clear or consistent, but it seems to approach the Lutheran "consubstantiation", for he applied to the Blessed Eucharist his metaphysical principle that annihilation is impossible. To attack so fundamental a doctrine tended to define the position of Wyclif and his followers. Henceforth they tend to become a people apart.

Catholic Encyclopedia

False. There was only one pope. There were several men claiming to be pope.

With all due respect this is not false. Please note the following history:

Apologizing for centuries of pandemonium caused by popes at war, and giving a smear of whitewash to their actions, the Vatican admitted that at the time of Pope Alexander II (1061-73) ‘the Church was torn by the schisms of anti-popes, simony, and clerical incontinence’¹ and the mayhem continued unabated. An anti-pope was a face-saving title given to popes who the Vatican later presented as unlawfully appointed while another pope reigned. However, that distinction is purely arbitrary for all papal contenders were legally elected opponents, each with a formidable military faction, armed Curias and blood-sodden prelates. This confession from the Vatican:
‘At various times in the history of the church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant. According to [Cardinal] Hergenrother (d. 1890), there are 29 [doublet and triplet sets] in the following order [naming them] beginning about 200 A.D. and extending down to 1449.²

The Vatican has yet to answer these simple questions; ‘Which pope of the double or triple inhabitants of the papal chair(s) was the ‘true occupant’, and what factors made him the legal pope? Contenders for the office were elected at formal and uncontested enclaves, sometimes on the same day, and on many occasions multiple popes shared the Lateran Palace in Rome.³ From what records are available, it appears that for centuries a plurality of ruling popes was standard Catholic operational procedure, and that makes a mockery of the Vatican’s claim of a singular ‘apostolic successor’.

Four papal chairs

There is more to this peculiar side of Vatican history and it is found in an old book called Secrets of the Christian Fathers, written in 1685 by Bishop J. W. Sergerus. The author provides evidence from Vatican documents that at some periods in Church history there were four popes occupying the papal chair(s), each in separate buildings, operating independently with his own staff, and he names them. One example is that of the self-declared Pope Benedict XIV (1425) who for years rivalled popes Benedict XIII (1427), Clement VIII (1429), and Martin V (1431). Church historians today ingeniously refer to the fourth member of the quadruple grouping of popes as ‘a counter anti-pope’.4

¹Catholic Encyclopedia, i, 541
²Catholic Encyclopedia, i, 582
³The Criminal History of the Papacy, Tony Bushby, NEXUS Magazine article, 2006
4The Popes, A Concise Biographical History, Burns and Oates, Publishers to the Holy See, London, 1964

When multiple popes ruled Christianity

I understand Catholics like to say that "their side won" and there was only one Pope. However, there was a time when, according to Catholic documents, there were four sets of Catholics all saying the same thing.

Perhaps the Vatican should have burned some of their own documents instead of Wycliff. It's dreadful that we have no documents to back up the Catholic claim that Wycliff was far worst than the genostic Origen or the saved by works Pelagius. Far worst is that we have only the Vatican's word that Wycliff and Hus should have been burned at the stake.