[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.

[vladimir998]

“Strange that they didn’t burn Origen’s (gnosticism) or Pelagius’ (saved by works) writings...”

Who says they didn’t? How many of Pelagius’ major works survive intact? We have some of his letters and statements. Most else is “reconstructed”. See for yourself: http://www.libraryoftheology.com/pelagianismwritings.html

Origen’s books were proscribed and burned multiple times: https://books.google.com/books?id=riEdrWEDFq0C&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=burned+the+works+of+origen&source=bl&ots=jVnoLRVVL4&sig=vTg14nA3bwk-Y_k51A4RM6ghVtc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAzgKahUKEwiIwvy__8nGAhUFIKwKHd5ICMg#v=onepage&q=burned%20the%20works%20of%20origen&f=false

“There are all sorts of church fathers that wrote heresy.”

Origen is usually not counted as a Church Father. His reputation has largely been rehabilitated in the last century, however.

“the allegiance of Christendom was being claimed by two popes.”

No, there was only one. There were two men - and then three - all claiming to be pope. The CE is NOT saying they were both popes only that “the allegiance of Christendom was being claimed by two popes” - meaning two men claiming to be pope. See here for how they put it: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

“With all due respect this is not false.”

Nope. It is false. There was ONE pope. And people at the time knew it. No one believed there was more than one pope. They just disagreed over who was the valid pope. This is why the same CE you just relied on says: “Was the real pope to be found at Avignon or at Rome?”

“However, there was a time when, according to Catholic documents, there were four sets of Catholics all saying the same thing.”

And anyone who can think would know that doesn’t affect the issue in itself. There are a dozen people AT LEAST in the world today claiming to be pope. Only one is - Pope Francis.

And then we see the usual anti-Catholic blunder:

“Perhaps the Vatican should have burned some of their own documents instead of Wycliff.”

Wycliffe wasn’t burned. He died in his bed at his rural parish. His remains - which couldn’t have been much - were burned about 43 years later. The man Wycliffe was never burned.

Also, just so you know, Origen actually deliberately cited Gnostic views and then REFUTED THEM. See the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. 4a (Gospel of John 1-10), edited by Joel C. Elowsky, page xix, InterVarsity Press Academic, (2007).

It’s the information age. There’s no reason for ANYONE to be ignorant Western world.

[dangus]

The Catholic Encyclopedia you keep citing is a work of English-speaking, mid-western laity in 1919 who lacked any access to any Latin-language library. It’s not heretical, but it hardly serves as the final word in Catholic belief.

It is quite true that often the electors of anti-popes believed themselves to be validly electing a pope. It is NOT true that the anti-pope simply lost some power struggle and was later deemed not a pope. In fact, in a couple of instances, to heal schisms, the valid pope resigned in favor of an anti-pope who then became valid. Nor have popes been declared anti-popes to cover up for some heresy they have promulgated. In fact, the first major anti-pope was declared a saint (Hippolytus).

The most common cause of an anti-pope is that an election was found to be irregular, either because it was without genuine cause. In the case of the Western Schism, the Avignon line, while perhaps more virtuous, was regarded as anti-popes because there was quite plainly no legitimate basis for selecting a new pope.

Ironically, it was the Western Schism that made Hus a pacifist, but it was the Council of Constance which peacefully healed the Western Schism that condemned Hus. Apparently, once his grand cause was resolved, he only increased the severity of his attacks.

The Western Schism resolved that the Avignon papacy was plainly legally baseless, but the Roman pope resigned to bring peace.