The penalty for believing the scriptures instead of Catholicism

[JLB]

This thread is meant to be a companion thread to the other thread titled “the teachings of Catholicism vs scripture”.

OzSpen

I will simply post some testimonies from the Foxes book of Martyrs for all to read and discuss.


WORK AND PERSECUTION OF JOHN WYCLIFFE (ABOUT 1377-1384)


John Wycliffe was a native of Yorkshire, England. He studied at Oxford University where he majored in scholastic philosophy and theology, and later taught there, and became known as a brilliant scholastic theologian and the most respected debater of his time. In 1374 he entered royal service and was sent to Bruges, a city in northwest Belgium, to negotiate with the pope’s representatives on the issue of tribute payments to Rome, which all Roman Catholic monarchs were required to pay. For some time he was associated with John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, in his opposition to the influence of the church or the clergy in political affairs. During that time, Wycliffe attacked the rights claimed by the church, and called for a reformation of its wealth, corruption, and abuses. He considered the king to be the legitimate authority for purifying the church in England. His views were in radical opposition to the practices and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason prelates, friars, and priests rose against him and his followers, who were now called *Lollards. Wycliffe was an eminent Oxford scholar and philosopher. Even those who were enemies of his doctrines recognized this and were impressed by his strong and logical arguments. Years after Wycliffe’s death, one of them, a man named Walden, wrote to Pope Martin V and said, “I am wonderfully amazed by his most strong arguments, with the sources of authority that he gathers, and with the emotional intensity and force of his reasons.” Wycliffe’s influence came at a time when organized religion was depraved and corrupted. People gave lip-service to the things of the Lord, but they denied His converting power by the way they lived. The traditions and ceremonies of men were important to many, and few had a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. It was a time of spiritual blindness. Because they had no way of obtaining direct knowledge of the Scriptures, most people were led into realms of darkness and doubt, and taught by the clerics that the ceremonies and practices of the church would save them. The early Christians were persecuted and often martyred by the people of the world, but John Wycliffe had to face persecution from those who named the sacred name of Christ. The Catholic clergy were enraged by his teachings. They opposed him with every means possible. At first, only the friars and monks rose in opposition to Wycliffe. Then they were joined by the priests, bishops, and archbishops. One archbishop, Simon Sudbury, removed Wycliffe from his post at Oxford. Ultimately, the pope took measures against Wycliffe as well. For a period of time, Wycliffe had been able to avoid the power of the Catholic Church because of the intervention and favor he enjoyed from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and Lord Henry Percy, first earl of Northumberland, who was killed on February 20, 1408, in a rebellion against Henry IV at Bramham Moor. Eventually, however, even the support of these two noblemen proved fruitless, and in 1377 the bishops succeeded in inciting the archbishop, Simon Sudbury, to take action against Wycliffe. Sudbury had previously deprived Wycliffe of any means of teaching his “erroneous doctrines,” and now he summoned him to appear before a council of bishops. The secular leaders who supported Wycliffe found four friars who were willing to stand with Wycliffe in front of the bishops. The council was conducted at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. The dukes and barons sat together with the archbishops and bishops in Our Lady’s Chapel. Wycliffe was required to stand before them. Lord Percy told Wycliffe to take a seat because he had “many things to answer to,” and he would need to sit down. This angered the bishop of London who said Wycliffe should remain standing. An intense argument followed that lasted so long, the crowd became restless and began to voice their impatience, especially when the argument deteriorated into each side threatening the other—the secular side threatening with secular action against the clergy, and the religious side threatening with spiritual action against the noblemen. The argument ended when the Duke of Lancaster whispered an insult against the bishop of London to a person next to him loudly enough so all could hear it. This raised such an outcry from many of the crowd, who said they would not allow their bishop to be treated that way, that the meeting broke down entirely in scolding and brawling and the council was dissolved before nine o’clock that morning. It was not reconvened. Not long after Richard II succeeded his grandfather, Edward III, as king of England in 1377, the Roman bishops moved against Wycliffe again on the basis of several articles they extracted from his sermons.

1. The Holy Eucharist, after the consecration by a priest, is not the actual body of Christ.
2. The Church of Rome is not the head of all churches; nor did Peter have any more power given to him by Christ than to the other apostles.
3. The pope has no more the keys of the Church than does any other in the priesthood.
4. The Gospel by itself is a rul sufficient to rule the life of every Christian person on the earth, without any other rule.
5. All rules that are made to govern religious people add no more perfection to the Gospel of Jesus Christ than does white color to a wall.
6. Neither the pope, or any other *prelate, should have prisons in which to punish transgressors.

 

[JLB]

WORK AND PERSECUTION OF JOHN WYCLIFFE(ABOUT 1377-1384)

Continued ...

Wycliffe was commanded by the bishops and prelates to keep silent and not teach his doctrines, but he simply became stronger and bolder in his determination to teach the truth of the Scriptures. He continued to enjoy the support of many noblemen, and attempted again to stir up his doctrine among the common people. In the first year of King Richard II’s reign, the pope reacted by issuing a *bull directly to Oxford University, rebuking them sharply for not “excising the Wycliffe doctrine,” and for allowing it to be expressed so long as to take root. The proctors and masters of the University counseled among themselves as to whether they should honor the bull by receiving it, or refuse and reject it as something shameful. The bull stated: It has been made know to us by many trustworthy persons that one John Wycliffe, rector of Lutterworth, in the diocese of London, professor of divinity, has gone to such a level of detestable foolishness, that he does not fear to teach, and publicly preach, or rather to vomit out of the filthy dungeon of his breast, certain erroneous and false propositions and conclusions, savoring even of heretical moral corruption, that tend to weaken and overthrow the status of the whole Church, and even the secular government.
These opinions he is circulating in the realm of England, which is so glorious in power and abundance of wealth, but still more so for the shining purity of its faith, accustomed to producing men illustrious for their clear and sound knowledge of the Scriptures, mature in seriousness of manners, conspicuous for devotion, and bold defenders of the catholic faith. Some of Christ’s flock he is defiling with his doctrines, and misleading from the straight path of the sincere faith into the pit of perdition. Wherefore, being unwilling to ignore and thereby encourage so deadly a pest, we strictly charge that by our authority you seize or cause to be seized the said John, and send him under trusty keeping to our venerable brethren, the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London, or either of them. Two other letters from the pope indicated his strong feeling against John Wycliffe. One of these letters indicated that the pope wanted Wycliffe to appear before him if the bishops were not able to resolve the case within three months. The second was to the English bishops, exhorting them to admonish the secular authorities, including the king, not to give any credit to the doctrine of Wycliffe. These letters served to solidify the case against Wycliffe among the bishops, and they were determined to bring Wycliffe before them to receive the justice they perceived was due him for his heresies. But when the day for Wycliffe’s examination came, a person from the prince’s (King Richard II) court, named Lewis Clifford, entered in where the bishops were and commanded them not to proceed any further with a definite sentence against John Wycliffe. His words so stunned the bishops that many of them were speechless. And so, by the wonderful works of God’s providence, John Wycliffe escaped the bishops’ wrath a second time. Wycliffe was thrilled to have more time to teach and to preach. The more he did so, however, the more wrathful the bishops and other ecclesiastical authorities became. Then in March 1378, Pope Gregory XI, the leader who had stirred up much trouble for Wycliffe, died unexpectedly. This began the “Great Papal Schism” in the western church at Rome. It was a period of papal strife and confusion that continued until the Council of Constance elected Martin V as pope in 1417. Around the same time, for about three years, a violent division took place in England between the common people and the nobility. During the trouble, Simon of Sudbury, the archbishop of Canterbury, was taken by some of the more violent ones and beheaded. He was succeeded as prelate by William Courtney, a Catholic leader who was no less diligent in rooting out heretics. Nevertheless, Wycliffe’s sect of Lollards continued to grow to a greater force and influence in England until William Berton, the Chancellor of Oxford University, called together eight monastical doctors [monks] and four others, and issued an edict declaring severe penalties would be imposed upon anyone who associated with Wycliffe and his followers. Berton threatened Wycliffe himself with excommunication from the church and imprisonment. The edict gave Wycliffe and his followers three days to repent of their “misdeeds and false teachings.” In response, Wycliffe thought to bypass the pope and the clergy and make an appeal directly to the king. The Duke of Lancaster, however, forbade him to do so and said he should submit himself to the censure and judgment of the bishop of the dioceses. Thus
Wycliffe, surrounded by problems and adversaries, had to once again publicly state his doctrines before the Roman clergy. On St. Dunstan’s Day in 1382, around 2:00 in the afternoon, the archbishop of Canterbury and his assistants, certain doctors of divinity, lawyers, professors, and other clergy assembled at Blackfriars in London to consult with one another about Wycliffe’s books and teachings. At about that time, a devastating earthquake occurred throughout England. Many of those present at Wycliffe’s examination thought it was an omen, and some even suggested that they should abandon their purpose. The archbishop, however, said they were misinterpreting the meaning of the earthquake, and succeeded in encouraging them to continue their mission. He then read some of Wycliffe’s writings to the group, boldly declaring that his doctrine was clearly heretical inasmuch as it did not coincide with the traditions and teachings of the church. Not only were the teachings erroneous, the archbishop declared, but they were irreligious as well. Having been somewhat disarmed by the earthquake, the leaders were not totally convinced by the archbishop. One member reported that a similar natural phenomenon had happened at a particular church when a previous *disputation against Wycliffe had taken place. He said that the door of that church had been broken open with a bolt of lightning. The people who were there barely escaped the fires from heaven. The discussion of Wycliffe and his teachings went on for several hours. As a result of the meeting at Blackfriars, the archbishop of Canterbury sent a mandate to the bishop of London against John Wycliffe and his supporters: It is come to our hearing, that although, by church laws, no man, being forbidden or not sent, ought to take upon himself the office of preaching, publicly or privately, without the authority of the apostolic *see or of the bishop of the place; yet notwithstanding this, certain persons, who are sons of perdition hiding under the veil of great holiness, are brought into such a state of mind, that they take upon themselves authority to preach, and are not afraid to affirm, and teach, and generally, commonly, and publicly to preach, as well in the churches as in the streets, and also in many other common places of our said province, certain propositions and conclusions, heretical, erroneous, and false, condemned by the Church of God, and repugnant to the determinations of holy church; who also infect therewith very many good Christians; causing them lamentably to err from the catholic faith, without which there is no salvation. We therefore admonish and warn that no man henceforth, of whatever estate or condition, do hold, teach, preach, or defend the aforesaid heresies and errors, or any of them; nor that he hear or pay attention to any one preaching the said heresies or errors, or any of them; nor that he favor or support him, either publicly or privately; but that immediately he shun and avoid him, as he would avoid a serpent putting forth infectious poison; under pain of the greater curse. And furthermore, we command our fellow brethren, that of such presumptions they carefully and diligently inquire, and do proceed effectually against the same. At that same time, the new Chancellor of Oxford University was Master Robert Rygge, who apparently favored John Wycliffe and the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Often he blocked certain moves against Wycliffe and thus helped move forward the Gospel, which was then in great danger from church authorities.

 

[JLB]

WORK AND PERSECUTION OF JOHN WYCLIFFE(ABOUT 1377-1384)

Continued ...


Also, when sermons were needed to be given to the people, he sent ministers who he knew greatly favored John Wycliffe. Two of them were John Huntman and Walter Dish, who openly approved Wycliffe as much as they dared. Later that same year (1382), Philip Reppyngdon and Nicholas Hereford were appointed to preach to the people at the feast of the Ascension and at the Feast of Corpus Christi. They delivered pro-Wycliffe addresses in the cloister of St. Frideswide [now called Christ’s Church] before the people. Hereford said that Wycliffe was a faithful, good, and innocent man. The friars who were present were stunned by his presentation, and stood up in strong and vocal protest. The Carmelite Order of the church, led by a Peter Stokes, was particularly noisy against him. As the feast of Corpus Christi drew near, some of the friars wondered if Reppyngdon would give a presentation similar to the one delivered by Hereford. They began to appeal to the archbishop of Canterbury to block Reppyngdon’s sermon. Peter Stokes, the Carmelite, was appointed to defame the minister and the teachings of Wycliffe publicly, and the archbishop of Canterbury wrote to the Chancellor of Oxford, urging him to reconsider the appointment of Reppyngdon as the preacher at the feast of Corpus Christi. The chancellor grew bold in the face of this opposition, and he reprimanded the archbishop and Peter Stokes for undermining the authority of the university and troubling its peaceful state. He declared that the archbishop had no authority over the university and that the university would make its own decisions regarding these matters. He publicly stated that he would not assist the Carmelites in any way. Reppyngdon, therefore, went ahead with his sermon on the feast day. He said, “In all moral matters I will defend Master Wycliffe as a true catholic doctor.” He also praised the support that the Duke of Lancaster gave to the Gospel movement. He concluded his sermon by praising the work and ministry of John Wycliffe. When the sermon was over, Reppyngdon went into St Frideswide’s Church accompanied by many of his friends, who, as their enemies thought, had weapons concealed under their garments in case there was an attack against Reppyngdon. Friar Stokes, the Carmelite, hid himself in the church’s sanctuary, thinking that they were going to attack him, and did not dare to leave until Reppyngdon and his party did. Throughout the university there was great rejoicing over their chancellor’s boldness, and they were encouraged by Reppyngdon’s clear sermon. After a short time of banishment, Wycliffe was able to return to the parish of Lutterworth where he became parson [parish priest]. He died in his sleep on December 31, 1384, at the age of fifty-six. It was said of him: “the same thing pleased him in his old age that pleased him when he was young.” Wycliffe’s worst enemies were members of the clergy. But he also enjoyed the support of many of the common people and the nobility, among them John Clenbon, Lewis Clifford, Richard Stury, Thomas Latimer, William Nevil, and John Montague. After Wycliffe’s death, these men removed the statues and icons from his church in honor of his doctrines and teachings. The opposition to Wycliffe and his teachings continued for many years after his death. On May 4, 1415, the Council of Constance decreed: This holy council declares, determines, and gives sentence, that John Wycliffe was a notorious heretic, and that he died obstinate in his heresy; cursing alike him and condemning his memory. This council also decrees and ordains that his body and bones, if they might be discerned from the bodies of other faithful people, should be taken out of the ground, and thrown away, far from the burial of any church, according as the canons and laws direct. Thirty-one years after Wycliffe’s death, the Council of Constance removed his remains from their burial place, burned them, and threw the ashes into the river. His persecutors thought they would kill his continuing influence by such an act, but it was not to be so. In the same way that the Pharisees thought they had killed Christ, and put His body in a dark grave, thinking He was gone forever, the council who opposed John Wycliffe thought their symbolic act of disinterring the “heretic” and throwing away his ashes would kill his memory among his followers. But as the Pharsisees learned to their dismay, nothing could stop Jesus Christ, and nothing can stop the truth. Though they burned Wycliffe’s body and threw its ashes into the river, the Word of God and the truth of Wycliffe’s doctrines could not be destroyed, and others would soon continue the work he started.

 

[JLB]

Wycliffe's Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle Englishthat were made under the direction of John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395.[1] These Bible translations were the chief inspiration and chief cause of the Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In the early Middle Ages, most Western Christian people encountered the Bible only in the form of oral versions of scriptures, verses and homilies in Latin (other sources were mystery plays, usually performed in the vernacular, and popular iconography). Though relatively few people could read at this time, Wycliffe's idea was to translate the Bible into the vernacular, saying "it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence" (words).



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe's_Bible

 

[JLB]

John Stilman In 1518, John Stilman was charged for publicly speaking against worshipping images and praying to them and giving them offerings—also for denying the actual presence of Christ in the consecrated Eucharist, and for highly praising John Wycliffe and declaring that he was a saint in heaven. After being judged guilty and condemned by the Council of Bishops, he was delivered to the sheriffs of London and burned at Smithfield.

 

[JLB]

Joan (Warne) Lashford was the daughter of one Robert (or John) Warne, a cutler, who was persecuted for the Gospel of God and burned; and then was burned his wife, Elizabeth; and after her, their daughter Joan. Elizabeth Warne, whose husband had already been burned as a heretic, was arrested on January 1, 1555, while meeting for prayer with nine others in a house in Bow Churchyard, London. She was imprisoned in the Tower until June 11, and was then transferred to Newgate Prison, where she remained until July 2. On July 6, the ten prisoners were all brought before Bishop Bonner—so many were being persecuted at that time that they could no longer be judged separately. The names of the nine were George Tankervil, Robert Smith, Thomas Fust, Thomas Leyes, John Wade, Stephen Wade, George King, William Hall, and Joan (Warne) Lashford. The charges against them were not believing in the actual presence of the body of Christ in the consecrated Eucharist, not attending masses and speaking out against them, and speaking out also against the traditional Romish ceremonies and sacraments. Elizabeth was brought before the bishop several times and when threatened with burning told him, “Do with me what you will, I will not deny Christ. If I am in error, so was He.” On July 12, 1555, she and eight of the other nine were condemned as heretics and were burned the following month at Stratford-le-Bow. The tenth person not condemned and burned at that time was her daughter Joan. She was released for a period of time and arrested again a few months later. During the time that her father was in prison and later her mother, Joan ministered to them as well as she was able. At the time of her second arrest she was twenty years old and known to be of the same doctrine as her parents. When examined by Bishop Bonner, she fearlessly declared that she would neither attend a popish mass nor confess her sins to a priest. She was burned at the stake six months after her mother.

 

[Mungo]

The passionate intensity of the style, the vivid and picturesque dialogues made it very popular among Puritan and Low Church families down to the nineteenth century. Even the fantastically partisan church history of the earlier portion of the book, with its grotesque stories of popes and monks and its motley succession of witnesses to the truth (including the Albigenses, Grosseteste, Dante, and Savonarola) was accepted amongst simple folk and must have contributed much to anti-Catholic prejudices in England. When Foxe treats of his own times his work is of greater value as it contains many documents and is largely based on the reports of eyewitnesses; but he sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence. He was criticized in his own day by Catholics such as Harpsfield and Father Parsons and by practically all serious ecclesiastical historians.
(from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

[Mungo]

Joan (Warne) Lashford was the daughter of one Robert (or John) Warne, a cutler, who was persecuted for the Gospel of God and burned; and then was burned his wife, Elizabeth; and after her, their daughter Joan. Elizabeth Warne, whose husband had already been burned as a heretic, was arrested on January 1, 1555, while meeting for prayer with nine others in a house in Bow Churchyard, London. She was imprisoned in the Tower until June 11, and was then transferred to Newgate Prison, where she remained until July 2. On July 6, the ten prisoners were all brought before Bishop Bonner—so many were being persecuted at that time that they could no longer be judged separately. The names of the nine were George Tankervil, Robert Smith, Thomas Fust, Thomas Leyes, John Wade, Stephen Wade, George King, William Hall, and Joan (Warne) Lashford. The charges against them were not believing in the actual presence of the body of Christ in the consecrated Eucharist, not attending masses and speaking out against them, and speaking out also against the traditional Romish ceremonies and sacraments. Elizabeth was brought before the bishop several times and when threatened with burning told him, “Do with me what you will, I will not deny Christ. If I am in error, so was He.” On July 12, 1555, she and eight of the other nine were condemned as heretics and were burned the following month at Stratford-le-Bow. The tenth person not condemned and burned at that time was her daughter Joan. She was released for a period of time and arrested again a few months later. During the time that her father was in prison and later her mother, Joan ministered to them as well as she was able. At the time of her second arrest she was twenty years old and known to be of the same doctrine as her parents. When examined by Bishop Bonner, she fearlessly declared that she would neither attend a popish mass nor confess her sins to a priest. She was burned at the stake six months after her mother.

I can give many stories of atrocities by Protestants against Catholics. But I suggest that atrocity swapping is not helpful or upbuilding.

 

[Mungo]

Wycliffe's Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle Englishthat were made under the direction of John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395.[1] These Bible translations were the chief inspiration and chief cause of the Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In the early Middle Ages, most Western Christian people encountered the Bible only in the form of oral versions of scriptures, verses and homilies in Latin (other sources were mystery plays, usually performed in the vernacular, and popular iconography). Though relatively few people could read at this time, Wycliffe's idea was to translate the Bible into the vernacular, saying "it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence" (words).



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe's_Bible

The idea that the Bible was only made available in the vernacular by Wycliffe is a myth.

 

[JLB]

I can give many stories of atrocities by Protestants against Catholics. But I suggest that atrocity swapping is not helpful or upbuilding.

Why would the Pope and the Vatican have people burned alive for not wanting to worship images, or denying the bread and wine literally turn into Christ’s body and blood?


Do you believe it’s heresy for someone to not want to bow down and worship statues of Mary or pray to Mary?



JLB

 

[Mungo]

Why would the Pope and the Vatican have people burned alive for not wanting to worship images, or denying the bread and wine literally turn into Christ’s body and blood?

I do not believe that happened.
I would not take Foxe's book of martrys as evidence of anything.

Do you believe it’s heresy for someone to not want to bow down and worship statues of Mary or pray to Mary?

JLB

No.

No Catholic would bow down and worship a statue of Mary, nor should anyone..

 

[JLB]

No.

No Catholic would bow down and worship a statue of Mary, nor should anyone..

Thanks for your answer.


Some Catholics may not believe as you do.

 

[Mungo]

Thanks for your answer.


Some Catholics may not believe as you do.

How many?

Any Catholic that believes that a statue is a god and worships it is not a true Catholic because he/she is going against the clear teaching of the Church on a grave matter and is committing a grave sin. It is a primary truth of the Catholic faith that there is only one God.

 

[JLB]

How many?

Any Catholic that believes that a statue is a god and worships it is not a true Catholic because he/she is going against the clear teaching of the Church on a grave matter and is committing a grave sin. It is a primary truth of the Catholic faith that there is only one God.

So why pray to Mary?

 

[Mungo]

So why pray to Mary?

We already have a thread on that.

 

[JLB]

We already have a thread on that.

Why pray to people you can’t answer your prayer, or even hear you?

 

[Mungo]

Why pray to people you can’t answer your prayer, or even hear you?

We already have a thread on that.

 

[JLB]

We already have a thread on that.

You always dodge the question.

Why do you want to pray to people and not God?

 

[Mungo]

You always dodge the question.

Why do you want to pray to people and not God?

Been through this in the other thread.

This has become pointless. I'm exiting this thread.