Why did the Catholic Church dig up the grave of John Wycliffe and burn his remains?

Question

What crime did he commit that warranted this unique historic reaction?

Oh Mischelle, if the other translations were so readily available, then why did Wycliffe risk his life, and send his preachers out to be butchered if it was true?

The Catholic church has taken a 'softer' line about the Bible only because of the Reformation. Prior to that it did everything it could to dicourage the common man from knowing the scriptures.

Answer 1

Back in the 1300s, John Wycliffe was an orthodox Roman Catholic with a doctorate in theology who took issues with certain Roman Catholic beliefs. He held to the position that the Bible alone contained the truth. He did not agree with papal infallibility or the doctrine of "transubstantiation."Wycliffe also produced the first complete English version of the Latin Bible, making it available to the common man which was considered a heresy then. They dug up his bones and burned them because they considered him a heretic for opposing the Roman Catholic Church's authority.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, he made several mistakes, including the suggestion that the Church should be poor and that the King should have the power to remove lands and money from wealthy orders. This did not set well with some of the orders of monks which held considerable land and property. That would have been bad enough, but the Papacy was at war at the time with the Florentines, and money was tight. The idea of the King being able to confiscate wealthy orders' property and money to force them to comply with the ideal of poverty didn't set well with the Pope. His second major no-no was the one that probably got him in the most heretical hot water: he proposed the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura," the idea that the Bible alone is the basis for all doctrine. This is directly opposed to the Church's teaching that sacred tradition and Scripture are the foundations of doctrine. Wycliffe's political naivete and doctrinal errors are what caused him to be declared a heretic, not his translation of the Vulgate into common speech. Edit: Until comparatively recently in history, heresy has always been a serious issue to both Protestants and Catholics. Both Protestant and Catholic monarchs and religious leaders have had heretics burned at the stake -- and we're talking living human beings, not bones. Loving a "heretic" enemy hasn't been on a whole lot of people's agendas since religion began, as far as I can tell.

Answer 3

He translated the first Bible into the English language. This pissed off the Catholic Church because laypersons could now read the Bible, as opposed to the Vulgate Bible which was in Latin and incomprehensible to most non-clergy. Now that non-clergy could read the Bible, they could see that scripture was radically different from the doctrines of the Church.

Answer 4

Actually that is the problem. People believe that Wycliffe 'translated the Latin Vulgate into English'. He did not.

If he did, he took out verses, words, chapters. That isn't translation that is creating a new work.

The first Latin Vulgate that was translated into English was done in the 8th century by the Venerable Bede.

Come on people, learn some history!

Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

Response to your "Additional Details":

Your asking ME why Wycliffe sent out HIS preachers to die for HIS translation of HIS Bible? I don't have a time machine and can't ask him. But I'd rather die for the Bible that Christ's Bride established as the true Word of God, by the Priests that Christ himself instituted.

Let's explore, very briefly; some of the things he did to HIS Bible and HIS translation. I know your intelligent so follow me on this, okay?

In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.

Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages. Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean. I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.

In 1345, Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English. He had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.

There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', "jew". At the time, there was no printing press.

Now, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes... I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you. I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ' gyu ', then ' giu ', then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced like the ' j '. Julius Caesar is ' Iul ' because there is no 'j' in Latin) then ' iuw ', then ' ieuu ', then ' ieuy ', then ' iwe ', then ' iow ', then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on. Then ' ieue ', then ' iue ', then ' ive ', and then ' ivw ', and finally in the 18th century... ' jew '. Jew.

A "Jew" was, for the most part (I say "most part" because I have not examined every single passage in Scripture that makes reference to the Jews) an Israelite who lived in/around/near Jerusalem and its surrounding territories, and practiced the religion established in the Deuteronomic Law. The two remaining tribes in the south (Judah and Benjamin) retained the true "apostolic succession" (I use this word to get the idea across to a Catholic reader). The Davidic Kingdom, the kingdom established by God, was centered in Judah. Judah was, if you will, the Holy See of sorts; and this was where the legitimate Davidic succession was found.

So, in a real sense, a "Jew" was not just someone who lived in this particular geographic area, but was an Israelite who retained "full communion" with the Davidic See and the True Religion.

All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian -- will admit that there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu' -- Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to short up.

Yet....here we have a complaint about Wycliffe...don't you see how ridiculous this has gotten? The translation of his (and all subsequent ones thereafter)? He changed the meaning of things that are important...and that further shows he did not have the God given divine inspiration to make the known Bible into English...because he botched it up so bad. Now this is ONE example that I can share. The point is also that if he could botch up Judaius to Jew...hmmm what about other words, passages and chapters? Makes it very suspect.

Hope this helps!

Many blessings

Answer 5

At the time superstition. He translated the Latin Vulgate into English in the 14th century which the Catholic church did not like branding him a heretic. Long after his death, they exhumed his body and burned it, and was not UNIQUE actions the catholic church took against those whom they felt opposed their views. There is one "problem" in these "views" though, since if Wycliffe was only the "translator" why didn't they BURN the "originator" of the one who wrote the Latin Vulgate?, Jerome, one of their "Popes." You see I have "read" the Latin Vulgate and it is NOT written as English version which are in the present world. Within the Latin Vulgate is the NAME of "God in heaven," and it is NOT the name of the "Jewish God." It is the NAME of the ancient God of EGYPT.....................

Answer 6

This is normal behaviour when religious groups have too much power. He challenged the spiritual authority of the church.

Answer 7

I didn't know they did that. Interesting...

Answer 8

Because they had the right.

Answer 9

no clue