wycliffe: hero or loose canon?

[Liberasit]

Absolutely.

Oxford University's evangelical theological college is named after Wycliffe and their alumni are outstanding. There's prestige in his name.

 

[Open Heart]

Pure saints almost never exist. In almost all cases, a person excels in one area and screws up in others. We call Athanasius a saint because of his brilliance in areas of orthodoxy. Yet far from being meek and humble, he ran his bishopric like a Godfather.

Most of the individuals and groups that Protestants adore (usually because they were "victimized" by Rome) are rather kooky when you look at them in full. I'm just saying the same goes for those that we Catholics idolize.

 

[Rick Otto]

John of Gaunt was his protector, he didn't stand up to him

I said, "the biggest", not "every".

 

[MoreCoffee]

I said, "the biggest", not "every".

John of Gaunt was the biggest.

 

[Architeuthus]

Absolutely.

Oxford University's evangelical theological college is named after Wycliffe and their alumni are outstanding. There's prestige in his name.

The Wycliffe Window:

 

[Rick Otto]

John of Gaunt was the biggest.

How so? You said yourself he was Wycliffe's protector, implying he had worse enemies.
Did Gaunt want Wycliffe killed?

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm thinkin' this wiki entry gives us a clue who his biggest enemy was:

John Wycliffe (/ˈwɪklɪf/; also spelled Wyclif,Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, Wickliffe; c. 1331 – 31 December 1384)[1] was an English Scholastic philosopher, theologian, lay preacher, translator, reformer and university teacher at Oxford in England. He was an influential dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. His followers were known asLollards, a somewhat rebellious movement, which preached anticlerical and biblically-centred reforms. The Lollard movement was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation. He has been characterized as the evening star of scholasticism and the Morning Star of the Reformation.[2][3] He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority over secularpower. In assessing Wycliffe’s historical role,Lacey Baldwin Smith argues that Wycliffe expounded three doctrines that the established church recognized as major threats. First was his emphasis upon an individual's interpretation of the Bible as the best guide to a moral life, as opposed to the Church’s emphasis on receiving its sacraments as the only way to salvation. Second he insisted that holiness of an individual was more important than official office; that is, a truly pious person was morally superior to a wicked ordained cleric. Wycliffe challenged the privileged status of the clergy, which was central to their powerful role in England. Finally he attacked the exorbitant luxury and pomp of the churches and their ceremonies.[4]

 

[brinny]

He stood up to the biggest villains of his day, so... hero.

On this alone, he's got my vote.

 

[brinny]

I'm thinkin' this wiki entry gives us a clue who his biggest enemy was:

John Wycliffe (/ˈwɪklɪf/; also spelled Wyclif,Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, Wickliffe; c. 1331 – 31 December 1384)[1] was an English Scholastic philosopher, theologian, lay preacher, translator, reformer and university teacher at Oxford in England. He was an influential dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. His followers were known asLollards, a somewhat rebellious movement, which preached anticlerical and biblically-centred reforms. The Lollard movement was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation. He has been characterized as the evening star of scholasticism and the Morning Star of the Reformation.[2][3] He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority over secularpower. In assessing Wycliffe’s historical role,Lacey Baldwin Smith argues that Wycliffe expounded three doctrines that the established church recognized as major threats. First was his emphasis upon an individual's interpretation of the Bible as the best guide to a moral life, as opposed to the Church’s emphasis on receiving its sacraments as the only way to salvation. Second he insisted that holiness of an individual was more important than official office; that is, a truly pious person was morally superior to a wicked ordained cleric. Wycliffe challenged the privileged status of the clergy, which was central to their powerful role in England. Finally he attacked the exorbitant luxury and pomp of the churches and their ceremonies.[4]

he was a HERO, mon.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How so? You said yourself he was Wycliffe's protector, implying he had worse enemies.
Did Gaunt want Wycliffe killed?

No implication of "worse enemies" is present in my earlier post.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm thinkin' this wiki entry gives us a clue who his biggest enemy was:

John Wycliffe (/ˈwɪklɪf/; also spelled Wyclif,Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, Wickliffe; c. 1331 – 31 December 1384)[1] was an English Scholastic philosopher, theologian, lay preacher, translator, reformer and university teacher at Oxford in England. ...

I note that your post's unnamed source is Wikipedia. A better source would be Encyclopaedia Britannica or another well known and high reputation encyclopaedia. Here is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about the gentleman:

John Wycliffe, Wycliffe also spelled Wycliff, Wyclif, Wicliffe, orWiclif (born c. 1330, Yorkshire, England—died December 31, 1384, Lutterworth, Leicestershire), English theologian, philosopher, church reformer, and promoter of the first complete translation of the Bible into English. He was one of the forerunners of the Protestant Reformation. The politico-ecclesiastical theories that he developed required the church to give up its worldly possessions, and in 1378 he began a systematic attack on the beliefs and practices of the church. The Lollards, a heretical group, propagated his controversial views.
...
Wycliffe’s attack on the church
He returned to Lutterworth and, from the seclusion of his study, began a systematic attack on the beliefs and practices of the church. Theologically, this was facilitated by a strong predestinarianismthat enabled him to believe in the “invisible” church of the elect, constituted of those predestined to be saved, rather than in the “visible” church of Rome—that is, in the organized, institutional church of his day. But his chief target was the doctrine of transubstantiation—that the substance of the bread and wine used in the Eucharist is changed into the body and blood of Christ. As a Realist philosopher—believing that universal concepts have a real existence—he attacked it because, in the annihilation of the substance of bread and wine, the cessation of being was involved. He then proceeded on a broader front and condemned the doctrine as idolatrous and unscriptural. He sought to replace it with a doctrine of remanence (remaining)—“This is very bread after the consecration”—combined with an assertion of the Real Presence in a noncorporeal form.

Meanwhile, he pressed his attack ecclesiastically. The pope, the cardinals, the clergy in remunerative secular employment, the monks, and the friars were all castigated in language that was bitter even for 14th-century religious controversy. For this exercise, Wycliffe was well equipped. His restless, probing mind was complemented by a quick temper and a sustained capacity for invective. Few writers have damned their opponents’ opinions and sometimes, it would appear, the opponents themselves, more comprehensively.

Yet most scholars agree that Wycliffe was a virtuous man. Proud and mistaken as he sometimes was, he gives an overall impression of sincerity. Disappointed as he may have been over his failure to receive desirable church posts, his attack on the church was not simply born of anger. It carried the marks of moral earnestness and a genuine desire for reform. He set himself up against the greatest organization on earth because he sincerely believed that organization was wrong, and if he said so in abusive terms he had the grace to confess it. Neither must his ingenuousness be forgotten. There was nothing calculated about the way in which he published his opinions on the Eucharist, and the fact that he was not calculating cost him—in all probability—the support of John of Gaunt and of not a few friends at Oxford. He could afford to lose neither.
...
Assessment
It is no wonder that such a controversial figure produced—and still produces—a wide variety of reactions. The monks and friars retaliated, immediately and fiercely, against his denunciations of them, but such criticism grew less as the Reformation approached. Most of Wycliffe’s post-Reformation, Protestant biographers see him as the first Reformer, fighting almost alone the hosts of medieval wickedness. There has now been a reaction to this, and some modern scholars have attacked this view as the delusion of uncritical admirers. The question “Which is the real John Wycliffe?” is almost certainly unanswerable after 600 years.​

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't think it was much better.
For instance, it characterised his criticism as as "attack", and on the church rather than on its policies, and it wrote as if it was the only visible, organised institution of his day, when clearly this was after 1054 when "the church" had split and become two churches. It may have been the only visible church of his neighborhood, but not of his day.
I'm sure there's more wrong with it, but that much stood out at a glance.
I'll stay with Wiki, even though it does show FBI and Vatican influence as well, thanks.

And none of it explains your remark about John Gaunt needing to be stood up to by Wycliffe.