Essentially, the church’s teaching on the Eucharist promotes transubstantiation, which means that the bread and wine in the sacrament of Holy Communion miraculously turns into the real flesh and blood of Christ. Thus, Christ is literally present in the Eucharist. Earlier in Madigan’s discussion of Wyclif, he notes that, “some of [his] positions logically flowed from prior metaphysical and theological commitments” (Madigan 389). His tendency to utilize logic definitely lends to his treatment of the Eucharist. He believed that there was no miraculous transformation of the bread and wine, and that it was intended to symbolically represent Christ’s presence rather than literally. After all, in his “Conclusions”, he makes it obvious that the bread and the wine remain after people partake in communion. The Church found this idea threatening likely because it undermined the significance of the Eucharist altogether, as far as they were concerned. If Christ wasn’t present in the Eucharist, why do it? The undermining of a holy sacrament probably catalyzed the church’s fear of a diversion from the orthodox traditions.

Madigan speaks of the development of Wyclif’s ideas about dominion. Civil dominion, according to Madigan, was the holding of property and management of revenues. Essentially, Wyclif viewed the authority over property was not intrinsic to any office. Therefore, the pope should not hold authority over civil dominion. If anything, secular authorities should be responsible for them. In his “Conclusions”, Wyclif thoroughly undermines the authority of the Pope from several directions. For example, he states, “that since Urban VI, no one is to be acknowledged as pope; but all are to live, in the ways of the Greeks, under their own laws” (Conclusions). Although this doesn’t speak directly to the issue of dominion, it paints a clear picture of the attitude Wyclif held toward the pope exercising any power over the people. The church was adamantly opposed to Wyclif’s teaching likely because it threatened the Pope’s authority. Wyclif’s ideas could have catalyzed the overtaking of secular powers. According to Madigan, Wyclif thought that the more the church meddled with secular authority, the less it could carry out its true function of guiding the laity in living a life following Christ. Pope Gregory XI responded to the dominion by publishing a list of a multitude of errors in Wyclif’s works and also called for this examination and arrest.

Gregory depicts Wyclif as mad and says that he, “vomit[s] forth from the recesses of his breast, certain propositions and conclusions which are erroneous and false” (Bull of Pope Gregory XI). Essentially, Wyclif is crazy and is preaching his nutty, extremely heretical ideas to the entire University. He demands the University arrest John and send him to Canterbury. He leverages his papal authority in his letter by saying he would remove the favor granted to them by the apostolic see, which essentially would be a detriment to their salvation. He implores them to do all these things by “virtue of their sacred obedience” (Bull of Pope Gregory XI). According to him, it is a part of their duty to the church to abide by the requests of papal authority.

The response to this letter reveals the fragile nature of the papacy after the Great schism occurred. The tendency of the papacy to err towards manipulation exhibits its desperation to hang on to control. John Wyclif was condemning the church for straying from the apostolic lifestyle of poverty and preaching. He questioned the institution of the Orthodox Church, and thus inspired doubt in many followers as well. The Church needed to retain followers, especially after the turmoil the Great Schism created. This resolution is so far from that of King John of England with Pope Innocent III. King John had rendered homage and fealty in concession and essentially bowed down to Pope Innocent. The secular powers maintained the good graces of the Church along with its hope of salvation. The two powers came to an agreement because the secular conceded, whereas Wyclif and Pope Gregory continued to maintain their positions.

Wyclif articulates the true role of the Pope as, “obliged to the keeping of the gospel among all men that live here; for the Pope is the highest vicar that Christ has here in earth” (Reply to Summons 166). He is clear that the Pope’s role is to pursue virtuous living and teach the gospel. Christ is the head of the Church, and should be followed before the Pope is followed. He advised that, “the pope leave his worldly lordship to the worldly Lords, as Christ gave them (Reply to Summons 166). Basically, he reiterates the role of the pope as head of the church (behind Christ), and not as an excuse to meddle in secular affairs. His view of the papal function is grounded in the gospel. He believed in living as close to the apostolic model as possible, which meant voluntary and holy poverty as well as preaching. He also made it clear that it was his duty to follow God and not men. When Peter Waldo was implored to cease preaching, he decided he needed to follow God before men and live a holy, apostolic life. Because of Wyclif’s dedication to follow God and not men, he felt that going to Rome was against the will of God. He states that the Pope would be an Antichrist for having him summoned against the will of God.