The Waldensians

[PiousTemplar]

Hello, I have been reading about the Waldensians, but I am having trouble refuting this. My facts aren’t completely sound, I only started researching them today. Could someone give me a quick explanation?

The Waldensian people had been getting persecuted by ROME from the 12th century all the way through till the post-reformation age. While it is true that it was the French King Francis I that nearly exterminated them completely in 1545, their persecutions dated back to 1184 when Rome Persecuted their leader, Waldo. There are remnants still of this “sect” that emerged out of the Reformation as Anabaptists. History shows that it was ROME that persecuted them through the centuries…

I spend my time on facebook arguing with Seventh-Day-Adventists. I am not very good in my information of the Waldensians in order to refute claims such as this.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

It’s true for the most part. Two things are important to keep in mind though:

1. In 1170 Pope Alexander III scrutinized the beliefs of Waldo, the founder of the movement, and found them to be essentially correct *). He approved of their vow of poverty. But he ordered Waldo and his fellow men to preach only when invited by the local clergy. The bishops however were jealous about their own power and didn’t invite them to preach. The Waldensians then preached anyway, wherever they wanted. This brought them into conflict with Rome.
   Later their theology got more radical and anti-Catholic and they were persecuted as heretics.
2. It is quite a stretch to link the origin of the Anabaptists to the Waldensians. Although there are some historians who tried to establish this link, the theory is much disputed. Most historians agree that the Anabaptists arose (whether from a single region or from multiple regions during the same period) during the Reformation in the 16th century, centuries after the Waldensians were at their height.
   The link between Anabaptists and Waldensians is based on similar beliefs they hold, like anti-infant baptism and anti-clergy sentiments, but in general, they cannot be compared and claiming they share their roots is quite unhistorical.

*) Wikipedia, on it’s page on the Waldensians, cites a book by Foxe who wrote that Pope Alexander III already excommunicated Waldo and his followers in 1147, but that is certainly wrong, since Alexander III only became Pope in the year 1159!

 

[PiousTemplar]

Hmm… Is persecuted the right word? I don’t like the sound of Christ’s Church persecuting people…

 

[LongJohnSilver]

That’s understandable.

Read this article on the Inquisition in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It will give you a good perspective on such a delicate topic. It will also show that a lot of nonsense is said about the history of the Church.
newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

 

[Contarini]

Hello, I have been reading about the Waldensians, but I am having trouble refuting this. My facts aren’t completely sound, I only started researching them today. Could someone give me a quick explanation?

I spend my time on facebook arguing with Seventh-Day-Adventists. I am not very good in my information of the Waldensians in order to refute claims such as this.

The main error there is the claim that they became Anabaptists. While the medieval Waldenses had some things in common with the Anabaptists–their emphasis on ethical behavior and following Jesus–they became Reformed, not Anabaptists, in the 16th century.

Peter Waldo does not seem to have been particularly unorthodox–he was excommunicated for preaching without authorization. I believe that there’s evidence showing that he was reconciled to the Church before he died. Some of his followers certainly were, but others continued preaching on their own, and they eventually developed somewhat more unorthodox doctrines, though until the Reformation they considered themselves still in some sense part of the Catholic Church. They seem to have taken their children to Catholic priests to be baptized.

The two best scholars I know on the Waldenses are Gabriel Audisio and Euan Cameron. There’s a lot of disagreement in Waldensian scholarship, and in fact notonly do Audisio and Cameron differ from each other, but their own writings on the subject show considerable change and development. The sources are fragmentary and it’s hard to avoid a lot of speculation. This gives free rein to fundamentalist fantasies. The example you gave is pretty moderate and accurate, really–many fundamentalists claim that the Waldenses didn’t originate with Waldo but were hiding out in the mountains ever since the fourth century.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hmm… Is persecuted the right word? I don’t like the sound of Christ’s Church persecuting people…

Well, you may not like it, but it happened.

Waldo wasn’t persecuted in any particularly harsh way–he was just forbidden to preach. Eventually, though, the Waldenses were defined as heretics, and some of them were burned at the stake. Starting in the 14th century there were crusades against them.

So yes, they were persecuted.

Being deep in history, and all that, can sometimes be uncomfortable for Catholics as well as for Protestants.

Edwin

 

[PiousTemplar]

Thanks!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well, you may not like it, but it happened.

Waldo wasn’t persecuted in any particularly harsh way–he was just forbidden to preach. Eventually, though, the Waldenses were defined as heretics, and some of them were burned at the stake. Starting in the 14th century there were crusades against them.

So yes, they were persecuted.

Being deep in history, and all that, can sometimes be uncomfortable for Catholics as well as for Protestants.

Edwin

The Catholic Church does not have no authority nor has she ever practiced “captial punishment”. This take of burning at the stake gets distorted from the actual facts.

For one, although the secular powers who excercised capital punishments, were at times loyal to the pope and their bishops and were baptised Catholics. This never means that the Pope or the Catholic Church excercised capital punishment.

This historic view comes from anti-Catholics who tend to mix “what belongs to Caesar with what belongs to God”.

This history should also be noted that most bishops at this time were selected by Kings, and princes at the objection from the popes, which history records these secular bishops acting as government officials not for the Catholic Church. This was one of the main problems that brought on the reformation.

Don’t get dupped by false anti-catholic sentiments, because the term “Rome” is used during this history. SDA’s tend to exaggerate the facts.

Peter Waldo, was a Catholic, he disobeyed his bishops and the Popes. His teachings became very extreme in the sense of fasting its members to death, suicide became common practice, and abused the sacraments etc… The Pope tried to work with them, and because they had no cell phones or gas stations at this time, the Catholic governments not the Catholic Church took upon themselves after the bishops found them to be teaching heresy, the Catholic governments excercised “capital” punishments to rid them from their boundaries.

Had the Popes and bishops excercised any capital punishments on peoples under a secular King, there would of been a worst reformation with much more blood shed. Common sense rules here.

Peace be with you

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church does not have no authority nor has she ever practiced “captial punishment”.

Technically you’re right. The Church handed people over for capital punishment, which was administered by the secular arm. However, this was somewhat of a legal fiction–the Church courts were in effect condemning people to death, and everyone understood this at the time.

For one, although the secular powers who excercised capital punishments, were at times loyal to the pope and their bishops and were baptised Catholics. This never means that the Pope or the Catholic Church excercised capital punishment.

But Popes and Doctors and Councils all taught explicitly that rulers ought to administer such punishments to heretics, and church courts condemned heretics and handed them over with the clear understanding that they would be executed. So you’re hiding behind a technicality here. The technicality is important, as witness to the fact that the Church could never quite forget that she wasn’t supposed to be sullying her hands with blood.

Peter Waldo, was a Catholic, he disobeyed his bishops and the Popes. His teachings became very extreme in the sense of fasting its members to death, suicide became common practice

You’re confusing Waldenses with Cathars.

Edwin

 

[Selah123]

Hello, I have been reading about the Waldensians, but I am having trouble refuting this. My facts aren’t completely sound, I only started researching them today. Could someone give me a quick explanation?

I spend my time on facebook arguing with Seventh-Day-Adventists. I am not very good in my information of the Waldensians in order to refute claims such as this.

For more information, read “Brave Men to the Battle” by Virgil E. Robinson. Great book and goes into great detail about the Waldensian people and the Albigenses.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Contarini;7970399]Technically you’re right. The Church handed people over for capital punishment, which was administered by the secular arm. However, this was somewhat of a legal fiction–the Church courts were in effect condemning people to death, and everyone understood this at the time.

But Popes and Doctors and Councils all taught explicitly that rulers ought to administer such punishments to heretics, and church courts condemned heretics and handed them over with the clear understanding that they would be executed. So you’re hiding behind a technicality here. The technicality is important, as witness to the fact that the Church could never quite forget that she wasn’t supposed to be sullying her hands with blood.

Sorry your analysis sounds like a Hollywood movie horror picture. What you reveal here is one sided, have you learned the Catholic side to this Hollywood fiction. It becomes obvious you miss the mark when you generalize these events, when true history does not reveal them as such. Case by case study will reveal your Hollywood picture of the Catholic Church remains fiction.

This is where you error in your false accusation about the Church. You falsely blame men’s actions as being from the Church. What needs to be cleared up here, is the correct understanding of what the biblical teaching and belief of what the Church is; She is the body of Christ living. She is both human and divine.

Mixing the Church with secular local government actions, while under reform and setting herself apart from secular influences, will reveal more to this history other than you generalize here.

Secondly what you blame to be a technicality, derives from the anti-catholic sentiments from the protestant reformers, who spilled blood first by murdering their bishops, holy priests and religious which brought on the secular powers “capital punishments”. But for some reason you technically overlook these protestant provocations of murder and blood shed.

Next time when you view this history please take them case by case and do not generalize them as the Church Jesus built to be this evil empire which Hollywood falsely projects.

Case in point, in regards to the Albigensians or Cathars, or Manicheans who were dualists and were the predominate heretical group.

I don’t have them confused your SDA’s confuse the Albigensians put down by the French themselves who initiated an Albingensian crusade against them, after a papal legate was mudered, these French secular crusaders took upon themselves, not having the Church’s patience in dealing with heretics at the time, to burn 140 Albigensians.

But your not gonna mention that Pope Innocent III came to their rescue and mitigated the local rulers to bring them to trial for the sake of hearing them out, not just go and burn them at the stake.

Your history does not record the pope sticking his neck out for his enemies for love of them at the risk of civil wars between Catholic local rulers, between the Northern France and Southern France.

It was from this Albingensian heretical atmosphere the “poor preachers” recieved a secular condemnation.

If you stick to the facts of each particular history, you will find your painting of the Church with a broad brush paints the wrong picture of what truly happened behind the scenes and what resulted.

The Catholic Church can only excommunicate, she has no powers to excercise captial punishment. To think otherwise is a distortation of history between the Catholic Church and actions from Catholic members reigning from their secular powers, to protect their people and keep the peace in their provinces. Most of these heretics moved into these areas.

Peace be with you

 

[Contarini]

For more information, read “Brave Men to the Battle” by Virgil E. Robinson. Great book and goes into great detail about the Waldensian people and the Albigenses.

It looks like propaganda rather than history.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Technically you’re right. The Church handed people over for capital punishment, which was administered by the secular arm. However, this was somewhat of a legal fiction–the Church courts were in effect condemning people to death, and everyone understood this at the time.

Edwin

This isn’t entirely true. People actually preferred Church courts over regular, secular courts because they new the Church would have given them a much lighter ‘sentence’ then would have been administered by a secular court.

 

[Contarini]

Sorry your analysis sounds like a Hollywood movie horror picture.

Well, since everything I said was a sober description of what the historical evidence shows, blame medieval Christians, not me.

What you reveal here is one sided, have you learned the Catholic side to this Hollywood fiction.

I strongly recommend Brad Gregory’s *Salvation at Stake. *Gregory is a Catholic historian–his chapter “The Willingness to Kill” summarizes what I’m talking about very well.

Your claims are empty rhetoric.

The three most obvious bits of documentation of what I’m talking about are the decrees of IV Lateran against heresy, the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas in ST II/II, Question 11, and Pope Leo’s bull Exsurge Domine. The practices of the Inquisition and other church courts (not just speaking of the Spanish Inquisition) are also well documented, and I have described them accurately.

There is a Hollywood horror-movie version of the story. I did not give it.

This is where you error in your false accusation about the Church. You falsely blame men’s actions as being from the Church.

When I say “the Church” I mean the visible human institution whose actions can be documented in history. If you choose to use the word in a more mystical sense, you have every right to do so. And I have every right to find your usage incoherent and self-serving.

Secondly what you blame to be a technicality, derives from the anti-catholic sentiments from the protestant reformers, who spilled blood first by murdering their bishops, holy priests and religious which brought on the secular powers “capital punishments”.

No, they didn’t spill blood first. That’s simply inaccurate. Luther made some inflammatory statements about how bishops deserved to be killed.

But Church courts had been handing people over for execution since at least 1148, long before there were any Protestants (though to be fair, the guy whose followers were executed in 1148 had been guilty of violence, so I suppose you could say that “heretics” in general struck “the first blow”). Pope Leo X condemned Luther in part because Luther had said that heretics shouldn’t be executed.

But for some reason you technically overlook these protestant provocations of murder and blood shed.

Because Protestantism did not exist for centuries during which the practices I described were going on.

I don’t have them confused

Yes, you do. Unless you can document your claim that the Waldenses practiced ritual suicide. I am rather dubious about these claims even with regard to the Cathars–this is the sort of thing that it’s easy for enemies to exaggerate or misrepresent. But I have never heard that Waldenses did this.

your SDA’s

Nothing I am saying is in any way derived from the SDAs, but from primary sources and/or solid scholarly literature. I am less familiar with the SDA version, but fundamentalist propaganda in general certainly does confuse Waldenses and Cathars. That doesn’t give you an excuse to do the same thing.

confuse the Albigensians put down by the French themselves who initiated an Albingensian crusade against them, after a papal legate was mudered, these French secular crusaders took upon themselves, not having the Church’s patience in dealing with heretics at the time, to burn 140 Albigensians.

Again, you’re separating the role of civil authorities from the role of the Church in a way that doesn’t make sense for the period. Pope Innocent III issued a Bull calling for a crusade against the Albigenses. The legate in question, Pierre de Castelnau, was trying to stir up the nobles of Provence against Count Raymond in order to force him to wipe out the Cathar heresy. The contemporary chronicler, who is naturally writing from a Catholic perspective, calls Count Raymond an “enemy of peace”–but a couple lines later he admits that the nobles of Provence who had “sworn peace” at the instigation of de Castelnau were waging war on Count Raymond in order to force him to proceed against the Cathars. So clearly what he means by “peace” isn’t quite what we mean by peace, but more like “an anti-heretical league.”

But your not gonna mention that Pope Innocent III came to their rescue and mitigated the local rulers to bring them to trial for the sake of hearing them out, not just go and burn them at the stake.

Of course the Church insisted on due process by the norms of Roman law before handing people over for execution, sure.

I’m happy to discuss particular cases as here. I apologize for not translating the Latin in the link above–I am willing to do so if I have time.

You will find, I think, that a discussion of particular cases shows that you are the one who is engaging in one-sided propaganda to whitewash the Church’s record.

The Catholic Church can only excommunicate, she has no powers to excercise captial punishment.

I have already said that the Church handed people over for execution. You have evaded but not denied the point.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This isn’t entirely true. People actually preferred Church courts over regular, secular courts because they new the Church would have given them a much lighter ‘sentence’ then would have been administered by a secular court.

Your statement is true, but does not contradict anything I said.

The point is that from the mid-12th century on, the Church began handing impenitent heretics over for execution, precisely because the punishments available to Church courts were much lighter than those the civil courts administered. Handing people over to the secular arm was the way the Church got around this.

Edwin

 

[josephback]

Hello, I have been reading about the Waldensians, but I am having trouble refuting this. My facts aren’t completely sound, I only started researching them today. Could someone give me a quick explanation?..

…I spend my time on facebook arguing with Seventh-Day-Adventists. I am not very good in my information of the Waldensians in order to refute claims such as this.

I’m no scholar on the Waldensians, but Seventh Day Adventists and others bring these things up to rally their idea of persecuted “faith alone” believers before the 16th century. It’s part of an attempt to trace their beliefs back further than they go.

That said the Church has done some horrible things. Oftentimes though history gets skewed just to give the Church a black mark. The ages after the Roman Empire fell weren’t so dark after all, the “gold and glory” Crusades were actually defensive wars against Islam. Always take into account the perspective of the person you’re learning from or talking too. How would Jesus see the Inquisition? That’s something I wonder.

 

[loneviking]

No, not ‘faith alone’, but Sabbath keeping. The SDA view of church history is that most of the core doctrines they teach were part of the early church up until the time of Constantine. When Constantine converted to Christianity, then the church united with secular power, and the RCC came into being with it’s perverted doctrine.

However, at the same time, there were (so the story goes) faithful groups of Sabbath (saturday) keeping Christians keeping the Sabbath and the rest of the doctrines in places like Ethiopia, India and China to name a few.

The Waldenses, it’s claimed, are part of that line of faithful Christians who adhered to the old doctrines and kept the Sabbath holy. This is what makes the Waldensians special to Adventists, along with the fact that the Catholic church (often acting in league with the secular powers) persecuted these people, killing many.

The problem is that the Waldensians were not sabbath keepers and there are still Waldenses in the mountains of Italy and France who will tell you that!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Your statement is true, but does not contradict anything I said.

The point is that from the mid-12th century on, the Church began handing impenitent heretics over for execution, precisely because the punishments available to Church courts were much lighter than those the civil courts administered. Handing people over to the secular arm was the way the Church got around this.

Edwin

Here you go again placing blame on the Church in “all” of your history which is never the case by case.

Let’s stick to the OP shall we?

First of all the Peter Waldo took on a Mendicant Order Just as St. Francis and St. Dominic. These were all Catholics not protestants and contemporaries.

The difference was St. Francis and St. Dominic took on vows of charity, poverty and obedience in Love. While Peter Waldo took on poverty to spite the new society being introduced by secular imperial powers which was replacing monetary (monies exchange) for barttering, something Peter Waldo objected too.

Thus Peter Waldo used his ministry to spite the rich not to convert them to charity. This is the reason why the secular courts wanted them. When they appealed to Rome, they were received and heard, despite the Popes instruction, they continued their course to humiliate their imperial governments, and their bishops.

The problem here, is that the French had engaged in a crusade against the Albingensians, which the “poor preachers” (Peter Waldo) fell under the persecution. This is where the SDA’s get confused in their history.

The Peter Waldo left the persecution areas to the Alps. It is here were they remained safe from government persecutions, until the reformation began, it is here when these disobedient Catholics converted to Protestantism. They were not persecuted as such as the French imperial government persecuted the Albigensians. When the mixture of these heretical teachings (heretical because they were all Catholic at the time never protestants), were being addressed by both the Church and the imperial states.

For the record; Simon de Montfort invaded southern France where these heretics found safe haven with the Muslims and Jews next to Spain, it was at this time that heretics were burned at the stake in the town of Minerve. by Imperial order not the Church.

After this event the Church implemented the Inquisition to hear the case by trial. In 1246 the Dominican Inquisitor Bernardo Gui sentenced 207 heretics “NONE OF THEM WERE BURNED AT THE STAKE”. 23 received prison sentences, 184 had to wear a cross for penance. Again these were still Catholic at the time not protestants.

So your false pretense that the Catholic Church past judgement to all who were burnt at the stake for capital crimes is ludicrous, because you are generalizing a history that is not there. This is my objection to your false pretense.

The Church did not burn people at the stake, and gave lighter sentences to those they found guilty for disturbing the teachings of the Church to the peoples, who were tried as Catholics not protestants. SDA’s need to see that the Church tried Catholics in heresy, not Protestants here.

The Church was only concerned for “giving to God what belongs to God”. Those that got handed over for Imperial crimes against the state, the Church “gave to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” and handed them over to Caesar for their Imperial crimes, not for Church issues.

I am not questioning your history just your false pretense to place blame in all of history to the Church for burning people at the stake, when the Church herself was engage for her life many times during middle ages, just to try and keep the peace.

You cannot include the Spanish Inquistion with this one or any other there are different circumstances that do not agree with your generalizing of history. That is why I recommend a case by case history view. When you do this you will find to be steep in history you will find the Catholic Church being persecuted and fending for the poor.

Peace be with you

 

[Holly3278]

This would be a good article to read as far as the Inquisition goes:

catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp

 

[josephback]

No, not ‘faith alone’, but Sabbath keeping.

I stand corrected. Did the Church Fathers really teach faith alone though?

The SDA view of church history is that most of the core doctrines they teach were part of the early church up until the time of Constantine. When Constantine converted to Christianity, then the church united with secular power, and the RCC came into being with it’s perverted doctrine.

However, at the same time, there were (so the story goes) faithful groups of Sabbath (saturday) keeping Christians keeping the Sabbath and the rest of the doctrines in places like Ethiopia, India and China to name a few.

The Waldenses, it’s claimed, are part of that line of faithful Christians who adhered to the old doctrines and kept the Sabbath holy. This is what makes the Waldensians special to Adventists, along with the fact that the Catholic church (often acting in league with the secular powers) persecuted these people, killing many.

Yeah. I looked and read a bit through their book called ‘The Great Controversy’ before disposing of it. The main theme seemed to be that the “true Christians” were small and few but persecuted throughout history - and they weren’t too fond of Rome. Then things changed with the Reformation…

The problem is that the Waldensians were not sabbath keepers and there are still Waldenses in the mountains of Italy and France who will tell you that!

The truth is very inconvenient! The Waldensians still exist? Huh.