The Waldensians

[Contarini]

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?

I was discussing the example you brought up by your glaringly inaccurate identification of the Waldenses with the Cathars. You have still not acknowledged this error.

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.

No dispute there.

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.

What is your support for this rather bold and speculative interpretation? Given the fragmentary evidence about Waldo’s ministry, I don’t see how anyone could know Waldo’s motives so extensively. It is a legitimate speculation to think that Waldo was responding to economic change–so, for that matter, was Francis. Even if Waldo was more concerned with that than Francis, I fail to see how this is to Waldo’s discredit. Indeed, one could argue that it made him a more far-sighted and prophetic figure than Francis. (I wouldn’t argue that–but I’m not the one making the contrast in the first place. I see little difference between Waldo and Francis except in how they were treated by church authorities and how they responded to that treatment.) You try to put a pejorative spin on this by saying that he was trying to “spite the rich.” But that’s just your uncharitable language–it has no substance.

If I were to say, for instance, that the Inquisition was about maintaining power and control and keeping people subjugated, I would be doing something similar. But I have not said that, have I? I try not to speculate about people’s motives, and when I do I try to be charitable in my speculations, assuming that people in the past were at least as sincere as I am.

The problem here, is that the French had engaged in a crusade against the Albingensians,

Called to do so by a papal bull, which you keep omitting.

which the “poor preachers” (Peter Waldo) fell under the persecution.

To some extent, although the documents we have show that many Inquisitors could tell the difference, and treated the Waldenses much more leniently because they recognized that they were not heretics in the same way as the Cathars.

The Peter Waldo left the persecution areas to the Alps.

Waldo himself didn’t–this was a later move. And it’s really not too clear how they got from Lyons up into the Alps. This is one reason why the fundamentalists and SDAs claim that the “Waldenses” had little or nothing to do with Waldo and were a dissenting group that had lived in the Alps from antiquity. There is no solid evidence for this latter claim, and it’s monumentally implausible and pretty clearly a piece of propaganda. What seems to have happened is that the movement spread over southern France and northern Italy for a while before retreating to the Alps. Euan Cameron’s 1984 study argued that the Waldenses of the late 15th century were basically isolated mountain-dwelling Catholics with a few odd ideas and a deep suspicion of outsiders. Other studies (including Cameron’s later work) back off from this a bit, accepting more of the traditional picture of the Waldenses as a widespread European dissenting movement stemming from Waldo. An Italian scholar (Guido Merlo) whose work I have not read apparently argues that we should speak of several different movements which were all lumped together as “Waldensianism.”

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.

That’s not quite right. There’s a lot of documentation of Waldenses being persecuted as Waldenses by people who knew the difference, such as Jacques Fournier in the early 14th century. See Lambert’s discussion (indeed he’s the best survey account generally) in Medieval Heresy.

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.

Your “case-by-case” approach seems to consist of throwing out random anecdotes with no documentation. You then force me to hunt down the facts and present them in context. This is an unjust and irrational proceeding on your part, and I am losing patience with it.

There was a papal legate with Simon de Montfort’s army, which was not an “imperial” army. It was not acting under the authority of any monarch as far as I can tell (later military operations were led by the kings of France). Simon de Montfort, the military commander, was acting in direct response to a papal bull. In fact, according to Mark Pegg in The Corruption of Angels (Princeton University Press, 2001), p. 5, Pope Innocent had tried to get the French king to lead the crusade but had not succeeded! Your attempt to put all the blame on civil rulers simply fails. The evidence doesn’t support you.

 

[Contarini]

After this event the Church implemented the Inquisition to hear the case by trial.

What’s your evidence that this event had such a decisive significance? The Inquisition was certainly designed to be a juster and more orderly way of dealing with heresy–but it also was instituted after the military effort had shown itself to be of limited effectiveness. Minerve was captured in 1210. The Inquisition was first set up in Toulouse in 1229.

** 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, random examples don’t make much of a case. You have to generalize, because we’re discussing a general pattern. The inquisitors do seem to have usually exercised their powers with restraint. The numbers of people burned were relatively small. But it did happen. Are you denying that Inquisitors did sometimes hand people over to the secular arm? Wikipedia says that Gui handed over 42 people to be burned in the course of his entire career (about 20 years, so about 2 per year). I grant you that Wikipedia is a less than ideal source, but then you haven’t given me any source at all so far !

Two scholarly studies that look helpful (but which are not easy to access online–Pegg is available on Google Books but only in small bits, Ames is not) are the afore-mentioned Corruption of Angels by Pegg and Righteous Persecution by Christine Caldwell Ames. The latter looks like a really good survey of Dominican involvement in persecution specifically, which takes theology seriously and does not demonize or whitewash. You can read an article-length summary of Ames’ argument here.

I repeat: Church courts handed people over for execution on occasion. They did not do so in the vast numbers that anti-Catholics have claimed. But they did do so. And, of course, the original discussion was about “persecution”–there are many relatively lighter forms of persecution. Some of the 'light" ones may not have been so light–see Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 111 (available on Google Books) for a description of what “wearing a yellow cross” involved.

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

Most of the time. The Church reserved the right to hand over people to the secular arm for execution if they were impenitent or relapsed (though even then, the judges were often merciful).

The Church was only concerned for “giving to God what belongs to God”. Those that got handed over for Imperial crimes against the state

Heresy was a crime against the Church and the state. You are making a false dichotomy here.

the Church “gave to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” and handed them over to Caesar for their Imperial crimes, not for Church issues.

This is simply bunk.

The Church repeatedly urged civil rulers to wipe out heresy. The Church investigated heresy, tried to get people to repent of it, and handed them over for execution if they proved hopelessly stubborn. To suggest that this is simply “giving Caesar what is Caesar’s” is absurd. (I think your exegesis of that phrase is wrong anyway–I hold to the view that Jesus meant something like “fling that filthy idol back where it came from”–but that’s not directly relevant here.)

I am not questioning your history

Good. That makes things simple. You agree with me that Church courts did in fact hand over impenitent heretics for execution.

All the rest of your protestations are just empty rhetoric.

You cannot include the Spanish Inquistion with this one

That’s why I have not mentioned the Spanish Inquisition. Many of the same things do apply, but it was under royal control and the Popes actually had a lot of qualms about its methods at times. It was probably harsher, though I don’t think anyone has done the kind of body count estimate for the medieval Inquisition that Kamen has done for Spain, so it’s hard to be sure. Medieval inquisitions seem to have given a lot of discretion to the Inquisitors. Conscientious inquisitors like Gui might be able to get through a year without handing over anyone for execution; the inquisitors against whom the people of Carcassonne rebelled at the end of the 13th century seem to have been much nastier and more corrupt (see the article by Ames to which I linked above).

or any other there are different circumstances that do not agree with your generalizing of history.

Yet none of your randomly produced and totally undocumented “cases” contradict what I’m saying.

I didn’t say that the courts burned thousands or millions of people at the stake. I said that they did, on occasion, hand over impenitent heretics for execution, and that this practice was explicitly defended by theologians like Aquinas. And that is true. Catholics need to face this squarely instead of spluttering and whitewashing as you are doing.

That is why I recommend a case by case history view.

Of course you do, because you can lose everyone in your random “cases” and avoid dealing with the evidence as a whole.

Responsible generalization is necessary.

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.

That’s your starting and ending point, and you will twist history as necessary to get the result you want.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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

They became Reformed during the Reformation. It’s pretty clear that this involved a major shift–Cameron and other historians have documented resistance to Reformed teaching by the Waldensian rank and file.

I know of no evidence that they ever kept a Saturday Sabbath.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I was discussing the example you brought up by your glaringly inaccurate identification of the Waldenses with the Cathars. You have still not acknowledged this error.

No dispute there.

What is your support for this rather bold and speculative interpretation? Given the fragmentary evidence about Waldo’s ministry, I don’t see how anyone could know Waldo’s motives so extensively. It is a legitimate speculation to think that Waldo was responding to economic change–so, for that matter, was Francis. Even if Waldo was more concerned with that than Francis, I fail to see how this is to Waldo’s discredit. Indeed, one could argue that it made him a more far-sighted and prophetic figure than Francis. (I wouldn’t argue that–but I’m not the one making the contrast in the first place. I see little difference between Waldo and Francis except in how they were treated by church authorities and how they responded to that treatment.) You try to put a pejorative spin on this by saying that he was trying to “spite the rich.” But that’s just your uncharitable language–it has no substance.

If I were to say, for instance, that the Inquisition was about maintaining power and control and keeping people subjugated, I would be doing something similar. But I have not said that, have I? I try not to speculate about people’s motives, and when I do I try to be charitable in my speculations, assuming that people in the past were at least as sincere as I am.

Called to do so by a papal bull, which you keep omitting.

To some extent, although the documents we have show that many Inquisitors could tell the difference, and treated the Waldenses much more leniently because they recognized that they were not heretics in the same way as the Cathars.

Waldo himself didn’t–this was a later move. And it’s really not too clear how they got from Lyons up into the Alps. This is one reason why the fundamentalists and SDAs claim that the “Waldenses” had little or nothing to do with Waldo and were a dissenting group that had lived in the Alps from antiquity. There is no solid evidence for this latter claim, and it’s monumentally implausible and pretty clearly a piece of propaganda. What seems to have happened is that the movement spread over southern France and northern Italy for a while before retreating to the Alps. Euan Cameron’s 1984 study argued that the Waldenses of the late 15th century were basically isolated mountain-dwelling Catholics with a few odd ideas and a deep suspicion of outsiders. Other studies (including Cameron’s later work) back off from this a bit, accepting more of the traditional picture of the Waldenses as a widespread European dissenting movement stemming from Waldo. An Italian scholar (Guido Merlo) whose work I have not read apparently argues that we should speak of several different movements which were all lumped together as “Waldensianism.”

That’s not quite right. There’s a lot of documentation of Waldenses being persecuted as Waldenses by people who knew the difference, such as Jacques Fournier in the early 14th century. See Lambert’s discussion (indeed he’s the best survey account generally) in Medieval Heresy.

Your “case-by-case” approach seems to consist of throwing out random anecdotes with no documentation. You then force me to hunt down the facts and present them in context. This is an unjust and irrational proceeding on your part, and I am losing patience with it.

There was a papal legate with Simon de Montfort’s army, which was not an “imperial” army. It was not acting under the authority of any monarch as far as I can tell (later military operations were led by the kings of France). Simon de Montfort, the military commander, was acting in direct response to a papal bull. In fact, according to Mark Pegg in The Corruption of Angels (Princeton University Press, 2001), p. 5, Pope Innocent had tried to get the French king to lead the crusade but had not succeeded! Your attempt to put all the blame on civil rulers simply fails. The evidence doesn’t support you.

Innocent appealed to Philip Augustus in 1204, 1205, to actively assist in suppressing heresy, and , in 1207 and 1208, to lead a Crusade in the area later called Languedoc, with promises of considerable land and other goodies. Philip, for a couple of reasons (he didn;t like the method of dividing the spoils, and he had foreign policy issues bothering him), demurred, at that point. (O’Shea/THE PERFECT HERESY, Sumption/THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE, Strayer/THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADES).

GKC

 

[GKC]

“Again, random examples don’t make much of a case. You have to generalize, because we’re discussing a general pattern. The inquisitors do seem to have usually exercised their powers with restraint. The numbers of people burned were relatively small. But it did happen. Are you denying that Inquisitors did sometimes hand people over to the secular arm? Wikipedia says that Gui handed over 42 people to be burned in the course of his entire career (about 20 years, so about 2 per year). I grant you that Wikipedia is a less than ideal source, but then you haven’t given me any source at all so far !”

Strayer (THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADES) says of Gui’s record, over 15 years, 40 to the secular arm, for burning, around 300 to prison, about the same number to lesser sentences. If Berman, citing Lea, is accurate (THE INQUISITION:HAMMER OF HERESY), almost half Gui’s total remanded to the secular authorities occurred in a 5 day period in March 1310. Must have been rather restrained, afterward.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Strayer (THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADES) says of Gui’s record, over 15 years, 40 to the secular arm, for burning, around 300 to prison, about the same number to lesser sentences. If Berman, citing Lea, is accurate (THE INQUISITION:HAMMER OF HERESY), almost half Gui’s total remanded to the secular authorities occurred in a 5 day period in March 1310. Must have been rather restrained, afterward.

GKC

Interesting. I was trying to avoid Lea because (while useful because of his great detail) he is biased and the RCs reasonably don’t put a lot of stock in anything from him. I don’t have a lot of books to hand at the moment, so thanks for the help. The detail about 1310 is interesting if accurate. According to the bits of Corruption of Angels that I was able to read online, it appears that the 1346 Inquisition was focused largely on the abettors of heresy–people who simply expressed the opinion that heretics were good people, for instance. It may be that the 1310 incident was taking on some more hardline cases.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Interesting. I was trying to avoid Lea because (while useful because of his great detail) he is biased and the RCs reasonably don’t put a lot of stock in anything from him. I don’t have a lot of books to hand at the moment, so thanks for the help. The detail about 1310 is interesting if accurate. According to the bits of Corruption of Angels that I was able to read online, it appears that the 1346 Inquisition was focused largely on the abettors of heresy–people who simply expressed the opinion that heretics were good people, for instance. It may be that the 1310 incident was taking on some more hardline cases.

Edwin

I know, as to Lea, which is why I qualified it. I suspect that came from Lea’s 3 volume THE HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE AGES, but since I only own a one volume abridgment, I haven’t bothered to look. 1310 was early days, in Gui’s career, so the harder cases might have been front end loaded.

There is a hilarious and telling exchange between Arnold Lunn and G.G. Coulton in their epistolary debate IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ANTISOCIAL?, on Lea’s accuracy, in a particular circumstance. Lunn wins.

You’re welcome. By coincidence, I once did a lengthy discussion with a poorly read Anglican, on the Albigensian issue. Hence, I tend to acquire books on the subject.

Other subjects, too, for that matter.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Contarini;7976235]I repeat: Church courts handed people over for execution on occasion. They did not do so in the vast numbers that anti-Catholics have claimed. But they did do so. And, of course, the original discussion was about “persecution”–there are many relatively lighter forms of persecution. Some of the 'light" ones may not have been so light–see Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 111 (available on Google Books) for a description of what “wearing a yellow cross” involved.

The Church repeatedly urged civil rulers to wipe out heresy. The Church investigated heresy, tried to get people to repent of it, and handed them over for execution if they proved hopelessly stubborn.

The highlight is a double standard view, and your disposition to a simple equation lacks reason to the facts.

You mentioned you don’t try to get into ones personal disposition from history? Yet you blatantly possess supernatural powers to believe your right in how the Church and state thought through each of these cases, supported by questionable statistics?

Here is my position; Too many protestant authors and historical reporting take the same prejudices as you do here, my position is to expose these prejudices that are without foundation.

This is the reality you are refusing to recognize from a distorted prejudiced view of Church history.

In other words, don’t take the words from someone looking from afar as you have produced a prejudiced view from them, take them from those who were there and lived through these times, such as the actual Inquisition records, the states records of the trials, the Church’s true disposition. It was never as the view you propose from your above quotes.

Yes the Pope issued a decree and inquisition to deal with Her Church members teaching heretical teachings publicly. But protestants views this as the Church burning Protestants at the stake which is a “lie”, there were all Catholics. So the band wagon should stop here.

Yes the state abused its powers to bring Catholics to justice who were teaching error, and among other state crimes. Grant it that history proves many of these state crimes against these heretics were trumped up by state officials in order to gain their properties and the such. But you refuse to enter these cases from your general prejudiced view that Only the Church handed them over to be burnt at the stake.

Will actual recorded sources change your negative disposition? Or can you as all who hold to your view of these events, view the original trial documents with an unbiased view?

Just for you; For the third time repeated;

The Peter Walden’s, the Albingensians = Cathars = Manicheans, fell under the French crusades. This mixture of these heresies are viewed by SDA’s as the Peter Waldo’s were persecuted or burnt at the stake as the Albingensians were. I categorized them all as one, meeting the persecution as do the SDA’s. The difference is, I have no Peter Waldens ever being burnt at the stake? Do you have record of any Peter Waldens ever being burnt at the stake, from the OP’s introduction? I introduced the heretical teachings that came under the persecution without naming the Catholics teaching them, the identification of these heretics come from my second post.

I hope this helps and clarifies for you, and forgive me if my thoughts took other posts to clarify. But that is why I am grateful that you are here, so asto ask for clarificaton not demand by insults so as to clarify a missed thought. I pray you don’t misjudge my disposition on this matter.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The subject of capital punishment during the pinnacle points of protestantism reveal their hands bloody, personally involved in placing there heretical victims under captial punishment.

The protestant reformers; Martin Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin and Theodore of Beza all explicitly approved and supported capital punishment for obstinate heretics. Imagine that?

Here is a quote from Calvin, "Heretics are to be coerced by the sword, " after Calvin had burned Michael Servetus at the stake.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Thanks for the responses.

Happy Pentecost all!

• Side note -
  Please keep my cat, Sally, in your prayers, she is very sick. Thanks!

 

[Contarini]

The highlight is a double standard view, and your disposition to a simple equation lacks reason to the facts.

Then address my actual claim. You keep dancing around it.

Church courts handed impenitent and [sometimes] relapsed heretics over to the secular authorities for execution. This is no secret. They weren’t ashamed of doing it. They thought it was their duty to work with civil authorities to eradicate heresy.

That is all I have claimed. I think that your hostile reaction may be due to your persistent assumption that I’m making all sorts of other standard Protestant claims that I’m not making.

You mentioned you don’t try to get into ones personal disposition from history? Yet you blatantly possess supernatural powers to believe your right in how the Church and state thought through each of these cases, supported by questionable statistics?

No supernatural powers are involved. Medieval and early modern Christians have left plenty of record of how they thought about this issue in general. And that’s all I’m saying. There was a set of assumptions under which they operated. These assumptions are not shared by most people today, so folks either vilify them or whitewash what they did. I’m trying very hard not to do either. I invite you to work with me in trying to seek historical understanding rather than simply treating history as an occasion for propaganda.

Here is my position; Too many protestant authors and historical reporting take the same prejudices as you do here, my position is to expose these prejudices that are without foundation.

You would expose prejudice better if you engaged in serious historical argument using logic and evidence.

In other words, don’t take the words from someone looking from afar as you have produced a prejudiced view from them, take them from those who were there and lived through these times, such as the actual Inquisition records, the states records of the trials, the Church’s true disposition. It was never as the view you propose from your above quotes.

I have pointed you to Exsurge Domine, to IV Lateran, and to St. Thomas Aquinas’s discussion of heresy: three different kinds of documents spanning three centuries. You have produced absolutely nothing to contradict what I’m saying.

Yes the Pope issued a decree and inquisition to deal with Her Church members teaching heretical teachings publicly. But protestants views this as the Church burning Protestants at the stake which is a “lie”, there were all Catholics. So the band wagon should stop here.

I fail to see the significance of this. The first Protestants were also Catholics. And there were plenty of cases where early Protestants (and radicals, if you don’t count them as Protestants) were burned at the stake following the same principles that had been applied to earlier dissenters. Just a few examples:
Henrich Voes and Johann von Esch, burned at Brussels in 1523 for Lutheranism at the initiative of Jacob von Hoogstraten, inquisitor for the archdiocese of Cologne
Thomas Bilney, tried by English bishops and handed over to the civil authorities for execution in 1531 (I picked him rather than some of the later ones because while Henry was moving to limit papal authority by this point, the full break hadn’t happened yet; Protestants continued to be executed after Henry’s break with the Pope, of course)
John Hooper (and a lot of others, but he was one of the first) handed over to the civil authorities by the English bishops under Mary after the restoration of the laws against heresy in 1554, with England back in communion with Rome
Juan Ponce de Leon and other Protestants handed over by the Spanish Inquisition to the secular authorities and burned in Spain in 1559.

These are just a few examples from several different countries. I’m not claiming that the numbers were vast, and I have omitted those (like Michael Sattler) whose cases were handled by the civil authorities from beginning to end even though the charge (or one of them) was heresy.

 

[Contarini]

Yes the state abused its powers to bring Catholics to justice who were teaching error, and among other state crimes.

You’re once again assuming an anachronistic separation of church and state. Heresy was a crime against both church and state. That’s why typically the church would try people first, and as a last resort hand them over to the state. The church courts were typically pretty reluctant to do this, but they did do so on a number of occasions. Since you have not actually denied this (just objected to my saying so in so many words), I’m really not sure what we are arguing about.

Will actual recorded sources change your negative disposition?

It would certainly be nice to see some sources. I don’t think I have a negative disposition on this topic. I think I’m making every effort to be fair. But I’m not interested in whitewashing.

You have produced not one shred of evidence to show that my generalization is inaccurate.

Just for you; For the third time repeated;

The Peter Walden’s, the Albingensians = Cathars = Manicheans, fell under the French crusades. This mixture of these heresies are viewed by SDA’s as the Peter Waldo’s were persecuted or burnt at the stake as the Albingensians were. I categorized them all as one, meeting the persecution as do the SDA’s.

But why are you doing this? They weren’t the same. Why not correct the SDAs instead of copying their errors?

The difference is, I have no Peter Waldens ever being burnt at the stake?

Relatively few were. According to Lambert, *Medieval Heresy, *p. 164, seven of them were burned by the crusaders at Morlhon, but there weren’t actually that many of them in Toulouse and the other areas primarily affected by the crusades. Lambert speaks of Bernard Gui interrogating a few Waldenses, but doesn’t say if any of them were executed; he also mentions (176-77) Peter Zwicker persecuting them, but again doesn’t mention executions. Lambert does speak of several executions in the mid-fifteenth century (178): Matthaus Hagen and Friedrich Reiser. However, according to Lambert these particular Waldensians were linking up with radical Hussites. If Audisio, The Waldensian Dissent (62), is correct, the judicial records of the trial were often burned at the stake with the prisoner, which would mean that we don’t have formal records of many burnings, while we do have plenty of people who weren’t burned. Audisio claims in general terms (38) that many of them were burned. I’d like to see some further documentation for this claim, though. Specific examples of Waldenses being burned do seem fairly hard to come by. They were certainly persecuted in various ways, but don’t seem to have wound up at the stake very often. This may be because of their “nicodemism”–while they were critical of many aspects of the late medieval Catholic Church, they never (before the Reformation) stopped thinking of themselves as Catholics and were generally quite willing to dissemble their views and accommodate themselves to establishment religion as much as possible.

Do you have record of any Peter Waldens ever being burnt at the stake, from the OP’s introduction?

Your summary of the OP is inaccurate. It spoke of them being “persecuted.” There’s plenty of persecution short of burning at the stake. That Waldenses were persecuted is undeniable. Some of them were definitely burned in the mid-fifteenth century, but that may have been because of their links with radical Hussites. It’s quite possible that others were burned in the 13th and 14th centuries, but I haven’t been able to come up with any reliable examples from a fairly brief search on the Internet.

Edwin