Waldensians.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sam_777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sam_777

Guest
I’m trying to understand the Waldensians movement and how the Catholic Church reacted to them which ended in a horrific bloody way, so please clarify the following for me:

The first question, regarding the Pope Innocent VIII 1487 order of extermination, wasn’t declaring them as a heretic movement enough?

The second question, can the Popes make mistakes?
 
I’m trying to understand the Waldensians movement and how the Catholic Church reacted to them which ended in a horrific bloody way, so please clarify the following for me:

The first question, regarding the Pope Innocent VIII 1487 order of extermination, wasn’t declaring them as a heretic movement enough?
The incident in the Wikipedia article you cited is not itself cited (a violation of Wikipedia rules). Can you provide the missing citation which would verify the claim?
The second question, can the Popes make mistakes?
Oh, yes. By the bushel. We had a long and shameful succession of Popes who made MANY mistakes (look up “Saeculum obscurum” in Wikipedia). But a Pope may not teach error in his capacity as Pope regarding a matter of Faith and Morals which is intended to be taught to the whole world. If you can cite a single example of such an event then you would disprove the entirety of Catholic teaching.
 
The incident in the Wikipedia article you cited is not itself cited (a violation of Wikipedia rules). Can you provide the missing citation which would verify the claim?
“This period of peace was followed in 1488 by a crusade summoned by Innocent VIII against the Waldenses.”
newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm
Oh, yes. By the bushel. We had a long and shameful succession of Popes who made MANY mistakes (look up “Saeculum obscurum” in Wikipedia).
Thanks for the link.
 
The New Advent article states:
Some points in this teaching so strikingly resemble the Cathari that the borrowing of the Waldenses from them may be looked upon as a certainty. Both sects also had a similar organization, being divided into two classes, the Perfect (perfecti) and the Friends or Believers (amici or credentes). (See CATHARI and ALBIGENSES.)

The Albigensian or Cathari Heresy****The Albigensian heresy had plagued southern France in St. Dominic’s time, the 13th century. It was based on the belief that there were two supreme beings, a good God who created the spirit world, and an evil god who created the material world.
The proponents of this heresy also taught the following:

Code:
         [INDENT]                                  **that the spiritual world is essentially                  good, and the material world (including the human body) is                  essentially evil,
**
**that the evil god (Satan) imprisoned spirits in material bodies, so whatever one can do to be released from that prison (including suicide) is good,

**
**that since matter is evil, marriage and the procreation of mankind is evil,

**
**that that Christ was not truly a man, and therefore, neither was Mary truly the Mother of God,

**
and that the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ were only illusions, and consequently the whole concept of the cross in the Christian life was rejected.
[/INDENT]
**To combat this great evil the Blessed Virgin Mary chose Saint Dominic to spread the Good News of her Son, Jesus Christ, by his preaching and by promoting the Rosary.
**

See more at
defendingthebride.com/ma2/dominic.html


**John
**
 
I don’t see any mention of a “horrific and bloody” event.
David, are you trying to deny that historical event!, I wish if you can provide any reference from the Catholic Church that such event did not happen in the first place…

Here is the “horrific and bloody” quote from that same Wikipedia article:

“The Catholic forces did not simply slaughter the inhabitants. They are reported to have unleashed an unprovoked campaign of looting, rape, torture, and murder. According to one report by a Peter Liegé:
Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die”
 
And where did wikipedia get their source?
David, are you trying to deny that historical event!, I wish if you can provide any reference from the Catholic Church that such event did not happen in the first place…

Here is the “horrific and bloody” quote from that same Wikipedia article:

“The Catholic forces did not simply slaughter the inhabitants. They are reported to have unleashed an unprovoked campaign of looting, rape, torture, and murder. According to one report by a Peter Liegé:
Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die”
The stated source is one “Peter Liege”. However, I can’t find any information about him other than his claimed assertion. Why wouldn’t those people referencing thim also explain just who he is or might be?

I am skeptical when I can’t find any information.

peace
steve
 
The stated source is one “Peter Liege”. However, I can’t find any information about him other than his claimed assertion.
You know Steve, I wish that event is a false one :(, since Muslims keep pointing that one against Christians, citing that you are not better than Muslims Sunni & Sheaa sects fighting.

However, that Peter Liege has his book referenced in that Wikipedia link.
 
First,most ANYTHING “quoted” in Wikipedia is suspect

Second,Anyone can write a book about anything and say it contains “facts”. What I want to see is references and historical documents that varify the claims made.

This Wiki “quote” from Peter Liege is just another Anti Catholic making his “case” against our Church, and because he makes this event sound so Horrific in nature, he gets alot of attention.
 
The source of the quote is from a Nineteenth Century book entitled History of the Waldenses which evidently puts forward the fanciful thesis that Waldenses date back to the Apostles and preserved the true Christian faith from the satanic, man-made traditions of the apostate Roman Church. The account of the Piedmont Massacre from Peter Leige cited may be a real source, but I suspect that it is at the very least embellished. There are often excesses committed in war, but eating brains is a very extraordinary claim. You have to read these sorts of sources with a skeptical eye becuase they were written in politically charged times in which there is a lot to gain by demonizing your opponents.
 
I’m trying to understand the Waldensians movement and how the Catholic Church reacted to them which ended in a horrific bloody way, so please clarify the following for me:

The first question, regarding the Pope Innocent VIII 1487 order of extermination, wasn’t declaring them as a heretic movement enough?

The second question, can the Popes make mistakes?
On your two questions, I can’t do better than the rest so far.

But two articles by Dave Armstrong are worth linking here:

Were the Waldenses Primitive “Protestants?”

Were the Albigensians Primitive “Protestants”?
 
“This period of peace was followed in 1488 by a crusade summoned by Innocent VIII against the Waldenses.”
newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm

Thanks for the link.
I don’t see any mention of a “horrific and bloody” event.
David, are you trying to deny that historical event!, I wish if you can provide any reference from the Catholic Church that such event did not happen in the first place…

Here is the “horrific and bloody” quote from that same Wikipedia article:

“The Catholic forces did not simply slaughter the inhabitants. They are reported to have unleashed an unprovoked campaign of looting, rape, torture, and murder. According to one report by a Peter Liegé:
Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die”
Just to put things in perspective, Sam_777, the authentic historical source that you provided says " This period of peace was followed in 1488 by a crusade summoned by Innocent VIII against the Waldenses".

David Filmer points out that there is nothing in that source that refers to some “horrific and bloody” event…because it doesn’t. And then you go right back to the other source that was called to question for its lack of an authentic source material to show some “horrific and bloody” details.

Questions: 1) Why do you believe that “one report by a Peter Liegé” is an objective and realistic representation of “a crusade summoned by Innocent VIII against the Waldenses”. 2) Why do you believe the author of that wiki article correctly represented the actual historical events, whn he only quoted 1 source, from a man who is not known by ANYONE to be a credible historian or an objetive reporter of the facts?
 
Just to put things in perspective, Sam_777, the authentic historical source that you provided says " This period of peace was followed in 1488 by a crusade summoned by Innocent VIII against the Waldenses".

David Filmer points out that there is nothing in that source that refers to some “horrific and bloody” event…because it doesn’t. And then you go right back to the other source that was called to question for its lack of an authentic source material to show some “horrific and bloody” details.

Questions: 1) Why do you believe that “one report by a Peter Liegé” is an objective and realistic representation of “a crusade summoned by Innocent VIII against the Waldenses”. 2) Why do you believe the author of that wiki article correctly represented the actual historical events, whn he only quoted 1 source, from a man who is not known by ANYONE to be a credible historian or an objetive reporter of the facts?
ahs, Actually I wish that all were false claims against the Catholic Church, and I wish there is a reference in the Vatican denying those incidents, because as I said before others are using it against the CC.
 
ahs, Actually I wish that all were false claims against the Catholic Church, and I wish there is a reference in the Vatican denying those incidents, because as I said before others are using it against the CC.
Others are using what against the Church? False accusations based on “one report by a Peter Liegé”? Or they are using ‘the fact that the Church has not bothered to prove a negative’ against the Church?

Does the Church really need to come out and deny every single false claim against it? That would take up a lot of time that could oterwise be spent serving God’s children, dont’ you think? Don’t you think it would be a better idea for those making the claims to put forth the evidence? That seems to be what Jesus thought…“if I have acted wrongly, produce the evidence against me, otherwise why do you [accuse] me”? (cf. Jn 18:23)

Back to my previous questions that you did not address:

Questions: 1) Why do you believe that “one report by a Peter Liegé” is an objective and realistic representation of “a crusade summoned by Innocent VIII against the Waldenses”. 2) Why do you believe the author of that wiki article correctly represented the actual historical events, whn he only quoted 1 source, from a man who is not known by ANYONE to be a credible historian or an objetive reporter of the facts?
 
Does the Church really need to come out and deny every single false claim against it?
Nah, that’s what we’re for.

But of all the bad things that happened in Church history, THIS? Really?

But I never try to “disprove” anything like this. I have no knowledge of it, but I concede.

So I’ll take the guy’s word for it, that it happened exactly as described. Naughty, bad Catholics. So what? What’s the point? Is there some doctrine at stake here?

Catholics have done some really bad things (more readily proven than this). Catholics will continue to do some really bad things. We are a Church of both saints and sinners, and have never claimed otherwise. So what? Even Jesus’ handpicked Apostles had a thief and a traitor in their midst. Why should the Church be any better than the Apostles?

What’s the point the guy is trying to make?
 
Nah, that’s what we’re for.

But of all the bad things that happened in Church history, THIS? Really?

But I never try to “disprove” anything like this. I have no knowledge of it, but I concede.

So I’ll take the guy’s word for it, that it happened exactly as described. Naughty, bad Catholics. So what? What’s the point? Is there some doctrine at stake here?

Catholics have done some really bad things (more readily proven than this). Catholics will continue to do some really bad things. We are a Church of both saints and sinners, and have never claimed otherwise. So what? Even Jesus’ handpicked Apostles had a thief and a traitor in their midst. Why should the Church be any better than the Apostles?

What’s the point the guy is trying to make?
Very good point. 🙂
 
ahs, Actually I wish that all were false claims against the Catholic Church, and I wish there is a reference in the Vatican denying those incidents, because as I said before others are using it against the CC.
You still have not answered the questions of ahs. Can we have your response please?
 
Questions: 1) Why do you believe that “one report by a Peter Liegé” is an objective and realistic representation of “a crusade summoned by Innocent VIII against the Waldenses”.
Okay let say that 20% of what he said could be true, still that is a dark point in the Christian history.
  1. Why do you believe the author of that wiki article correctly represented the actual historical events, whn he only quoted 1 source, from a man who is not known by ANYONE to be a credible historian or an objetive reporter of the facts?
Because the Popes actions could be influenced per this reference, so in my opinion they are not infallible, beside that it was not only the Wikipedia article, there are many on the Internet, google that…

Moreover, why don’t you register with Wikipedia and write a paragraph denying that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top