Waldensians.

[ahs]

Okay let say that 20% of what he said could be true, still that is a dark point in the Christian history.

Stopping a heresy is a dark point in Christian history??

Or on the flip side, do you believe that Peter denying Christ 3 times was a dark point in Christian history?

Was Judas’ betrayal of Christ a dark point in Christian history?

Was the abandonment of Christ on the Cross by all but 1 of His Apostles a dark point in Christian history?

Did any of those make Christ’s Church any less than what He made it to be?

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…

What has sinfulness and wrong choices by men got to do with the infallibility in the Church or of the Pope when, in teaching on matters of Faith and Morals, declaring Doctrines that are to be accepted by the whole Church? Did Peter’s sin make him any less able to declare that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised? Did the sinful nature of man make the Church any less credible when declaring the Canon of Scripture in the 4th century? Did it make the Church potentially wrong when defining the Holy Trinity?

Moreover, why don’t you register with Wikipedia and write a paragraph denying that?

I have written for wiki once…and I didn’t have to be registered to do it…maybe they have changed the rules. At any rate, I’m content to focus my energy here at CAF and on my own blog when I have time. If you notice my signature…I’ve got a big family and spare-time of a rare and precious commodity for me. I don’t care to spend it writing for Wikipedia. Why don’t YOU?

 

[Sam_777]

I have written for wiki once…and I didn’t have to be registered to do it…maybe they have changed the rules. At any rate, I’m content to focus my energy here at CAF and on my own blog when I have time. If you notice my signature…I’ve got a big family and spare-time of a rare and precious commodity for me. I don’t care to spend it writing for Wikipedia. Why don’t YOU?

I’m in a hostile country towards Christianity, and we do not have public libraries so I can read about that topic, so I cannot contribute anything to Wikipedia…

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

*“3) the real reason for their being persecuted, as also admitted by some inquisitors, is because they rejected RCC traditions, not because they were unorthodox in major biblical doctrines;”

• https://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

You did notice that the quote is from a Baptist.

 

[ahs]

I’m in a hostile country towards Christianity, and we do not have public libraries so I can read about that topic, so I cannot contribute anything to Wikipedia…

Okay.

Since you didn’t address any of the rest (see below), I assume you now realize that, despite something being a dark point in Christian history, it doesn’t therefore affect whether or not the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ…nor does it affect the doctrine regarding “Infallibility” (properly understood).

Stopping a heresy is a dark point in Christian history??

Or on the flip side, do you believe that Peter denying Christ 3 times was a dark point in Christian history?

Was Judas’ betrayal of Christ a dark point in Christian history?

Was the abandonment of Christ on the Cross by all but 1 of His Apostles a dark point in Christian history?

Did any of those make Christ’s Church any less than what He made it to be?

What has sinfulness and wrong choices by men got to do with the infallibility in the Church or of the Pope when, in teaching on matters of Faith and Morals, declaring Doctrines that are to be accepted by the whole Church? Did Peter’s sin make him any less able to declare that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised? Did the sinful nature of man make the Church any less credible when declaring the Canon of Scripture in the 4th century? Did it make the Church potentially wrong when defining the Holy Trinity?

 

[NHInsider]

You did notice that the quote is from a Baptist.

Waldensians are among those sects that evangelical protestants like to claim in their efforts to prove that they are heirs to the true “New Testament” church, adherents of the true gospel passed down through the generations despite persecution by those nasty papists. (They sometimes refer to themselves as “the remnant.”)

To that end they often overlook (or are unaware of) the doctrinal errors taught by those groups.

In the case of the Waldensians it seems that in the beginning they were not heretical, just radical in much the same way that the Franciscans were, a couple of centuries later. Different branches of the movement, however, fell into a variety of doctrinal errors, and once they rejected the authority of the bishops/pope there was nothing to prevent those errors from growing and spreading.

It’s not clear whether they were influenced by/mixed with the Cathars or just caught up in the effort to stamp out that heresy; it seems the Council of Tours used the term Albigenses to refer generically to heretics in southern France.

Sally

 

[Portofino]

I have a great admiration for the Waldensians; they preached poverty, like Francis (who came onto the scene historically later than their founder, Peter Waldo) and were the precursors of the Radical Reformation, particularly “peace churches” of the Anabaptists and Quakers.

The New Advent article, part of the Catholic Encyclopedia, mentions aspects of their creed that sound ironic within the context of the epithet of heresy (in some ways, you could say that the Waldensians were ahead of their time and had recognized the dignity of the person in a way that was not fully recognized by the Church, until Vatican II):

“They denounced all lying as a grievous sin, refused to take oaths and considered the shedding of human blood unlawful. They consequently condemned war and the infliction of the death penalty.”

If this be “dangerous heresy”, then the perhaps the Quakers and the Amish need to be dealt with more severely.

 

[JohnR77]

At the time and place of Peter Waldo, the sect referred to as Waldensians was a lot more Catholic than some of those posting here realize. See

philvaz.com/apologetics/num3.htm

They were not treated so badly by Catholic Church.
But compare Peter Waldo with St. Francis. The second humbly submitted to the Church was blessed by God enormously, or I Should say, we have been blessed by God through him. Look how much good has been accomplished by God through those who follow St. Francis, the Franciscans.

The group that has allied itself with the Albigensians (a.k.a. Cathars) was a lot more hostile to society as a whole

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10901769&postcount=4

So, what I saying is that some posts are comparing apples and oranges. This second group was treated a lot differently and for understandable reasons. Maybe I will post more if time permits.
John