Regarding the Waldensians (split from other thread)

[Archlute]

Wanted to clarify something after that little dust up over on the other thread.

I have studied at two evangelical seminaries, the first of which had an outstanding church history prof who is now teaching at SBTS, the second of which was WSC, which also would not be slow at pronouncing a movement unorthodox or otherwise if there were real danger involved. That being said, I have never heard at either of those institutions the term "heretics" applied to the Waldensians. They have an orthodox confession of faith, which I have read. They have a continuing evangelical Protestant movement in the rural areas of Italy. My first prof traveled there, met them, and worshiped with some of them.

The Albagensians, the Cathars, sure, but the Waldensian movement??? Has anyone else, coming from a credible seminary, ever heard of this label being applied to that movement?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Waldensian "heretics" certainly sounds rather extreme to me too. Kind of... Roman hyperbole, maybe?

Now, could there have been aberrations in their theology? Certainly, and why should that be surprising? It is not as though they were cheerfully enfolded into the public church in every respect. And why? because the public church (RC) of the Middle Ages was becoming corrupt in its own manifold ways: adopting Pelagianism in fact if not in name, sacramentalism (Magic), etc.

I think it is noteworthy that when the Reformation came along, many Waldensian tribes (for want of a better designation) swung immediately into line with Protestant orthodoxy. I have a hard time attributing that action merely to politics.

Could it not be that their "poor" teaching, that included (whatever) errors perpetuated over time and incapable of being addressed in their primitive state, nevertheless existed alongside much true faith? And when they heard the Shepherd, they knew his voice, and happily went after him in the Reformation?

It seems incontestable to me that they were among the bright spots during the Middle Ages, however blemished their testimony. And I would hesitate even to put them into the same category as the Cathari, Albigenses, etc., with some of those sectaries' views.

That's just my .

 

[BertMulder]

Was also the occasion of one of the early reformed synods, at which the waldensians were present..

 

[ExGentibus]

The original Waldensians, in the XII century, were primariliy concerned with the public preaching of the Gospel by unordained preachers and conducting a life of poverty. They sought the papal approval, received his blessing for their life, but were not authorized to preach the Gospel or read the Scriptures privately. After their official condemnation at the Lateran Council, they had to endure three centuries of persecutions, finding refuge in the valleys of Piedmont, protected by the House of Savoy. Their early theology and piety was without doubt heavily influenced by medieval ascetism. They were organized in two levels, the "perfects" who lived in total poverty and travelled preaching the Gospel; and the laymen, called "simple" or "friends".

With the Reformation, they contacted the Swiss churches, and with the help of William Farel they formulated a reformed confession of faith and joined the reformed churches. This caused them even more, terrible persecutions which became known in all Europe.

Between 1848 and 1870, the era of italian unification, they were instrumental in the not-so-secret plan by the leading Italian insurgents and intellectuals to protestantise Italy under the king of Piedmont. After the unification of Italy in 1870, they gained definitive freedom and legitimacy. Many churches were built in all the major italian cities, including two large church buildings in Rome.

Sadly, they abandoned the confessional, reformed theology and practice and gradually assumed liberal positions. Though there are still a few ministers who continue to preach the Gospel, today most of the Waldensian congregations are very liberal. Their board rejects biblical inerrancy, ordains women ministers and seems mostly concerned with the freedom of women to have abortions, the freedom to practice euthanasia, the rights of homosexuals and similar relevant topics.

 

[Archlute]

I think that taking on a life of poverty in the face of the Roman church of the Middle ages does not necessarily mean the action was compelled by asceticism. There are plenty of works written (and those not even necessarily by Christian historians) documenting the moral corruption and material excesses of the Roman church, and a reaction against those sins in light of Christ's teaching against setting our hopes upon the riches of this world does not require one to have been a medieval mystic.

As well, some of the above is standard fare taken from Roman sources, all of which condemn them (along with any proto-Protestant movement) as being heretical and sectarian. I have not read anything in Waldensian confessions about such a division into perfects and friends, and think that such a claim is either Romanist propaganda, which explicitly attempts to link the Waldensians with the Cathars, or it may have been a temporary feature of the early movement.

You live in Italy, so you most likely have had more exposure to them yourself, but the Waldensians whom that church history prof met didn't seem to fit the liberal description that you mentioned above. Maybe he just met up with a few of the conservatives.

 

[CharlieJ]

At GPTS, McGoldrick (who has published some on the issue) regards them as originally being orthodox Catholics, which is to say, not Protestants. They were pushed out for refusing to obey the Church rather than for constituting new teachings. Some branches of the movement became more heretical as time went on, but Valdes (or Waldo) remained true to Catholic doctrine.

I dont think they were heretics in the sense of deny truths found in ecumenical creeds, but I don't know why we would regard them as being proto-Protestants.

 

[Kevin]

There existed several groups, over several centuries, widely dispersed from the south of France to the north of Italy and also some Swiss regions.

These are known by many names "Bogomils" (from bulgaria), "Albigensians" (from Alpi), "Cathars" (derived from the greek 'perfect'), "Paulicans" (presumed Pauline origins), and others.

These groups are united in doctrine & practice and had a active missionary outreach. They were so sucessful that St Bernard of Clairvaux reported after he traveled & preached though southern France in 1145 that the catholic faith had disappeared in that region.

The consensus is that there were the ancient sect of the Manichees (Gonzalez, Johnson, Cairns, et al).

At this time there also arose several "Mendicant" groups of reformers. The first of these was led by Peter Waldo. Like the founder of the Fanciscan order, St Francis Assisi, Waldo took a vow of poverty & devoted his life to purifying the church.

Athough Waldo was orthodox (he got in trouble for encouraging lay preaching) his name has been used for his followers. Quite properly. And it has been used to refer to any number of the previous heretical groups INCLUDING SOME THST EXISTED BEFORE HIS BIRTH. Quite improperly. (this is my primary criticism of Wylie, BTW)

Because of the wide latitude that the name Waldensian has been used, some have used Waldo's orthodox reputation as a way to whitewash dualism.

The worst abusers are the "Landmark" sect & various restorationist sects (Cambellites, Oneness & other pentecastal groups). In an effort to find their particular group down through the ages these groups will lay claim to any group "on the outs". The operating theory seems to be that since the (modern roman) Catholic church is in error, the church must always represent error though out history. And thus any group condemned by the church down though the ages is (ipso facto) "Pure like us".

This line of thinking includes 2 fallacies, that historians must guard against (temporalism, & provincialism).

Sadly, some writers within our own camp are not immune to this error. In a zeal to "prove" that the reformation was legitimate (often they are debating issues that are no longer relevant), they seek allies in the sects. Rarely will a presbyterian or a reformed author lay claim to the cathars, or the bogomils as a proto-reformer. But Waldo is nearly as good as Hus, not quite, but in a pinch...

However, what is most troubling is the fast & loose application of the name Waldensian to groups that are in fact, dualistic. Wylie himselfe does this in the first chapter of his book "The History of the Waldenses". In this book he uses the term to refer to groups that pre-date Waldo, and that are considered by almost every source I have read to be Dualist.

So although almost all (Protestant) historians are agreed on the orthodoxy of Peter Waldo, and on the basic orthodoxy of most of those that followed him, the name waldensian has been used with such lattitude of application that it is not always true that those called Waldensians are in fact orthodox.

 

[Kevin]

From the on-line catholic encyclopedia; CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Waldenses

from wilipedia; Waldensians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

catholic apologetics site; Who Were the Waldenses?

some examples of landmarkisms' false claims; Tracing the Apostolic Church

Baptist Perpetuity

Bye-paths in Baptist History: A ... - Google Book Search

the last link is to the page in Goadby ( I have this book) where he links together all of the various heretical, dualistic groups with Waldensians!

to be clear, in this point, he is incorrect in my opinion. However this is such a classic case of what I refered to in my earlier post I thought it worth including.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Being aware of the indiscriminate use of the term "waldenses," I certainly meant to confine my remarks to the specific heritage of P.Waldo, and exclude those from outside the Peidmontese who afterward subscribed to Reformation-era Protestant Confessions.

 

[ExGentibus]

I think that taking on a life of poverty in the face of the Roman church of the Middle ages does not necessarily mean the action was compelled by asceticism. There are plenty of works written (and those not even necessarily by Christian historians) documenting the moral corruption and material excesses of the Roman church, and a reaction against those sins in light of Christ's teaching against setting our hopes upon the riches of this world does not require one to have been a medieval mystic.

That is certainly true, and their reaction to the corrupt Roman church by reading and preaching the Bible is indeed a remarkable step in Church history. We should however consider that the original Waldensians were fully Roman Catholics in their doctrine. In 1179 they were blessed by pope Alexander III. They were later excommunicated not on doctrinal grounds, but because they refused to comply with the papal request to not preach the gospel publicly. From that moment on, through the persecutions, their theology evolved and became more and more distinct from Rome. It is of course possible that the documents we have today about those early times are filtered by the Roman church, but anyway the confession written in 1655 is the result of the Genevan Reformation.

You live in Italy, so you most likely have had more exposure to them yourself, but the Waldensians whom that church history prof met didn't seem to fit the liberal description that you mentioned above. Maybe he just met up with a few of the conservatives.

Most likely he met the few conservatives who have not capitulated under the weight of Barth's Dogmatics.

Seriously, the modern Waldensian church, at least their synod, faculty and media, are liberal: they support same sex unions, feminism and abortion. They are linked with the PC(USA), RCA, UCC and UMC. I know one pastor who is reformed and conservative, and there may be other orthodox congregations, but the documents and statements issued by their synod (whose moderator is a woman) are frightening.