Why are there so many Denominations?!?!

" I would learn something from the experience, and would certainly never use the quote again."
''
A quote by you.
"The Waldensian treatise titled the Noble Lesson, dated 1100 A.D., stated: "Antichrist, the predicted murderer of the Saints, hath already appeared in his true character, seated monarchally in the seven-hilled city." In 1120 or 1160 A.D., A Treatise Concerning Antichrist identified the Pope of Rome as the Antichrist. George Faber identifies this as a production of Peter the Valdo (Faber, pp. 379-384)."
''
Peter the Valdo (or to use the more widely used English version of his name Peter Waldo) is the founder of the Waldensian movement. He died in 1218. He started the Waldensian movement in +/- 1170. The Waldensian movement was an officially recognized part of the Roman Catholic Church in 1179. Relations swiftly deteriorated thereafter.
So the Noble Lesson can't be a Waldensian text for starters. As for the second quote. The date of 1120 is extremely unlikely for any text written by Peter who lived for 98 years after that year, something that ought to be obvious to anybody seriously researching the subject. The date of 1160 might work, however the proposed author tried to start up a religious movement that he wanted to be part of the RCC 10 years after he claimed the pope of Rome was the Anti-Christ.
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=407549
Is this what you like me to do?

 

Hello mioque. You said “Is this what you like me to do?” Yes, that is exactly what I would like you to do. Now I have something to work with. I can look into the matter to find the truth. That’s what it is all about isn’t it? It’s not about who is right, or wrong, but rather, what the truth is. The truth will set one free from deception. Satan is the father of lies. I do not want to follow him; therefore, I seek the truth. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. I seek to know the truth in Him.

I have read about the Waldensians before. It has been some time ago. I guess it is time to refresh my memory. Something you said, doesn’t sit well according to my recollection. It was the part about the Waldensians being an officially recognized part of the Roman Catholic Church. This I will look into. Also, there are some who think that Peter the Valdo started the Waldensian movement; there are others who are sure he did not. Something to do with them existing long before he lived. This I will have to check into also.

I noticed that you used the Britannica as your source of history to counter George Faber. That is an interesting choice on your part. There is a book entitled The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Joseph McCabe). This book is about how the Catholic Church has basically rewritten much of the history in regard to itself, found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The author gives many examples from the various additions of the Encyclopedia. He also gives the following warning to his readers.

" But I give here a mass of evidence of the corrupt use of the great power which the Catholic Church now has: a warning of what the public may expect now that that Church has, through its wealth and numbers, secured this pernicious influence on publications, the press, the radio, and to an increasing extent on education and even the cinema. "

Here is a bit more that he had to say on the subject. A little lengthy, but of great importance none the less.

J. McCabe, Rationalists Encyclopedia
“It will be gathered from a large number of articles in this Encyclopedia that the great gain of the adoption of scientific methods in modern history and of extensive discoveries in archaeology is offset by a lamentable falsification owing to concessions to religious writers or sectarian influence. It has gravely increased the difficulty of the Rationalist education of the public that, just when science has generally succeeded in silencing "the drum ecclesiastic" (in Huxley's phrase), history is increasingly listening to it. Recent issues of the leading encyclopedias have permitted very serious alterations of historical articles or invited clerical writers to contribute articles on subjects on which they could not be expected to be impartial or accurately informed. Serious attempts have been made even to impose the new spirit of accommodation upon teachers of history in universities, colleges, and the national schools. Poynter tells of an amazing plot of this nature in his Roman Catholics and School History Books (1930). However one may analyze the motives or the influences, conscious or subconscious, the evil begins with a number of professors or writers of history of some distinction, especially in the United States. [See, for example, the articles Arabs; Christianity; Dark Age; Democracy; Middle Age; Monasticism; Papacy; Philanthropy; Reformation; Rome; Thirteenth Century; and subsidiary articles mentioned in them.] The intellectual and moral status of pre-Christian civilizations is vindicated against ancient calumnies by virtually all modern authorities; yet in the case of Rome, while Protestant writers like Dr. E. Reich and Sir S. Dill have been generous in stating the truth, a number of recent historical writers, men who show no command of classical literature and the inscriptions, have used language in conformity with the old prejudices. This encourages theological writers to repeat their discredited claims that the Gospels brought a new and higher type of religion and ethic into the contemporary Roman world; that the Christians generally exhibited a superior type of character which attracted thoughtful Greeks and Romans; and that the acceptance - in reality enforcement - of the Christian religion was followed by a social and moral improvement. But greater evil is done by a falsification of the social history of the Christian, or at least the Catholic, era. In this respect Catholics have had a remarkable success in adulterating history. On the plea that the Protestant and Rationalist historians of the last century were moved by a prejudice against Catholicism, or that the development of psychology and of economic and social science gives the historian a new equipment for the study of earlier peoples, some historians - this does not apply to the Cambridge Mediaeval History - profess to give a new and sounder estimate of the period of solid Church influence. The title given to the first half, the Dark Age, is, largely on the quite false ground that it means the whole of the Middle Ages, declared to be unjust, and the second part, the Renaissance in the broader sense, is described more or less in harmony with the claims of Catholic writers. The historians in question betray that they have no command, as the historians of the last century had, of medieval literature. They ignore completely the immense literature which tells the licence and coarseness of life of the clergy, monks - all that they say of monasticism is to give a description of the ideal of a Benedictine abbey or describe Francis of Assisi - and people of all classes; and they profess that it is a mark of liberality to follow Catholic writers on the work of Gregory VII or Innocent III, the Massacre of the Albigensians and the Hussites, the Inquisition and the Reformation (See Coulter's Sectarian History, 1937). Admirable as it is to trace neglected social, political, and economic factors in this stretch of history, the deliberate suppression of its many evil features falsifies history and the sociological valuation of institutions. The same tendency is seen in the deliberate depreciation of the Arab-Persian civilization, which conceals the real source of the European Renaissance and confirms the preposterous claim that the Roman Church inspired it. Even in the modern period we find the same grave departure from the canons of history in the undiscriminating condemnation of the French Revolution, the suppression of the terrible injustices of French life which led to it, and especially the concealment of what Lord Acton called the savagery of the Roman Church in its fight against progress from the fall of Napoleon to 1870 (in Spain and Russia until recently). This falsification of history, at least by the suppression of facts and of relevant but distasteful contemporary documents, is one of the most unfortunate features of modern culture. The scores of articles in this Encyclopaedia in which it is exposed show that a new and thorough history of the Christian era is urgently needed.”

I am sure mioque, that as you and I volley, we will find great differences between writers accounts of history. No doubt, facts have been twisted to some of the writers ends. I cannot say for certain, that this problem has been only one sided. This is why it is very important to use many sources, and not just personal favorites, that might support our own liking.

In any case, I have some things to look into, that you have presented. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I will enjoy learning more as I research the subject at hand.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith.

 

We should not disdain people but there is nothing wrong with rejecting false beliefs that are counter to the Bible. Jesus Himself warned of false teachers and he was not polite about it.

The Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible and their religion misleads many. As I posted on page 2 of this thread:
...............................
They also deny the Trinity. They believe that Jesus' atonement makes it possible for us to be saved "after all we can do."

They believe the God of this world is just one of many; there are Gods of other universes.

They believe in 3 levels after death, the top one is for good Mormons who have been to the Temple.

They believe the Bible is correct "insofar as it is correctly translated."

They believe that we were spirits in heaven with God before we were born. It is the duty of good Mormons to procreate so they can give bodies to all these spirits, which, by the way, were created by God and his wife having sex. God, btw, has a body (although he and his wife have spirit children - I once asked some Mormon missionaries how this was possible and they just said there were some things that were mysteries ).

Jesus was conceived by God having intercourse with Mary. This is incest since they believe Mary is one of God's children, like the rest of us (since we are spirit offspring of the sexual union of God and his wife).
..................................
Also - another one: Jesus was one of the spirit children of God -- just like us -- and so was Satan.

False teachings are not of God and are spiritual poison. We are to expose them, denounce them, and steer people clear of them.

Read 2 Peter 2 sometime for a stinging denounciation of false teachers. This goes even past disdain.

 

I object to the doctrines of Catholicism -- praying to the dead, worshipping at Mary's altars, inventing purgatory, men claiming to forgive sins, exaulting Mary to co-redeemer - sinless-like-Christ mother-of-God queen-of-heaven all-powerful-like-Christ and even slaughtering the saints.

But still - I must admit there are Christians among those that claim to be Catholic.

There is no "magic bullet" for knowing who among those who believe in Christ can be a Christian.

Especially "if that bullet" is something the disciples themselves believed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Kamoroso
"Something you said, doesn’t sit well according to my recollection. It was the part about the Waldensians being an officially recognized part of the Roman Catholic Church. "
''
There is a strong resemblance between the first half of the life of Peter Waldo and the first half of the life of (the later 'saint') Francis of Assisi. Both start out rich and both give it all up to start a reform movement inside the RCC. Both inspired considerable mistrust inside the churchhierarchy. The Franciscans eventually got fully accepted by the churchleadership (the legend of how that acceptance came about is the sort of tale that made me decide to focus on the history of churches like the RCC instead of that of my own denomination and churches like it). The Waldensians got partially accepted in the late 1170's. They were allowed as an officially recognized movement inside the RCC, but they were not allowed to preach. That would never do for Waldo and his followers and a few years thereafter things started getting ugly.

"there are some who think that Peter the Valdo started the Waldensian movement; there are others who are sure he did not. Something to do with them existing long before he lived."
''
As far as I know all modernday historians who hold to the view of ancient Waldensians are into theories like Landmarkism.
Landmarkism is the notion that there is a string of Christian churches starting in the Book of Acts and continuing into the present day that is completely independant from the church that became the Catholic Church, the Eastern-Orthodox churches, the Oriental-Orthodox churches and the churches of the Reformation. Ofcourse the folks who hold to that notion always include their own church into that string. To those folks the concept of ancient Waldensians is nothing but a bit of proof for their theologically motivated views.

"I noticed that you used the Britannica as your source of history to counter George Faber."
''
I didn't, I used 2 books from my churches library (I'm it's verger, don't ever become an historian if you want your education to pay the bills!), afterwards I searched for an internet source that provided the relevant new information in a simple format.

 

Before I forget the 2 books I referenced were: De Grote Winkler Prins encyclopedie (1976 edition) and Gabriel Audisio's Les vaudois. Histoire d’une dissidence (XIIe-XVIe siècle).

 

The SDA "Story of the Waldenses" (J.A. Wylie) points out that they bean in the 9th century. They were named after the valley in northern Italy, not originally after Peter Waldo (who may himself have been named after it).

 

Thank you mioque, and Eric, for that info. I have found a great deal of info., regarding the Waldenses. I will have to sift through it, and find that which is pertinent to what we are discussing. Namely, their origin, connection to the Church of Rome, and Peter Waldo. It may take a little time, but worth the investigation I'm sure. Bye for now.

Y. b. in C. Keith

 

The Catholics themselves admit to schism after schism on every subject under the sun. Why a supposedly non-Catholic would argue for a single monolithic all-encompasing unit that even in the dark ages - kept track of every soul in europe is simply testament to how fully they chose to "Believe" what the RC historians said to believe.

In Christ,

Bob

 

mistaken post.

 

J.A. Wylie, that was one of the guys Ellen White was accused of plagiarizing in the Great Controversy wasn't he?
If the charge is true I'm surprised she picked him, he reads more like a political activist than a prophet.

 

Jn.20. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

 

Here are some quotes from the info. I have found so far. As can be seen by them, there are certainly some different ideas about these people, the Waldenses. Most of this info. Contradicts what has been presented so far. It would be important no doubt, for all of us to look deeper into the matter. Either one view is correct, and the other wrong, or the truth lies somewhere in between.


THE VOICE OF THE
CHURCH
by D.T. Taylor


THE WALDENSES, A. D. 314, TILL NOW
THE WALDENSES, VALDENSES, VAUDOIS or “People of the Valleys.” “Who has not heard,” says Elliott, “of the Waldenses?” “this most ancient stock of religion,” to use the words of the great Milton. In the language of Dr. Cheever, “They are an unconquered community of Protestant Christians, who have always existed directly at the doors of the Romish court, and beneath the reverberating thunders of the Vatican.” Romish and Protestant writers of the best authority have demonstrated their existence since the time of Pope Sylvester, and perhaps even from the days of the Apostles, and it is well known that they acknowledge no founder. But we need not stop to eulogize them, for their praise is in every mouth. We come to notice their faith, and on this we remark that, “They have always regarded the Papal Church as the Antichrist: the Babylon of the Apocalypse.” ( page 108 )


CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST
by Samuel J. Cassels

The holy wars against the Waldenses will next claim our attention. Some writers suppose that the Waldenses took their name and origin from Peter Waldo, a wealthy merchant of Lyons. Others, however, place their origin in a much more remote antiquity. The opinion of Beza was, that Peter of Lyons derived his name Waldo, or Valdo, from the Waldenses. “According to other writers,” says Hallam, “the original Waldenses were a race of uncorrupted shepherds, who, in the valleys of the Alps, had shaken off, or perhaps never learned, the system of superstition on which the Catholic
200
church depended for its ascendency.”13 Shoberl traces their origin to Claude, Bishop of Turin, who, when image-worship was introduced, in the beginning of the eighth century, made a bold stand against both this and several other corruptions of the Romish church. Here, amid the valleys of Piedmont, had these truly primitive and Christian people lived for centuries, separated by their locality from the rest of the world, and unobserved by even the eye of popish jealousy. ( pages 199&200 )


HISTORY OF THE
ANCIENT CHRISTIANS
by Jean Paul Perrin

Among these Witnesses, the first that we distinctly read of were the Pauliclans. They rose about A.D. 660. A very interesting account of these pious people is given in Milner’s Ecclesiastical History of the seventh century; and a still more extended and distinct account, in the Revelation Adam Blair’s History of the Waldenses, Book I. chapter I.

While the Paulicians were still maintaining their faithful testimony, the Waldenses arose; or, rather more probably, these two denominations had a common origin, and a common faith. The name Waldenses, the most common and popular one of these humble and devoted people, was evidently derived — not from Peter Waldo, but from the place of their abode. The following statement of the learned and ingenious Robert Robinson, a divine of Cambridge, in England, who died more than half a century ago, places the origin of this name in what I suppose to be the true light.

“From the Latin, Vallis, came the English, valley; the French and Spanish, valle; the Italian, valdesi; the Low Dutch, valleye; the Provencal, vaux, vaudais; the ecclesiastical Vallenses, Valdenses, Ualdenses, and Waldenses. The words simply signify vallies, — the inhabitants of vallies, and no more. It happened that the inhabitants of the Pyrenees did not profess the Catholic faith. It fell out also that the inhabitants of the rallies about the Alps did not embrace that faith. It happened, moreover, in the ninth century, that one Valdo, a friend and counselor of Berengarius, and a man of eminence, who had many followers, did not approve of the Papal discipline and doctrine. And it came to pass, about an hundred and thirty years after, that a rich merchant of Lyons, who was called Valdus, because he received his religious opinions from the inhabitants of the vallies, openly disavowed the Roman religion, supported many to teach the doctrines believed in the vallies, and became the instrument of the conversion of great numbers. All these people were called WALDENSES.”1

6
The same people, that is, a people who substantially agreed in faith and practice, were called by different names derived from their places of residence; from the names of distinguished leaders; and from a variety of minor peculiarities: — as Albigenses, from their principal seat being in the neighborhood of Alby, in Francs; Bohemian Brethren, from their being found in large numbers, in Bohemia; Catbari, or Puritans, from their opposition to the corruptions of the Papacy; Leonisis, or Poor men of Lyons, from their chief residence in the city of Lyons; Petrobrussians, Arnoldists, and Henricians, from the names of distinguished ministers and leaders; and a variety of other appellations, familiar to the students of ecclesiastical history. These names, however, will be found so fully enumerated and explained in the History itself, which I here recommend, that further remark upon them here is altogether unnecessary. ( pages 5&6 )

They renounced the Church of Rome as mystical Babylon, abhorred the Pope as the “Man of Sin,” and rejected all the traditions of the Papacy as of no authority among Christians. They held that there were only two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; that the other five, so named by the Romanists, have no just title to be called sacraments; and that of the five, three, viz. confirmation, penance, and extreme unction, have no foundation whatever in the word of God. ( page 7 )


MILLER’S CHURCH HISTORY
by Andrew Miller


VAUDOIS, ALBIGENSES, WALDENSES
4. The origin of the Western sectaries, so-called, under the common name of Waldenses, has been the subject of much controversy. One class of writers, favorable to Romanism, with the view of involving them in the common charge of Manicheism, have endeavored to prove that their opinions were of Eastern, or Paulician origin; while the opposite party affirm that they were free from the Manicheart error, and that they have been the inheritors and maintainers, from father to son, of a pure and scriptural Christianity, from the time of Constantine, if not from the days of the apostles.2 But as it is not so much our object at present to trace the history of these ancient, simple, and devoted christian people, as to bring out another feature of the papacy under Innocent, in its most fully expressed blasphemy and cruelty; we will merely satisfy the reader as to who these people were, and as to the scene of their slaughter. “The terms,” says Dr. Gilly, “Vaudois in French, Vallenses in Latin, Valdisi in Italian, and 608 Waldenses in English ecclesiastical history, signifying nothing more or less than ‘men of the valleys;’ and as the valleys of Piedmont have had the honor of producing a race of people who have remained true to the faith introduced by the first missionaries who preached Christianity in those regions, the synonyms have been adopted as the distinguishing names of a religious community, faithful to the primitive creed, and free from the corruptions of the church of Rome.” The Albigenses, though essentially one with the Waldenses in matters of faith, were so called because the greater part of Narbonnese-Gaul which they inhabited was called Albigesium, or from Albi, a town in Languedoc. The Alps separated the two communities. God found an asylum for the Waldenses in the valleys on the eastern side, and for the Albigenses in the valleys on the western side, of that great mountain range, where they were preserved and fortified for many centuries. PETER WALDO From a similarity of names, Peter Valdo, or Waldo, the reformer of Lyons, has frequently been spoken of as the first founder of the Waldensian sect. This we think a mistake, but one easily made, and one which the Romanists eagerly improved as an argument against their antiquity, and one which has been adopted by most of the general histories. But Mr. Elliot, in his “Horae Apocalypticae,” and those mentioned in the note above, have examined the question with great patience and research, and, we believe, clearly established the conclusion of the orthodoxy and the antiquity of the “men of the valleys.”3 ( Chap. 25 page 607 )


A GENERAL HISTORY OF THE
BAPTIST DENOMINATION
VOLUME 1
by David Benedict


Sylvester was bishop of Rome in the reign of Constantine, and Catholics pretend that he was the thirty-fourth in succession. In the days of Sylvester, it is believed, that the people, who were afterwards called Waldenses, began to separate from the church, which had become a tool of state, and was fast plunging into error and superstition. (chap.1 page 17)

The Euchites among the Greeks were similar to the Waldenses or Waldensians among the Romans. The terms, Waldenses, Valenses or Vadois (all of the same import) signify the people of the valleys, and were applied in early times to those, who, tired of tyranny, pomp, and oppression, retired to obscure retreats where they might enjoy gospel purity and religious freedom. And in the end, all of their sentiments, and many who were not, were called Waldenses, whether they dwelt in rallies or on mountains, in cities or in caves: Just as a sect of christians are called Moravians, whether they dwell in Moravia, in England, in Greenland, or the West-India Islands. And the terms Euchites and Waldenses answered to that of Non-conformist in England, which every reader will understand. Among the English non-conformists, are comprehended Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, and so on. And so among the Greek Euchites and the Roman Waldenses, were a great variety of sects, who maintained a great diversity of opinions and practices, and among them were many who would be called Baptists, as we shall attempt to show in the next chapter but one. (page 33)


THE HISTORY OF THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
VOL. 1
by William Jones


Eminent among these witnesses for the truth in times of general apostacy, stand the Waldenses. They first appear prominent in history in the twelfth century. Long before that, no doubt, in the valleys of the Alps, they had maintained the true religion, having retreated from the corruptions and persecutions of the Romish church. They had remained there in comparative quietude, perhaps esteemed too insignificant for molestation, until in the century named the papal hierarchy was startled at the wide prevalence and popularity of their doctrine, and hence felt it necessary to employ all the infernal machinery of persecution for their destruction. Their missionaries had gone into all the world, and then, in almost all the countries of Europe, as if by one consent, there started up simultaneously, great numbers of individuals who denounced the supremacy of the Pope, condemned the corruptions and venality of the priesthood, and boldly proclaimed that the church of Rome was the “whore of Babylon” predicted in the Apocalypse—they declared that Christ was the only head of the church, and that the Bible was the only
4
infallible rule of faith and practice. These confessors obtained different names—from their localities, from their principal men, from some circumstances in their manner or some peculiarity in their doctrine, and
from the wit and malice of their enemies. The most common names, however, by which they were called, were those of Waldenses and Albigenses—the former derived from the valleys of the Alps, and the other from the town of Albi, two places where for a long time their doctrine most flourished.

But these names are used with great latitude by historians. The papal writers from the twelfth to the sixteenth century — to the Reformation— often include under these names, and sometimes under one of them, all the dissenters from the church of Rome, however different and distinct in sentiment and practice; as they now call all denominations Protestants who do not admit the infallibility of their church. This fact must be kept prominently in view by all who would draw the proper distinctions among those who, in that age, in divers countries and for different causes, were marshaled in battle array against the papal dominion. Some were opposed merely to the supremacy of the Pope, others sought simply to reform the manners of the clergy. Here was a party that rejected the mummeries of the mass, or laughed at the folly of transubstantiation; and there was a party that abhorred the adoration of images, repudiated the intercession of saints and angels, refused homage to dead men’s bones, contemned penances and pilgrimages, and despised and ridiculed all the absurd superstitions and absurd practices under which the duped and deluded millions were crushed by a designing priesthood. Such persons were Reformers. They esteemed the church of Rome to be the church of Christ in a state of apostacy. They wished to purge her of pollution, and restore her to primitive purity and excellence. But Popery will not be reformed. The constituents of its being are impurity and sin. Hence its Reformers were denounced as heretics, fit only for chains and death; and hence, to call down upon them general odium, and to excuse and justify their persecution, they were denominated Waldenses and Albigenses—a peple who, it was notorious, declared the Pope to be the “son of perdition,” and his church “the whore of Babylon.” The true Waldenses and Albigenses were no Reformers of the Papism. They disclaimed all connection and kindredship with the church of Rome—denounced her ministers and 5 ordinances as those of darkness; and roundly asserted that the church of Christ was never included within her precincts or befouled with her abominations. ( pages 3,4&5 )


TRUTH TRIUMPHANT
by Benjamin George Wilkinson
CHAPTER 6

VIGILANTIUS, LEADER OF THE WALDENSES
The paganism which so soon began to avenge itself by creeping into the doctrines and practices of the early church has never been altogether eradicated, and has always been ready to become the nucleus of heresy or corruption when faith declined or ardor cooled.1 THE earliest leader of prominence among the noble Waldenses in northern Italy and southern France is Vigilantius (A.D. 364-408). By some he has been accounted the first supreme director of the church of the Waldenses.2 In his time the protests against the introduction of pagan practices into primitive Christianity swelled into a revolution. Then it was that the throngs who desired to maintain the faith once delivered to the saints in northern Italy and southwestern France were welded into an organized system. Desiring truth based on the Bible only, those who refused to follow the superstitious novelties being brought into the church were greatly influenced by the clear-cut scriptural teachings of Vigilantius. Undoubtedly Patrick of Ireland, who was at that same time enlarging the Irish Church, was stirred by the reforms taking place in south central Europe.


CHAPTER 15
EARLY WALDENSIAN HEROES

Whenever, therefore, in the following sketches, the terms Berengarians, Petrobrusians, Henricians, Arnoldists, Waldenses, Albigenses, Leonists, or the poor men of Lyons, Lollards, Cathari, etc, occur, it must be understood that they intend a people, who agreed in certain leading principles, however they might differ in some smaller matters, and that all of them were by the Catholics comprehended under the general name of Waldenses.1 Of them Sir James Mackintosh writes: With the dawn of history, we discover some simple Christians in the valleys of the Alps, where they still exist under the ancient name of Vaudois, who by the light of the New Testament saw the extraordinary contrast between the purity of primitive times and the vices of the gorgeous and imperial hierarchy which surrounded them.” page 2


After Emperor Constantine had declared (A.D. 325) which of the Christian churches he recognized, and had decreed that the Roman world must conform to his decision, there came a straggle between the Christians who refused to compromise the teachings of the New Testament and those who were ready to accept the traditions of men. Mosheim declares: The ancient Britons and Scots could not be moved, for a long time, either by the threats or the promises of the papal legates, to subject themselves to the Roman decrees and laws; as is abundantly testified by Beda. The Gauls and the Spaniards, as no one can deny, attributed only so much authority to the pontiff, as they supposed would be for their own advantage. Nor in Italy itself, could he make the bishop of Ravenna and others bow obsequiously to his will. And of private individuals, there were many who expressed openly their detestation of his vices and his greediness of power. Nor are those destitute of arguments who assert, that the Waldenses, even in this age [seventh century], had 208 fixed their residence in the valleys of Piedmont, and inveighed freely against Roman domination.” 4 ( pages 7&8 )

WALDENSES DATE BACK TO THE APOSTLES
The connection between the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and other believers in the New Testament and the primitive Christians of Western Europe is explained by Voltaire thus: Auricular confession was not received so late as the eighth and ninth centuries in the countries beyond the Loire, in Languedoc and the Alps — Alcuin complains of this in his letters. The inhabitants of those countries appear to have always had an inclination to abide by the customs of the primitive church, and to reject the tenets and customs which the church in its more flourishing state judged convenient to adopt. Those who were called Manichaeans, and those who were afterward named Albigenses, Vaudois, Lollards, and who appeared so often under different names, were remnants of the first Gaulish Christians, who were attached to several ancient customs, which the Church of Rome thought proper to alter afterward.”6 For nearly two hundred years following the death of the apostles, the process of separation went on between these two classes of church members until the open rupture came. In the year 325 the first world council of the church was held at Nicaea, and at that time Sylvester was given great recognition as bishop of Rome. It is from the time of this
209 Roman bishop that the Waldenses date their exclusion of the papal party from their communion. As the church historian Neander says: But it was not without some foundation of truth that the Waldenses of this period asserted the high antiquity of their sect, and maintained that from the time of the secularization of the church — that is, as they believed, from the time of Constantine’s gift to the Roman bishop Silvester [A.D. 314 — 336] — such an opposition as finally broke forth in them, had been existing all along.”7

These Christians of the Alps and Pyrenees have been called Waldenses from the Italian word for “valleys,” and where they spread over into France, they have been called Vaudois, a French word meaning “inhabitants of the valleys” in a certain province. Many writers constantly call them Vaudois. The enemies of this branch of the Church in the Wilderness have endeavored to confuse their history by tracing to a wrong source the origin of the name, Waldenses. They seek to connect its beginnings with Peter Waldo, an opulent merchant of Lyons, France, who came into notice about 1175. The story of this remarkable man commands a worthy niche in the temple of events. However, there is nothing in the original or the earliest documents of the Waldenses — their histories, poems, and confessions of faith — which can be traced to him or which make any mention of him.


Turning back the pages of history six hundred years before Peter Waldo, there is even a more famous name connected with the Waldenses. This leader was Vigilantius (or, Vigilantius Leo). He could be looked upon as a Spaniard, since the people of his regions were one in practically all points with those of northern Spain. Vigilantius took his stand against the new relapses into paganism. From these apostatizing tendencies the Christians of northern Italy, northern Spain, and southern France held aloof. The story of Vigilantius and how he came to identify himself with this region is told in another chapter.9 From connections with him, this people were for centuries called Leonists, as well as Waldenses and Vaudois. Reinerius Saccho, an officer of the Inquisition (c. A.D. 1250), wrote a treatise against the Waldenses which explains their early origin. ( page 8 )

According then, to these historians, the Waldenses were never a part of the Church of Rome. If they do not go back to the days of the Apostles, it is reckoned, that they existed at least by the fourth century. Of course this would mean that Peter Waldo did not start this movement.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

Keith
Good you post a link to the website(s) were you copy paste your info from?

The Waldensians were the product of a culture where novelty was slightly suspect and for an idea, or an organisation to be taken serious ancient roots were a must. Especially if you were rebelling against a group that had such roots.
If your group or ideas weren't old you simply made them old.

Of the historians you cite Benjamin George Wilkinson&Jean Paul Perrin must be singled out as incompetent. If you don't notice the significant differences between Waldenses (Christians) and Albigenses (followers of a non-Christian religion with christian roots like Mormonism) you are seriously uninformed.
We have 5 surviving original Albigensian texts discussing their view of their own religion.

The others you cite seem more interested in attacking Catholicism than in actually telling us something about the Waldensian movement.
To be honest I've never read a history of the Waldenses holding to the ancient origin of the movement theory that wasn't in the first place a polemic directed against Roman Catholicism.

On a personal note, as I'm getting older I find the ancient origins envy of American&British (semi-)Christian groups (Mormons, Landmarkists, SDA's, British Israelism etc.) more and more aggravating especially if it's combined with contempt for those (semi-)Christian groups that DO have a genuine ancient origin.

 

True, the Albigenses, Catharii, and several of the others were ascetic, and otherwise heterodox. While eschewing some of the errors of Rome, they held on to some, and added their own.
Even the 9th century Waldenses still had many of the trappings of Rome, such as priests, monks, etc. (this was evident from the SDA book I cited!) They just opposed new doctrines Rome was continuing to add. So none of these groups can be truthfully used to trace one's group back to the apostolic age. (Don't forget the JW's, Campbellism, and Armstrongism/7th day churches of God, which also use this method of tracing.)

I had heard about some Christian "families" around the hills of Israel who had passed the faith down since the first century. But I couldn't find anything about them. I wonder if they preserved primitive Christianity, or are they affiliated with the Orthodox Church or some Catholic group (which affiliation would have been picked up as those organizations developed, just like the church in all other lands).

 

The word translated "forgive" has various meanings, such as "forsake", "lay aside", "leave", "let [alone]", "omit", "put (send) away", "suffer". Now, when God forgives us our sin, He does these things. But these meanings also convey a lesser sense. If we take mistreatment without retaliating or resenting, like the scriptures tell us, then we are also "suffering" "omiting", "leaving alone", etc. The opposite is "retain". But that is not the same as forgiving sins unto salvation, and not forgiving unto damnation, which is only God/Christ. For we can forgive them, but if they do not repent before God, the sins are not forgiven by Him. We can not forgive them, and they repent, and are forgiven by God. So in no way is Christ conveying saving power to Church leaders, as some claim.
What Christ seems to mean in this passage is that if they retain someone's sin against them, God will punish the person for the sin, and if they suffer the sin, God will honor that. That seems to be a priviledge only offered those original apostles. It's an appeal to mercy for the sinner, not sins being wiped away by the Church.

 

Mioque, I am not trying to prove the ancient roots of anybody. Just checking out different views of the history of the Waldenses. The quotes I gave, come from books I own, not the internet.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

"We have 5 surviving original Albigensian texts discussing their view of their own religion."
''
I must be getting old forgetting to list those 5 texts. The following are the names used for them by modern scholars studying the subject. Rituel de Dublin, Traité anonyme, Rituel latin, Liber de duobus principiis, Rituel occitan de Lyon.

 

The word translated "forgive" has various meanings...
What Christ seems to mean in this passage is that if they retain someone's sin against them, God will punish the person for the sin, and if they suffer the sin, God will honor that. That seems to be a priviledge only offered those original apostles. It's an appeal to mercy for the sinner, not sins being wiped away by the Church. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe I'm dense, but your statement makes NO sense to me at all. Instead of taking the above passage literally, you twist it's plain meaning because of your anti-catholic bias. The historic churches (Roman/Orthodox/Anglican)of Christendom see and practice the clear meaning of this text. Jesus' power to forgive sins has been conferred to His priests. A priest alone forgives no one.

 

Kamoroso
"The quotes I gave, come from books I own, not the internet."
''
You collect bad historybooks? Before you start feeling offended I have a friend who does. 2 whole shelves of them.