Waldes of Lyons' Profession of Faith

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu,

Before moving on in this thread, let's agree on what version of Waldo's profession is authentic.

The source I cited is accepted by the present day Waldensians themselves. I accept this source as authentic.

The source you cited isn't even accepted by you. ("I don't trust even this reports the Faith of Waldensians correctly.")

Please cite the book or web site that contains the full text, translated into English, of Waldo's profession of faith that you will accept as authentic.

If you do reference a web site please let me know the original printed source of the document that the web site used. (Since, as we both know, anyone can type anything on a web site and make it look official.)

Thank you.

CA

(FYI. My citation is found on page 204 in Heresies of the High Middle Ages, Selected Sources Translated and Annotated by Walter Wakefield and Austin Evans (Columbia University Press, New York, 1991)

No, I don't want to be forced to accept the authenticity of the personal confession. What I can say is that your article reports Waldo was more Catholic than any other Catholic articles do, then doesn't explain why such faithful Catholic was excommunicated, except showing that Catholics are relentless and ridiculous even to the faithful Catholics.

If Waldo confessed the faith of Catholic, such confession is meaningless.

The reason why people are interested in his faith was because his faith could become the evidence that there were faithful believers outside RCC. Throughout the literatures, it is very much plausible that Waldo changed his faith quite a lot. He could have been a good Catholic before his conversion. Even after the conversion, he may have tried his best to materialize his dream within the frame of RCC and therefore he expected a good verdict from the Pope, but the result turned out to be totally different from what he expected. In such case, the fame of Waldo may have been obtained and grown only after 1182. Therefore his confession of faith, if any, must be interesting only when it was done after 1182.

Again, we must remember that there were dissident groups of Believers much before Pierre Waldo such as Cathari and Albigenese in the Southern France, and we are very much sure that Waldensians have started much earlier than 5 century AD, even tracing back to Early Church of the Apostles.

God the Holy Spirit has never been lazy on this earth since the Ascension of Jesus Christ, and has preserved His True Church all the time throughout the ages, and therefore we can trust that there have been the True church which has been faithful to the NT teachings any time during the past 2000 years, and the church of Rome was not such church, but the Church of Great Harlot, Church of the Great Prostitute in Revelation 17. The true churches have been persecuted by such pagan religion all the time and even the history was re-written by such pagan religion.


How could Lateran Council ( 1139) condemn the Waldensians for the rejection of Infant Baptism if Waldensians were started only by Pierre Waldo?

The Lateran Council of 1139 did enforce infant baptism by severe measures, and successive councils condemned the Waldenses for rejecting it. (Wall) Evervinus of Stanfield complained to Bernard, Abbot of Clairval, that Cologne was infected with Waldensian heretics, who denied baptism to infants. (Allix) Peter, Abbot of Clugny, wrote against the Waldenses, on account of their denying infant baptism. (Ivemey) Bernard, the saint, the renowned Abbot of Clairval, says, the Albigenses and Waldenses administer baptism only to the adults. They do not believe infant baptism. . . . Ecbertus Schonaugiensis, who wrote against this people, declares, They say that baptism does no good to infants; therefore, such as come over to their sect, they baptize in a private way; that is, without the pomp and public parade of the catholics. (Wall) . . . Alexander III, in council condemned the Waldensian or Puritan heresy, for denying baptism to infants. (Danvers) Alanus Magnus states that they denied the ordinance to children

http://www.geocities.com/I_hate_spammers/waldenses2.html#7ch1


Almost all Roman Catholic writers agree with Cardinal Hosius, who says: "The Waldenses rejected infant baptism." Addis and Arnold declare of them: "As to baptism, They said that the washing of infants was of no avail to them.". . . Ermengard, about A.D. 1192

http://www.geocities.com/I_hate_spammers/waldenses2.html#7ch1

Trusting the Histories written by the enemy of Waldensians or by their Apostates is much worse than the purchase of GM cars thru the Toyota dealers. We can just guess the true history beyond the written history.

In the meantime I would rather trust and stay with this:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/pc-b-085.htm

I think even in 1163, Peter Waldo was not converted yet, nor started any missionary, but the Pope prohibited Waldensians:

In 1163 a Council of the Romish Church at Tours, * called together by Pope Alexander III, forbade any intercourse with Waldenses because they taught "a damnable heresy, long since sprung up in the territory of Toulouse
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/pc-b-085.htm

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Present day Waldensian scholarship dates "The Noble Lesson" from the 14th or 15 century.

Reference You Are My Witnesses: The Waldensians across 800 years by Giorgio Tourn (1989) page 52ff and The Waldensian Story: A study in faith, intolerance and survival by Prescot Stephens (1998) page 84ff.

CA

Well, my historical source can beat up your historical source. Neener neener neener. :laugh:

I have a few books on the Waldenses to give their history. Peter Felix is probably the best and most detailed. What's interesting is that the papacy regarded them as heretics, burned their works and their persons, and branded them heretics.

So, often our knowledge of them comes from their most fierce enemy.

 

[Matt Black]

No, I don't want to be forced to accept the authenticity of the personal confession. What I can say is that your article reports Waldo was more Catholic than any other Catholic articles do, then doesn't explain why such faithful Catholic was excommunicated, except showing that Catholics are relentless and ridiculous even to the faithful Catholics.

If Waldo confessed the faith of Catholic, such confession is meaningless.

On the contrary, there have been many Catholics who were excommunicated because they disagreed with Papal authority. A recent example was Archbishop Lefebvre who was "more Catholic than the Pope" and was excommunicated for appointing bishops in defiance of Rome; so, just because someone was excommunicated doesn't necessarily mean they're not Catholic.

 

[Eliyahu]

On the contrary, there have been many Catholics who were excommunicated because they disagreed with Papal authority. A recent example was Archbishop Lefebvre who was "more Catholic than the Pope" and was excommunicated for appointing bishops in defiance of Rome; so, just because someone was excommunicated doesn't necessarily mean they're not Catholic.

Anyway, the confession of the faith in this case doesn't mean very much because it could have been the one before the actual conversion or before the start of the real ministry.

Secondly as I mentioned above, Waldensians do not rely on any indivual but they were the group which existed before Lateran Council 1139, earlier than the birth of Peter Waldo, far earlier than the start of his ministry around 1170- 1180

Not only the case of Waldo, the true brethren do not rely on the individual fame or any leader. Presbyterians have Calvin, Lutheran have ML, Methodists John Wesley, who were the leader of Baptists? What about Brethen? There are many brethren movements like Moravian, Mennonites, PB, etc. One may indicate Zinzendorf or JN Darby, but we don't count them such but believe the Holy Spirit did the job thru many people.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Well, my historical source can beat up your historical source. Neener neener neener. :laugh:

I have a few books on the Waldenses to give their history. Peter Felix is probably the best and most detailed...

What is the title of his book? I searched the web for "Waldenses Peter Felix," but didn't get anything.

CA

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

No, I don't want to be forced to accept the authenticity of the personal confession...

And I don't intend to force you, either. It's just better for the discussion if we use the same version of the document (and the version I cited is the only full text in English that I am aware of.) You may choose any version of Waldo's profession that you wish.

I would, however, recommend that you not use the "1120" version that you cited previously since:

1. You indicated, "I don't trust even this reports the Faith of Waldensians correctly."

and...

2. As was previously noted by Jarthur001, it's a forgery: http://books.google.com/books?id=jK...ts=NHD_8ZMpz9&sig=IzHDQpp_Zj1xY6lcxtjciEhkeJw

CA

 

[Eliyahu]

And I don't intend to force you, either. It's just better for the discussion if we use the same version of the document (and the version I cited is the only full text in English that I am aware of.) You may choose any version of Waldo's profession that you wish.

I would, however, recommend that you not use the "1120" version that you cited previously since:

1. You indicated, "I don't trust even this reports the Faith of Waldensians correctly."

and...

2. As was previously noted by Jarthur001, it's a forgery: http://books.google.com/books?id=jK...ts=NHD_8ZMpz9&sig=IzHDQpp_Zj1xY6lcxtjciEhkeJw

CA

What is the purpose of bringing the confession of faith by an individual ?

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

What is the purpose of bringing the confession of faith by an individual ?

Because...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1102759&postcount=1

And, although significantly larger, shouldn't Luther's Catechism and Calvin's Institutes also be considered "the confession of faith by an individual"?


CA

 

[Eliyahu]

Because...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1102759&postcount=1

And, although significantly larger, shouldn't Luther's Catechism and Calvin's Institutes also be considered "the confession of faith by an individual"?

CA

No !
It was you who said such statement, and it might be only you and some Catholic minded people here that claim Peter Waldo started Waldensians Movement.

The True believers don't think so.; I already showed you many sites which explain that the Waldensian movement can be traced back to Pope Sylvester era and even to Early Church of the NT.

I already showed you that even before the birth of Peter Waldo, there were Waldensians, and that's why the Lateran Council was convoked to cope with such movement in 1139.

Calvin or Martin Luther's Confession ? How many people remember them?
It might be the Confessions of many people like Westminter Confession ( 1 century later than Calvin) or the Augusburg Confession 1530 that influenced many believers

 

[Matt Black]

Then your information is inaccurate: the Second Lateran Council makes no mention of the Waldensians or any of their practices or beliefs in it canons.

 

[Eliyahu]

Then your information is inaccurate: the Second Lateran Council makes no mention of the Waldensians or any of their practices or beliefs in it canons.

Yes, you can be correct in narrower terms of Waldensians. However, as I said repeatedly, the Waldensians were not started by Peter Waldo, but Peter Waldo learned the Truth and Gospel from the Waldensians, and one of the Waldensians was Peter de Bruys who was grown up in the Waldensian Valleys. Moreover, Waldensians was not named by themselves as today's PB's are not, but the name was attached by Roman Catholics. The important fact is that the Petrobrusians preached the same as Waldensians did. http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0547.htm

the Petrobrussians: (1) They declared invalid the baptism of any person before they reached the age of discretion. They taught believers baptism, and practiced rebaptism of those who joined them from the Catholics. (2) They declared Church buildings and consecrated alters as useless. (3) They were opposed to the adoration of images and rejected the use of crucifixes. (4) They denied transubstantiation. (5) They rejected prayers, alms, and good works for the dead. In addition, the Petrobrussians rejected the Catholic use of tradition

I simplified my statement about 2 Lateran Council condemning Petrobrusians and Arnolds etc.

Repeatedly, I say that Peter Waldo was not the founder of Waldensians Movement, it existed since the Early Church of NT, may be before 120 AD.
Apostle Paul preached the Gospel to Yugoslavia ( Romans 15:19). You can confirm the same movement before 1139.

 

[Matt Black]

Lateran II doesn't mention the Petrobrussians or their doctrines either; it was basically convened to enforce clerical celibacy in the Western Church and attack some of the corrupt practices which had crept in, in the spirit of the Hildebrandine reforms of the previous century.

 

[David Lamb]

Lateran II doesn't mention the Petrobrussians or their doctrines either; it was basically convened to enforce clerical celibacy in the Western Church and attack some of the corrupt practices which had crept in, in the spirit of the Hildebrandine reforms of the previous century.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.html says:

The council condemned the errors of the Petrobrusians and the Henricians, the followers of Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia.

​

The Catholic Encyclopedia, at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09017a.htm says:

The council likewise condemned the errors of the Petrobrusians and the Henricians, the followers of two active and dangerous heretics, Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia.

​

 

[Eliyahu]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.html says

That seems to cover more details of the council than my reference.

Two of my references were http://www.catholicism.org/ecumenical-councils.html#Tenth and the other one from Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09017a.htm



http://www.catholicism.org/ecumenical-councils.html#Tenth
Action: Called and ratified by Pope Innocent II, this council voided the acts of the deceased antipope, Anacletus II (d. 1138), ending the Papal schism of the time. It also condemned the heresies of: 1) Peter Bruys (Bruis) and his NEO-MANICHEANS, who denounced the Mass as a "vain show," opposed the Eucharist, marriage, and the baptism of children — all this leading to Albigensianism ("Material things are evil in themselves"); 2) Arnold of Brescia, who contended that the Church was an "invisible body," not of this world, and should own no property.
Note: St. Bernard, Abbot and Doctor of the Church (d. 1153), preached against the abuses and laxity attendant upon lay investiture, and the Lateran Council set down laws to remove them.
Heresiarchs: PETER BRUYS and ARNOLD of BRESCIA.


Actually, the contents of the confession of the faith were the same among Albigenes, Petrobrusians, Waldensians.
I thought the name of " Waldensians" started to appear among Catholics since around 1139, because some Protestant sites referred to Petrobrusians as Waldensians. So far the name of Waldensians seems to appear only from Lateran Council III around 1177.

According to the records, it seems that Peter Waldo started the public ministry (maybe "within Catholic") from 1173. I am not sure they could get the name within 4 years to be discussed in the Council.

In terms of contents of the confession, I have no doubt that there were plenty of people who believed the Bible and Jesus Christ, outside the RCC, before 1139. It seems that there is little record during 1054-1122 since the split between East and West.

 

[Matt Black]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.html says:

The council condemned the errors of the Petrobrusians and the Henricians, the followers of Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia.


​

The Catholic Encyclopedia, at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09017a.htm says:

The council likewise condemned the errors of the Petrobrusians and the Henricians, the followers of two active and dangerous heretics, Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia.


​

Please quote the canon concerned.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

...How could Lateran Council ( 1139) condemn the Waldensians for the rejection of Infant Baptism if Waldensians were started only by Pierre Waldo?

The Lateran Council of 1139 did enforce infant baptism by severe measures, and successive councils condemned the Waldenses for rejecting it. (Wall)...
http://www.geocities.com/I_hate_spammers/waldenses2.html#7ch1

Eliyahu,

It appears that your source, Thomas Williamson, is quoting a secondary source, G.H. Orchard, who is misquoting the original source, W Wall.

It looks like the actual quote is:

“… the Lateran Council, under Innocent the Second 1139 (1039), did condemn Peter Bruis, and Arnold, of Brescia, who seems to have been a follower of Bruis, for rejecting infant baptism. These proofs do, I think, evince that there were some about this time that denied all baptism; and some others that denied peculiarly infant baptism, among those parties of men that have been lately called Waldenses…”

This extract is from page 204 The History of Infant Baptism, Volume 2 by W. Wall (4th edition, 1819)

By "lately" Wall appears to mean "in his day," that is, in Wall's time - the early 1800's. You can see this if you read the whole of Chapter VII where he says things like "it is probable that these were a sort of people that have been since called Waldenses" and "These were at first in several places called by several names and nick-names; but have been since by our English writers denoted by the general name of Waldenses." (page 184).

And “… these {Cathari or Puritans, Paterines, Petrobrusians, Lyonists, Albigenses, Waldenses, and several more}, though differing many of them very much from one another, have been of late confusedly and by one general name called Waldenses.” (page 184-185)

A quote on page 186 is interesting. "And there is one of them {a Waldensian confession} also, that does mention the baptizing of children, but so as to leave the main question {of infant baptism} still ambiguous. It is their Treatise concerning Antichrist, written, as is pretended, anno 1120 (1020). But I do not believe that; not having any other account of this people so early." In this quote Wall seems to expressly deny that the Waldensians existed before the 12th century.

And this from page 190, "Whatever the tenets of these men were, they are much too late to give us any direction about the sense of the primitive church."

The {} were added by me for sentence clarity.

CA

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

And one more from W. Wall... This from page 202:

"It is to be noted, that neither Petrus {Peter, Abbot of Clugny writing in in 1146} nor Bernard {Abbot of Clareval writing in 1147} do call them that they write against, Waldenses, nor do so much, as mention the name; nor was there, I believe, any such name then known."

CA

 

[David Lamb]

Please quote the canon concerned.

Canon 23:

Those who, simulating a kind of religiosity, condemn

1. the sacrament of the Lord's body and blood,
2. the baptism of children,
3. the priesthood and other ecclesiastical orders, and
4. legitimate marriages,

we expel from the church of God and condemn as heretics, and prescribe that they be constrained by the secular powers. We also bind up their defenders in the fetter of the same condemnation.

The fact that Peter de Bruys and the others are not named makes no difference, for according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, says the following about the Petrobrusians regarding their belief on baptism and the mass:


​

...but it is baptism preceded by personal faith, so that its administration to infants is worthless. The Mass and the Eucharist are rejected because Jesus Christ gave his flesh and blood but once to His disciples, and repetition is impossible.

​

Henricians are described thus by E. Cobham Brewer:

A religious sect; so called from Henri’cus, its founder, an Italian monk, who, in the twelfth century, undertook to reform the vices of the clergy. He rejected infant baptism, festivals, and ceremonies. Henricus was imprisoned by Pope Euge’nius III. in 1148.
​

I expect it would be possible to find similar statements about the other "heretic" and their followers.

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks, David, that one must have slipped past me! D'oh!

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu,

It appears that your source, Thomas Williamson, is quoting a secondary source, G.H. Orchard, who is misquoting the original source, W Wall.

It looks like the actual quote is:

“… the Lateran Council, under Innocent the Second 1139 (1039), did condemn Peter Bruis, and Arnold, of Brescia, who seems to have been a follower of Bruis, for rejecting infant baptism. These proofs do, I think, evince that there were some about this time that denied all baptism; and some others that denied peculiarly infant baptism, among those parties of men that have been lately called Waldenses…”

This extract is from page 204 The History of Infant Baptism, Volume 2 by W. Wall (4th edition, 1819)

By "lately" Wall appears to mean "in his day," that is, in Wall's time - the early 1800's. You can see this if you read the whole of Chapter VII where he says things like "it is probable that these were a sort of people that have been since called Waldenses" and "These were at first in several places called by several names and nick-names; but have been since by our English writers denoted by the general name of Waldenses." (page 184).

And “… these {Cathari or Puritans, Paterines, Petrobrusians, Lyonists, Albigenses, Waldenses, and several more}, though differing many of them very much from one another, have been of late confusedly and by one general name called Waldenses.” (page 184-185)

A quote on page 186 is interesting. "And there is one of them {a Waldensian confession} also, that does mention the baptizing of children, but so as to leave the main question {of infant baptism} still ambiguous. It is their Treatise concerning Antichrist, written, as is pretended, anno 1120 (1020). But I do not believe that; not having any other account of this people so early." In this quote Wall seems to expressly deny that the Waldensians existed before the 12th century.

And this from page 190, "Whatever the tenets of these men were, they are much too late to give us any direction about the sense of the primitive church."

The {} were added by me for sentence clarity.
CA

1. Petrobrusians rejected the Catholicism and believed the Bible as follows:

Petrobrusians – Peter De Bruys

1)Rejected Infant Baptism
2)Performed Believers Baptism
3)Re-Baptised the Believers
4)Rejected Baptismal Regeneration
5)Destroyed Crucifixes
6)Denied that the good works, offerings, prayers can bring the salvation
7)Condemned the use of the church altars
8)Rejected the Transubstantiation
9)Abhorred the Popery, Bishop, Priesthood system – Clergy system
10)Rejected the sanctity of the bricks, mortar and woods of the church buildings.
Roman church buildings are full of idolatry and goddess worship and therefore should be torn down
11)Crosses, Crucifixes are not worthy of veneration or adoration, or of any supplication, they detested the worship of Crucifixes, prayers offered to it.
12)Rejected the teachings of Fathers
the Petrobrusians wanted Scripture for everything and not the sayings of the fathers.
13) Believed in Sola Scriptura
14)Rejected the salvation by the faith of others, Sponsors for the babies.
15)Rejected this:
'The unbelieving husband is saved by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is saved by the believing husband.


2. The True Christian believers have not called themselves with the name of any sects, and even today Plymouth Brethren do not call themselves as PB's but outsiders call them as PB. Even the Christian was named by outsides ( Ac 11:26), often as a contempt. So, the name of Waldensians would have been attached by others like Catholics, sometimes as Vaudois, Valdeshi, Walden (German pronunciation Valden), etc, by others. So the name of the group of the Believers might have not been exactly known as Waldensian all the time.

The statment in my quotation may include the interpretation by the writer, and the name " Waldensians may have not appeared before around 1177
This need some more study and verification. You can be correct as far as the name on the surface.

3. However, if you make the cross check between Baptists reports and Catholic critics about the Petrobrusians and Waldensians, Albigenes, you can confirm that there existed a group of Believers in Scripture outside RCC continuously, who rejected

- Infant Baptism,
- Idolatry
- Papacy and Clergy system
- Human Tradition
- Transubstantiation
- Salvation by the faith of others, e.g. Salvation of unbelieving Husband by the Believing Wife, Salvation of the unbelieving wife by the believing husband
- Worship of Crucifixes, Crosses etc.

4. You can confirm those points about Petrobrusians from this quite well.

http://articles.christiansunite.com/article3145.shtml

This is quite interesting because it was written around 1854, before the flood of the today's flood of writings.

The arguments by the Venerable Peter who lived almost the same era and vehemently condemned Peter de Bruys as Heretics and defended RCC are included there, and the author draw the aspects of Petrobrusians from such condemnation.

Peter de Bruys could have been a greater Reformer than Martin Luther, 400 years earlier than ML, if he had not been killed.