Talk:Waldensians

message: I have watched this page get battered back and forth for several years now between those who declare that the Waldensians started with Waldo and those who declare that it goes back to the first/second century. I will make a proposal (based upon my understanding/interpretation):
Why not allow space for both interpretations as to their origins? It was popular in early and mid-Protestant centuries for Protestant writers to "claim" the Waldensians as their forerunners. However, many (most?) current historians no longer accept the 18th and 19th century Protestant histories as correct, but rather as an (well-intentioned and honest?) effort to try to get history to validate their positions.
The issues at stake in Waldensian history are not easy to distinguish many hundreds of years later, with extremely limited source documents. Yes, there were pre-Waldo churches that were similar to what Peter Waldo and his closest followers eventually morphed into. But the issue is that the Waldensian movement linked with Peter Waldo did not directly originate from these pre-Waldo churches (i.e. Waldo was not a convert of theirs, but started separately from them, likely unaware that they existed). Later, there was some interaction between Waldo and these pre-Waldo congregations (as I understand it). Added to the confusion is that many Waldensians never left the Catholic Church.
So you have connections both ways, that is, some Waldensians had interactions with (and some of them possibly originated from) pre-Waldo churches that were not Romanized. At the same time, you had some Waldensians who officially stayed within the Catholic Church and held private meetings on the side.
So two theories exist as to the origins of the Waldensians: 1) They came from the pre-Waldo congregations and Waldo joined with that movement. 2) They were a new movement and had some associations with pre-Waldo non-conformist congregations, but never really joined the pre-existing movement, thus becoming a distinct movement that had a large chunk of adherents who remained (officially) within the Catholic fold.
My proposal is that both of these theories of origins (and both have some credibility to them) have a space here, rather than one side wiping out the other side's ideas, then later the other side wiping the first side's ideas off the page. The outline could be:
Origins
::Pre-Waldo theory
::Distinct movement theory
Or something similar. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the issue is that the only people claiming that the Waldensians predate Peter Waldo are select non-Waldensian protestant groups trying to claim the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession through the Waldensians.  See, for example, The Trail of Blood.  These sources were written specifically to try and beat Catholicism at its own game.  The Waldensians themselves and all secular academia are in agreement that the group started with and are named after Peter Waldo.  We do not need to create artificial balance between actual history and sectarian propaganda.  The section Appraisal by Protestants is sufficiently due weight. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The editors who try to push for a pre-Waldo Waldensian movement are drive-by POV-pushers.  We don't need to give them any room. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault ... I haven't actually read through this article in a while and was just watching the changes. You are correct in that the Appraisal by Protestants section would be the place to give that version a place to be presented. I think the confusion comes from the fact that the Italian non-conformist congregations were similar in many ways to Waldo's movement—and there was some contact between the two—can easily lead to the idea that Waldo was a convert of the Italian congregations. And, some contemporary historians had made that connection, assuming that since there were similarities that the two movements were one and the same. Thanks for the heads up. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion to stop the origins war 

message: UPDATED.  Catholic section.  The claim that Pope Innocent VIII ordered extermination needs to be supported by some primary source. The Wikipedia page on Innocent VIII has the same paragraph. I raised an issue there.
I found a link to the bull (Latin and French). It does not seem to order extermination of people, rather the heresy. This is not to deny that excommunication etc would leave a population outside the church's protection by overzealous or tyranical princes, and that this could indeed be bad for them. I have added a link to the bull, and added the words "of the heresies of"  into exterminate the VoudoisRick Jelliffe (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extermination? 

message: The introduction/background info section has unclear meaning in the following two sentences:
“Upon finding the ideas of other reformers similar to their own, they quickly merged into the larger Protestant movement. In 1532, with the Resolutions of Chanforan of 12. September 1532, they formally became a part of the Calvinist tradition.” 
Was the “Resolutions of Chanforan of 12” a specific citation (i.e., “of 12”), or was the period separating these sentences a typo (i.e., the 12th of September)? Samfoe (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity on merging with Protestants 

message: The only words I have read in the book (The Elizabethan Jesuits, by Francis Edwards), happen to be on leaf 87 (whereupon I made 'leaf-fall' on my first and thus far only interaction with the said book) and thus read...
"Once he had been an enthusiastic follower of John Foxe, the man who compiled a huge volume on the Waldesians, the Poor of Lyons, the Hussites, and Wycliffites, and other..."
Has the hereinabove foreshows, "the Waldesians" and "the poor of Lyons" ARE LISTED APART.
:– the persecution of the Waldenses is covered in Chapter IV, Papal Persecutions, of Foxe's Book of Martyrs – Foxe notes that Peter Waldo was from Lyon, but does not use the term "Poor of Lyons" anywhere in the book – perhaps the quoted sentence could be punctuated as "the Waldesians, the Poor of Lyons; the Hussites; and Wycliffites; and other..." with Poor of Lyons as an alternative name for the Waldensians, not as a separate group – Epinoia (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waldesians and the Poor of lyons listed separately in the book: The Elizabethan Jesuits 

message: :There were ten entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . 
*WP:ELCITE:  
*WP:ELBURDEN:  --  Otr500 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Britannica as far as I know is a reliable source, and it states that "Eventually, the elements of the Eucharist (bread and wine) were understood as symbols only, and the Waldenses denied the doctrine of transubstantiation. ". I see no reason to delete this, and it does not conflict with the references mentioning belief in real presence, as Britannica uses the language of "eventually", which means that Britannica is claiming that their theology developed from a belief in real presence to Memorialism. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Waldensian" movement was like most other movements, in that it was not monolithic and static. The early Waldensians were (as I understand it) theologically Catholic, a "wannabe" monastic order to put it in my words. But with the passing of time and the pressure/persecution they received from the establishment, they drifted away from Catholicism, culminating in becoming full-fledged Protestants after the Reformation. When and where the theological changes took place is where scholarship comes in. I would like to see this more ascertained in this page, but at the moment do not personally have time to search the sources. So, if Britannica makes that statement, I would be for including it here, within context. Protestants tend to want to make the early Waldensians into Proto-Protestants, which they really were not. Perhaps there is a monograph out there that deals fairly and truthfully with the subtle changes in the movement over time. If there is one, I would be glad to read it. Mikeatnip (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you User:Mikeatnip. User:ValtteriLahti12, the Encyclopedia Britannica has, too, become an editable encyclopedia and has a number of errors. As such, the references I have added are to be used. Additionally, memorialism did not come into vogue until Zwingli, and even then, the Reformed actually adhere to the view of a real spiritual presence. It is extremely unlikely that the Waldensians would have held to memorialism (which had not even been theorized by that time), unless primary texts establish this. Keep in mind that Lutheranism teaches a corporeal presence in the form of a sacramental union. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I would question the statement that Memorialism was completely absent before Zwingli and the Anabaptist, as an example Philip Schaff (the Reformed church historian) wrote thus on the views of Pico Della Mirandola (who lived just before the Reformation):"In his twenty-third year, he went to Rome and published 900 theses on miscellaneous topics, in which he anticipated some of the Protestant views; for example, that no image or cross should be adored and that the words "This is my body" must be understood symbolically,—significative,—not materially." However, even if there have been mistakes in Britannica, as far as I know it is generally reliable as Britannica says on their own website: "Once an article is written, it is reviewed and revised by a team of editors." I think that the comment in Britannica should atleast be mentioned, as the article seems accurate in its facts about the Waldensians on the other things mentioned, and thus I don't see a reason to doubt its claim on them eventually developing into a more symbolic understanding of the Supper. However, if another reliable source mentions that even the later Waldensians did not develop into another system of viewing the Supper, I could see viewing the Britannica article with suspicion. The sources used in the Wikipedia article, as far as I understood, only mentioned early Waldensians, which does not seem to conflict with the Britannica article, which says that they only "eventually" began to teach a more symbolic view (implying that the early Waldenses did not teach this). Also, I am fully aware that most Protestants haven't historically taught Memorialism and it is more of a Baptistic/Evangelical view. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick search on a digital copy of "A Companion to the Waldensians" on "eucharist" and "transubstantiation." It would appear that there were questions in some later Waldensians concerning transubstantiation. The problem is that our sources come from the inquisitors and may or may not represent accurately what was taught. The biggest issue with the Waldensians concerning the eucharist (repeatedly brought out in heresy trials) was whether a priest not living a godly life was qualified to consecrate the host. The Waldensians appear to universally say such was invalid, while at the same time if no priest was present, an unordained man among them would serve the eucharist (at least they were accused of that). I am not adding the citations from "A Companion to the Waldensians" because I really would need to read the book entirely to catch the nuances and what may or may not have changed within the movement theologically. It is on my reading list, but my list is quite large. :-)  All said and done I would say leave the quote from Britannica in until another solid source shows different or gives the nuance about whether the Waldensians moved to symbolism (like the Anabaptists) or more towards a "spiritual presence." BTW, if you qualify for Wikipedia Library use, the mentioned book is downloadable from Brill, along with all their other "Companion" series. Mikeatnip (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I by chance happened upon the book "Preachers by Night" from Brill and searched it. This book indicates that, yes, some of them appear to have had a memorialism view while others may not have. So I add the source and tweaked the text. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Transubstantiation