Talk:Waldensians

A suggestion to stop the origins war
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Extermination?
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)

Clarity on merging with Protestants
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)

Waldenses started off in the Italina Alps before spreading to the likes of Lyons (then not in France)
You understandy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.226.48 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You citey sourcey? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

How can the Waldenses have been created by Peter Waldo born in 1140 when the Monk Bernard de Foncald wrote about the heretics who were known as "Valdensis" who were condemned during the pontificate of Pope Lucius II in 1144 when Peter Waldo was 4 years old﻿ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2E3E:7B00:FC43:9565:9976:68B7 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - you need a reliable source before you add this to the article - and, as most reliable sources cite Peter Waldo, it should go in the "History#Origins" section as an alternative viewpoint rather than in the lead - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou I will locate the actual citation book and then publish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.132.91 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - the 1144 date seems to come from an 1886 work called "A History of the Vaudois Church from Its Origin" by Antoine Monastier - Monastier notes that Bernard, abbot of Foncald, mentions a dead pope named Lucius who Monastier assumes must be Lucius II who died in 1145 and concludes that the Vaudois were active before 1145 - Bernard of Foncald does not actually say that the Vaudois were active in 1144, it's an assumption made by Monastier - also, Bernard was writing at the end of the twelfth century (about 1180) and his information may not be accurate - the other author Monastier cites for an early date for the Vaudois is Eberhard of Béthune who wrote his book against heresies in 1210 - neither Bernard or Eberhard are credible sources for dates or information on the origin of the Waldensians - Bernard of Foncald is mentioned in the article on Peter Waldo, but the cited source, a blog called Flatlander Faith seems pretty sketchy - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not interested in a work dated 1886 but the original work by this Monk which does exist and will be found. You should check your facts instead of writing like trash Bernard as you state did not write anything in 1180 as he died in 1153. I have done my research and found this from late 12th century...From the book Histories of Alexander the 3rd it states that  after they were summoned by Bernard at Narbonne they instituted the treatise and were condemned  This is in relation to the heretics known as the Vaudois. I want this paragraph placed in the histories section someone can do it or ill do it myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.132.91 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - Medieval books are notoriously inaccurate on dates, so a good secondary source is recommended - see Reliable sources, particularly WP:RS, as well as WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE and WP:PSTS.
 * - if by "Histories of Alexander the 3rd" you mean Pope Alexander III, he was pope from 1159 to 1181 - Peter Waldo visited Alexander in 1179.
 * - Bernard of Clairvaux died in 1153 - Bernard of Clairvaux was not Bernard, abbot of Foncald or Bernard, Bishop of Narbonne.
 * - Bernard of Narbonne was not Bernard, abbot of Foncald - Bernard Gaucelin was bishop of Narbonne from 1182 to 1191 - Ancient Diocese of Narbonne
 * - in The Israel of the Alps : a complete history of the Waldenses, Alexis Muston dates Bernard, abbot of Foncald, to the end of the 12th century.
 * - Alain de l'Isle, professor of Theology at the University of Paris towards the end of the 12th century, wrote that the Vaudois derived their name from their heresiarch Valdo - so the Vaudois as followers of Peter Waldo was established in the 12th century.
 * - hope this helps - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the name of the Catholic cleric who supposedly translated the latin vulgate for Peter Waldo upon rish of death, this would have taken many years to complete when did it start and when did it finish ? secondly another major problem with Waldo is that he was known as the Poor men of Lyons who gave away all his property and wealth but the Valley people the Waldenses were businessmen they did not follow the way of life and teachings of Waldo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2E3E:7B00:E425:7CB2:3C2D:6A77 (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC) It is impossible for a Catholic cleric to have been hired by Peter Waldo to translate the Vulgate into the Waldensian Romance tongue which would have taken years of this cleric being secreted away from his Catholic peers to have not discovered him. There is further evidence that the name Waldo was added about 150 years later. Further if Waldo had followers they would have followed him but the Waldenses were all businessmen employed in many trades. It is also mathematically impossible for a sect created in 1180 to take 500 years of inquisition to virtually extinguish. Using Oczams razor of reasoning the only conclusion is this that the written story of Peter Waldo relating to the valley people is fictious, that Peter of Lyons did exist but was not Waldensian, that the valley people possessed an ancient Bible in their tongue and that a 500 year inquisition mathematically proves that this was not a newly formed sect in the late 12 century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.132.91 (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - I added a "citation needed" maintenance tag to the claim that Waldo had the bible translated - the story that Waldo had the bible translated is widely repeated, but requires a reliable source - Britannica says that Waldo used "a non-Latin version of the Bible" - the Waldensian translation was done by two priests, Stephen of Ansa (Étienne d’Anse) and Bernhard of Ydros - this is confirmed in History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament by Eduard Reuss, An Inquiry Into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses by Georges Stanley Faber, Illustrations of Biblical Literature by James Townley and Two Saints: St. Bernard & St. Francis by George Gordon Coulton - the story of the translation by Stephen and Bernard comes from an eye-witness, Stephen de Borbon - apparently there are four copies of the Waldensian bible still existing, although their dates are not confirmed - the name Waldo or Valdo was known to Alain de l'Isle in the 12th century although the first name Peter was added later - using Occam's razor to reach conclusions counts as original research in Wikipedia (WP:NOR) - Wikipedia relies on material from reliable sources (WP:RS WP:VERIFY WP:CITE WP:PSTS) - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Something the IP editor needs to understand: Wikipedia just summarizes mainstream academic sources. It is not about "facts" that you "know," it is just about summarizing mainstream academic sources.  We will never use your lay-assessment of historical sources that you've failed to produce any evidence of, but published books by professional historians.  Furthermore, we give more weight to modern scholars in relevant fields and we side with what the majority of those scholars agree on.  Finally, if you want to make a claim, you have to provide the sources for it.  Telling other people to "check your facts" is just lazy and disrespectful.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I require an historical citation for the name Peter Waldo from the 12th century thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2E3E:7B00:BD50:8B35:DD69:63C7 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You could look this up yourself - but as noted above (twice), Alain de l'Isle (or Alain de Lille) wrote in his De Fide Catholica: Contra Haereticos, Valdenses, Iudaeos et Paganos, dated between 1185 and 1200, that the Vaudois derived their name from their heresiarch Valdo. So Valdo, or Waldo, was known in the 12th century as the leader of the Vaudois. The "Encyclopedia of Catholicism" (2007) says that "The name Peter was added later" but doesn't give a date. - hope this helps - Epinoia (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So the name Peter is a complete Catholic invention. This now casts serious doubts on the whole Peter Waldo story because it doesnt make sense how the writers of his supposed history keep telling us he was a rich merchant who gave away his property had a wife children etc but did not know his name so they added his name 150 years later to make him appear real and human. The Catholic historians write that Peter Waldo gave away all his money and lived a life of poverty so when did he as they say give away all his money before he payed the scribes to write a bible or after ? This question once again raises doubts to the written story a Catholic history as it proves that if true he didn't give away all his money and the Catholic story is a complete white wash. The truth is if this Waldo character even existed he already had the Waldensian scriptures at hand  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2E3E:7B00:8B3:E5B7:BBC7:BFAB (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - You are assuming that the translators were paid for their work - if they were followers of Waldo, they may have done it without pay as part of their commitment to the cause - there may be some books that can help you with your questions - see the References, Sources and Further reading sections of the Waldensians and the Peter Waldo articles for some leads. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Waldesians and the Poor of lyons listed separately in the book: The Elizabethan Jesuits
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)

Waldesians are not Methodists
In 1975 the italian Waldensian Evangelical Church merged with the Methodist Evangelical Church in Italy to form the Union of Methodist and Waldensian Churches. However, this agreement between methodists and waldensians did not happened on an international level. The other Waldensian organizations from the world, even if they are not independent from the italian church, are not in union with the methodist churches in their countries, so it is factualy wrong to say that the Waldensian movement in itself is part of the Methodist tradition.

Even inside the italian merger church, the theology of the churches did not change. The Methodist congregations are separate from the Waldensian ones even if they entered communion with one another. So, in the same organization, you have churches that preach Calvinism (from the Waldensian heritage) and others that preach Methodism. That is because the theology of Methodism and Calvinism cannot be merged as they are mutually exclusive (one affirms what the other denies).

Moreso, this page refers to the history and characteristics of the Waldensian movement as a whole. Most of the page focuses on the waldensians during the Late Middle Ages and Early modern period, and to say in the infobox that this movement is part of the Methodist tradition is a horrible misrepresentation, as Methodism did not exist until the end of the 18th century, and Waldensian theology was, and still is, nothing like Methodism. We say they are part of the Reformed tradition because the theology of the waldensians until the 16th century was similar to that of calvinists and after the Protestant Reformation they actually adhered to Calvinist theology (their theology was shaped to be more aligned with Calvinism to the point of being completely taken over by it).

In conclusion, the merger of the italian organization with the methodists in the 20th century is only as important as to be mentioned in the "Italy" section. – Barumbarumba (talk) 16:5, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Transubstantiation
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)