Roman/Italians converted by the teachings of Apostle Paul

[Points To Ponder]

Is it possible that the converts to Christianity in Rome or other areas of Italy are the origins of the Waldensians? It would be interesting to know the linage of those early Italian Christians that did not follow the formation of the Catholic church and were the earliest Reformers. Any research done on this subject?

 

[Basil the Great]

I for one have immense admiration for the Waldensians of old. However, I believe that any attempt to try and connect them to some sort of ancient group of Christians who were not part of the Catholic Church will fail. I know of no such connection.

 

[Points To Ponder]

I for one have immense admiration for the Waldensians of old. However, I believe that any attempt to try and connect them to some sort of ancient group of Christians who were not part of the Catholic Church will fail. I know of no such connection.

I think there are only a few options. They were early Christians who never adopted the Roman Catholic doctrine or rejected it very early. By historical definition, everyone was initially Catholic (Universal Church) long before established doctrine. I'm not implying they were not part of the initial Universal Church but could have been the first schism or never adopted the formal doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. It is possible that they adopted the Protestant type doctrine long before Martin Luther due to hearing of the gospel outside of the Catholic faith. They either left the Roman Catholic Church or never were a part of it. I'm not sure of the earliest dates of the established Waldensians and the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church doctrine that initiated the first reformers. I do know they were counter the Roman Catholic faith long before Martin Luther.

 

[HTacianas]

Is it possible that the converts to Christianity in Rome or other areas of Italy are the origins of the Waldensians? It would be interesting to know the linage of those early Italian Christians that did not follow the formation of the Catholic church and were the earliest Reformers. Any research done on this subject?

There is no lineage of the Waldensians, nor any other group, to the early Church.

 

[Tolworth John]

What is known of the history of the Waldensians is that they are known after the name of there founder .
They started in the 12th February and there are no known links to any earlier groups.

This information is available from any history of Christianity.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

They either left the Roman Catholic Church or never were a part of it. I'm not sure of the earliest dates of the established Waldensians and the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church doctrine that initiated the first reformers. I do know they were counter the Roman Catholic faith long before Martin Luther.

There were a number of reforming groups prior to the Reformation. John Hus, John Wycliffe, and Peter Waldo. These were Catholics who rejected portions of Catholic theology. There were also pre-Reformation reformers that stayed within the Roman church.

However, there are also heretical groups that were basically Gnostic in origin such as the Cathars, who taught that there were two deities, one good and one evil. They in fact equated God of the OT as Satan.

 

[Points To Ponder]

There must have been Christians who converted under the teachings of the Apostles who never supported or followed Catholic doctrine. I understand that Catholic doctrine is a little fuzzy in the early centuries. Constantine (I) appointed the first bishop of Rome when he moved the capital to Constantinople in 330 AD. Between the later part of the 1st century and the first bishop, you had Christians in Rome who became Christians from the teachings of the early Church Fathers. It's difficult to believe that from 100 AD to 330 AD the Church was united in doctrine given the direction Roman Catholic doctrine ultimately became. It would seem logical that some early Christians never adopted the teachings of the appointed bishops and had their own doctrine that survived. I do not believe that Peter was ever in Rome. I think it's a pure fabrication to lend credibility to the formation of the Catholic Church and Papacy. Even the most elementary Christian can understand what Jesus was saying in regard to Peter being the Rock vs. Jesus himself being the Rock.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

There must have been Christians who converted under the teachings of the Apostles who never supported or followed Catholic doctrine. I understand that Catholic doctrine is a little fuzzy in the early centuries. Constantine (I) appointed the first bishop of Rome when he moved the capital to Constantinople in 330 AD. Between the later part of the 1st century and the first bishop, you had Christians in Rome who became Christians from the teachings of the early Church Fathers. It's difficult to believe that from 100 AD to 330 AD the Church was united in doctrine given the direction Roman Catholic doctrine ultimately became. It would seem logical that some early Christians never adopted the teachings of the appointed bishops and had their own doctrine that survived. I do not believe that Peter was ever in Rome. I think it's a pure fabrication to lend credibility to the formation of the Catholic Church and Papacy. Even the most elementary Christian can understand what Jesus was saying in regard to Peter being the Rock vs. Jesus himself being the Rock.

One, it seems you are assuming that Roman Catholicism in its present form showed up with its papal tiara with Constantine. Ante-Nicean Christianity was more of a loose federation with major centers in Rome (as the capital of the empire), Alexandria and Antioch. However, there were bishops that were overseeing various urban centers or larger regions.

Dark Blue - Christianity by 300AD (from Wikipedia)

Sure you had plenty of groups that didnt follow these bishops: gnostics, Montanists, Marcionites, Arians, Sabellius, aka heretics. For the ante-Nicean church, the bishops were the ones that helped to define doctrine. Apostolic succession was being able to say, "I was taught and ordained by Steven of Anatolia, who was ordained by John of Antioch, who was ordained by Polycarp of Smyrna, who was taught and ordained by John the Apostle". If you couldnt trace back that path, then you probably werent a member of the recognized church.

As for Peter, all the apostolic churches acknowledge that St. Peter was martyred in Rome. So that includes Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East and we don't follow the current Bishop of Rome.

 

[Points To Ponder]

As for Peter, all the apostolic churches acknowledge that St. Peter was martyred in Rome. So that includes Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East and we don't follow the current Bishop of Rome.[/QUOTE]

Either the early Roman Catholic Church is lying or the Apostle Paul is lying. Romans 15:20. We know from Paul's own writing that he himself was in Rome. There is no place in scripture placing Peter in Rome. His own writing is in contradiction to the early Roman Catholic doctrine. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church created the story of Peter being in Rome and being the foundation of the Catholic Church and being the first Pope due to their misunderstanding of Matthew 16: 16-18. Jesus is the Rock, not Peter.
This scripture is still falsely quoted to this day even though they actually know better. What better way in the early days of Roman Catholicism to establish control and doctrine than to make the claim that Saint Peter is the founder of the church.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Do you even know about the churches I mention?

 

[Points To Ponder]

Do you even know about the churches I mention?

Yes, I've limited knowledge of them from studies of the early church period. Regardless of what historical or church writings say it's still not in the scripture nor is it logical.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

So in other words, John the apostle died, the world wide church was corrupted until Luther came along... got it.

 

[Points To Ponder]

So in other words, John the apostle died, the world wide church was corrupted until Luther came along... got it.

What I believe is that it was Simon Magus who with his blend of counterfeit Christianity and pagan beliefs is the more likely first Pope. Justin Martyr goes into detail about Simon Magus's efforts in Rome during this period. He was so well connected with the Emperor and Roman government there was a statue of him in Rome. Simon Magus's mission was to create a counterfeit religion in Rome. We will really never know for sure but you still have to decide if you believe in Roman Catholic tradition or the Apostle Paul.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is it possible that the converts to Christianity in Rome or other areas of Italy are the origins of the Waldensians? It would be interesting to know the linage of those early Italian Christians that did not follow the formation of the Catholic church and were the earliest Reformers. Any research done on this subject?

No. Firstly, they were of French origin, from Lyons, which in the first century was called Lugdunum or more formally Colonia Copia Felix Munatia. After being excommunicated in 1186, they eventually settled in Piedmont (Italy). A man later referred* to as Peter Waldo founded the Waldensians as a lay ascetic movement called The Poor Men of Lyons similiar to how Francis of Assisi organized the Fransiscans. The Waldensians were like the Lollards in England, in that they attempted to form an order of traveling mendicant preachers (Friars) like the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, Servites, Minims, and Capuchins (and to a lesser extent, the Norbertines, Mercedarians and Trinitarians) at a time in the late 12th century when the idea of friars was emerging, with the next few decades seeing the formation of the Dominicans for preaching to Gnostic heretics and later, general preaching, the formation of the Franciscans, Servites and Minims and the repurposing of the Carmelite and Augustinian monastic orders primarily for general preaching, and the formation of the Trinitarians and Mercedarians for specialized preaching to raise funds to ransom Christians abducted on coastal roads by North African and Andalusian pirates and held captive in Morocco and on the Barbary Coast, for ransom, unless they converted to Islam.

Of these early friars, several groups, as the Papacy changed hands, were forced to reorganize or were temporarily suppressed. Even the formidable Knights Templar was permanently suppressed. The Lollards and Waldensians were birds of a feather in that the Lollards were loosely affiliated with John Wycliffe, and his middle English translation of the Bible, and the Waldensians

 

[tz620q]

No. Firstly, they were of French origin, from Lyons, which in the first century was called Lugdunum or more formally Colonia Copia Felix Munatia. After being excommunicated in 1186, they eventually settled in Piedmont (Italy). A man later referred* to as Peter Waldo founded the Waldensians as a lay ascetic movement called The Poor Men of Lyons similiar to how Francis of Assisi organized the Fransiscans. The Waldensians were like the Lollards in England, in that they attempted to form an order of traveling mendicant preachers (Friars) like the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, Servites, Minims, and Capuchins (and to a lesser extent, the Norbertines, Mercedarians and Trinitarians) at a time in the late 12th century when the idea of friars was emerging, with the next few decades seeing the formation of the Dominicans for preaching to Gnostic heretics and later, general preaching, the formation of the Franciscans, Servites and Minims and the repurposing of the Carmelite and Augustinian monastic orders primarily for general preaching, and the formation of the Trinitarians and Mercedarians for specialized preaching to raise funds to ransom Christians abducted on coastal roads by North African and Andalusian pirates and held captive in Morocco and on the Barbary Coast, for ransom, unless they converted to Islam.

Of these early friars, several groups, as the Papacy changed hands, were forced to reorganize or were temporarily suppressed. Even the formidable Knights Templar was permanently suppressed. The Lollards and Waldensians were birds of a feather in that the Lollards were loosely affiliated with John Wycliffe, and his middle English translation of the Bible, and the Waldensians

I must admit on my last trip to Italy we were in Florence and I was surprised that our hotel was near a small Waldensian church. When we later went to Rome, again our hotel was near another Waldensian church. So there is still a presence in Italy of the Waldensian sect.

 

[Points To Ponder]

No. Firstly, they were of French origin, from Lyons, which in the first century was called Lugdunum or more formally Colonia Copia Felix Munatia. After being excommunicated in 1186, they eventually settled in Piedmont (Italy). A man later referred* to as Peter Waldo founded the Waldensians as a lay ascetic movement called The Poor Men of Lyons similiar to how Francis of Assisi organized the Fransiscans. The Waldensians were like the Lollards in England, in that they attempted to form an order of traveling mendicant preachers (Friars) like the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, Servites, Minims, and Capuchins (and to a lesser extent, the Norbertines, Mercedarians and Trinitarians) at a time in the late 12th century when the idea of friars was emerging, with the next few decades seeing the formation of the Dominicans for preaching to Gnostic heretics and later, general preaching, the formation of the Franciscans, Servites and Minims and the repurposing of the Carmelite and Augustinian monastic orders primarily for general preaching, and the formation of the Trinitarians and Mercedarians for specialized preaching to raise funds to ransom Christians abducted on coastal roads by North African and Andalusian pirates and held captive in Morocco and on the Barbary Coast, for ransom, unless they converted to Islam.

Of these early friars, several groups, as the Papacy changed hands, were forced to reorganize or were temporarily suppressed. Even the formidable Knights Templar was permanently suppressed. The Lollards and Waldensians were birds of a feather in that the Lollards were loosely affiliated with John Wycliffe, and his middle English translation of the Bible, and the Waldensians

Thank you. Very informative.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you. Very informative.

I became ill and was unable to finish writing it. And everything in it you can find in a typical enyclopedia. I like the Waldensians a great deal, but there are some cold, hard facts about them we must swallow:

• The Waldensians were originally a lay preaching organization aspiring to be friars, along the lines of the other mendicant orders which required members to take an oath of poverty.
• The Roman Catholic Church was initially interested in them, but eventually anathematized them for heresies in their teaching. After this point, they became an independent denomination.
• As an independent denomination, they were prototypically Protestant, differing from what became Reformed theology on only one point, that being the idea that any righteous Christian male could administer the sacraments, and conversely, Catholic priests were inherently unrighteous, and they and anyone else who lacked righteousness could not administer the sacraments. This is Donatism, which Reformed churches, including the later Waldensians, reject.
• The idea that the Waldensians were Sabbatarian is based on a laughable error concerning nicknames the group had (such as Insabbatati, Sabati, Inzabbatati, or Sabotiers) over the distinctive type of wooden shoes (Sabot) they wore. The word Sabot is quite famous and is in the etymology for sabotage (although the account Lieutenant Valeris gives in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which those of you who like me are of a nerdy disposition, is a folk tale, an urban legend of the 19th century; rather in some of the earliest examples workers would make noise with their sabots and otherwise use them to cause annoyance, interfering with production).
• Likewise, the extensive historical record and the French origins of the Waldensians rules out an apostolic origin; the Roman Catholic Church changed dramatically starting in the ninth century, but before that time was known as the most conservative of the ancient Patriarchs, with only one scandal attaching to it (that being Pope Honorius I embracing monothelitism), which is squeaky clean when we consider that Alexandria had an (illicitly appointed) Patriarch, George, who was an Arian, Antioch had Patriarch John, who sympathized with Nestorius, and Constantinople had several Arians, Nestorius, some Monothelites, and several Iconoclasts. The greatest Roman Pope, Saint Gregory the Great, who is venerated by the Eastern Orthodox and who developed Gregorian Chant or plainsong based on the eight mode Byzantine Chant, furthermore stated that any bishop who claimed universal jurisdiction was the forerunner to the anti-Christ. So from an Eastern Orthodox and Magisterial Protestant (Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Calvinist, Moravian, etc.) the Roman church in its first 600 years, before the Popes were forced by circumstances to become the civil governors of Rome and thus became involved in political intrigue, the Roman church was something to be admired, for the old Roman values of duty, fidelity and honor still held sway and the lands had not been conquered by Ostrogoths, Franks and other tribes, and the conservative disposition of the now largely extinct Latin speaking Roman culture caused the Roman church to be extremely resistant to potential heresy.
• Tragically, the corrupt 16th century Roman church and more specifically the royal house of Savoy brutally murdered thousands of Waldensians in an event known as the Piedmont Easter.
• The surviving Waldensians embraced Reformed theology, particularly that of Zwingli, and ironically, their military forces (which were formidable) were then employed by the House of Savoy to defend against an invasion from France, in which they were successful until Napoleon.
• The Waldensians then merged with the Italian Methodists and are the main Protestant church in Italy. There is also a Waldensian church in South America and two parishes under the PCUSA, and a Waldensian town in the Carolinas, in the United States.
• Sadly, the Waldensians have in recent years capitulated on social issues and now bless homosexual marriages, among other moral failures.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is it possible that the converts to Christianity in Rome or other areas of Italy are the origins of the Waldensians? It would be interesting to know the linage of those early Italian Christians that did not follow the formation of the Catholic church and were the earliest Reformers. Any research done on this subject?

The Waldensians were, in some ways, forerunners of the Reformation (and they did, afterward, adopt Reformed theology, and today are one of the major Protestant churches in Italy); but their origins aren't ancient. The Waldensians are representative of the religious climate of the high middle ages; there were a lot of religious movements that arose in this period of the history of the Western Church. Some movements gained official sanction, such as the followers of St. Francis of Assissi which became the Franciscan Order. Some movements were condemned, for example outright heretical groups such as the Cathars, or harmful extremist groups such as the Flagellants.

Theories such as that proposed in the "Trail of Blood" are, to put it mildly, meritless.

The Waldensians were just a medieval religious group whose views on certain things didn't align with official church teaching of the time, and were victims of prevailing attitudes of the time that one of the roles of the State was to act as defender of the Christian faith, and therefore made heresy a capital offense.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

There must have been Christians who converted under the teachings of the Apostles who never supported or followed Catholic doctrine. I understand that Catholic doctrine is a little fuzzy in the early centuries. Constantine (I) appointed the first bishop of Rome when he moved the capital to Constantinople in 330 AD. Between the later part of the 1st century and the first bishop, you had Christians in Rome who became Christians from the teachings of the early Church Fathers. It's difficult to believe that from 100 AD to 330 AD the Church was united in doctrine given the direction Roman Catholic doctrine ultimately became. It would seem logical that some early Christians never adopted the teachings of the appointed bishops and had their own doctrine that survived. I do not believe that Peter was ever in Rome. I think it's a pure fabrication to lend credibility to the formation of the Catholic Church and Papacy. Even the most elementary Christian can understand what Jesus was saying in regard to Peter being the Rock vs. Jesus himself being the Rock.

Constantine never apointed anyone bishop of Rome. The line of successors to St. Peter is actually well documented in early Christian sources, though there is some haziness about the first couple successors of Peter in Rome, with some sources placing Peter's successor as Clement, and others listing Linus who was then followed by Clement. And this isn't just in the case of Rome, the succession of bishops from the Apostles was something which we see brought up as a major defense against the early major heretics of the first few centuries of the Church. For example St. Irenaeus in his Against Heresies (c. 190 AD) is quite firm that Christian bishops have a legitimate and well recorded line of succession (which at the time was only several generations ago)--in contrast to the various heretical groups whose leaders claimed new revelation and new special knowledge.

A lot of things did change for the Church in the 4th century; the thing is that--in terms of doctrine and practice--nothing really actually changed. What changed was the relationship between the Church and the Roman State.

It's also really important to understand that even in the Reformation the Reformers themselves did not find fault in Catholic teaching as it was taught from ancient antiquity and through most of the middle ages. From the perspective of men like Martin Luther and John Calvin, the errors they were addressing were, from their perspective, recent innovations (obviously Rome wouldn't see them as innovative, and hence why the Reformers and Rome didn't get along). But both Luther and Calvin relied extensively on the work of the ancient Fathers. In fact, in the Lutheran Augsburg Confession (the confession of Lutheran faith presented at the Diet of Augsburg to the Holy Roman Emperor) it is made explicitly clear that, for the Lutherans, nothing they were teaching was at odds with the historic Catholic faith. The Lutherans did not see themselves as non-Catholics, they were Catholics, devout Catholics defending the Catholic faith against the abuses and errors of the Roman Papacy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

The Waldensians were, in some ways, forerunners of the Reformation (and they did, afterward, adopt Reformed theology, and today are one of the major Protestant churches in Italy); but their origins aren't ancient. The Waldensians are representative of the religious climate of the high middle ages; there were a lot of religious movements that arose in this period of the history of the Western Church. Some movements gained official sanction, such as the followers of St. Francis of Assissi which became the Franciscan Order. Some movements were condemned, for example outright heretical groups such as the Cathars, or harmful extremist groups such as the Flagellants.

Theories such as that proposed in the "Trail of Blood" are, to put it mildly, meritless.

The Waldensians were just a medieval religious group whose views on certain things didn't align with official church teaching of the time, and were victims of prevailing attitudes of the time that one of the roles of the State was to act as defender of the Christian faith, and therefore made heresy a capital offense.

-CryptoLutheran

Constantine never apointed anyone bishop of Rome. The line of successors to St. Peter is actually well documented in early Christian sources, though there is some haziness about the first couple successors of Peter in Rome, with some sources placing Peter's successor as Clement, and others listing Linus who was then followed by Clement. And this isn't just in the case of Rome, the succession of bishops from the Apostles was something which we see brought up as a major defense against the early major heretics of the first few centuries of the Church. For example St. Irenaeus in his Against Heresies (c. 190 AD) is quite firm that Christian bishops have a legitimate and well recorded line of succession (which at the time was only several generations ago)--in contrast to the various heretical groups whose leaders claimed new revelation and new special knowledge.

A lot of things did change for the Church in the 4th century; the thing is that--in terms of doctrine and practice--nothing really actually changed. What changed was the relationship between the Church and the Roman State.

It's also really important to understand that even in the Reformation the Reformers themselves did not find fault in Catholic teaching as it was taught from ancient antiquity and through most of the middle ages. From the perspective of men like Martin Luther and John Calvin, the errors they were addressing were, from their perspective, recent innovations (obviously Rome wouldn't see them as innovative, and hence why the Reformers and Rome didn't get along). But both Luther and Calvin relied extensively on the work of the ancient Fathers. In fact, in the Lutheran Augsburg Confession (the confession of Lutheran faith presented at the Diet of Augsburg to the Holy Roman Emperor) it is made explicitly clear that, for the Lutherans, nothing they were teaching was at odds with the historic Catholic faith. The Lutherans did not see themselves as non-Catholics, they were Catholics, devout Catholics defending the Catholic faith against the abuses and errors of the Roman Papacy.

-CryptoLutheran

I feel compelled to give you a hug, brother, because I feel like I’ve nearly worn out my fingers typing that information to people. So it is very nice indeed to see a learned member such as yourself take some of the strain of explaining these simple realities of church history. God bless you!