for some say[/b] that it dates back to the time of Sylvester (A. D. 825); others to the time of the apostles. [emphasis mine]
You should read your own post a little more closely. Some (but not all) of the Waldenses
say that it dates to the time of the Apostles. The author himself does not believe this to be true.
and a contradiction to your posting...
A Catechism emanating from the Waldenses of the thirteenth century makes no allusion to infant baptism. It says that the church catholic, that is, the elect of God through the merits of Christ, is gathered together by the Holy Spirit, and foreordained to eternal life (Gilly, Waldensian Researches, I. lxxii. London, 1825), which is not consistent with infant baptism.
How is that inconsitent with infant baptism? It sounds like good old Calvinism to me. Calvinist baptize infants. Odd, isn't it?
The preceding statement contradicts what you post here. The Waldenses did NOT support infant baptism and I have found nothing that indicates the belief in transubstantiation or prayers for the dead.
Have you done your own research on the Waldenses? If you have, I am sure you have come across this letter in 1218 from the Poor of Lombardy to the Poor of Lyons, two groups the Waldenses:
"To the question they [the Poor of Lyons] raised concerning baptism, we replied as follows : We affirm that no one can be saved who refuses the material water of baptism and that unbaptized infants are not saved. This we called on them to believe and profess....
"One point of difference between us and the companions of Valdes...concerned the breaking or SACRIFICE of the bread. As we have verified, their judgment differs from ours...
"In the first place, some of the companions of Valdes maintain that the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the Word of God, adding that the power comes not from men but from God.
"To this we objected, saying that, if the bread and wine are transubstantiated...by the mere mention of the Word of God, it follows that any person, Jew or pagan, could pronounce the Word of God on the bread and wine, and, according to this opinion, it would be transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
"This is absolutely impious and cannot be sustained by any valid authority and is unreasonable....They have acknowledged that the sacrament cannot be performed by women or laymen, but only by the PRIEST. They also said that no one, good or bad, but only He who is God and man, that is, CHRIST, can transubstantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood."
Have you read that letter? If not, you can find it in Giorgio Tourn, The Waldensians : The First 800 Years tr. C.P. Merlino (Torino, Italy: Claudiana Editrice, 1980), p 6. Of course.
It is possible that some of the Italian Waldenses (so-called) practiced infant baptism (Döllinger, Sektengerchichte, II 52); There is no account that the French Waldenses, or the Waldenses proper, ever practiced infant baptism. As early as the year 1184 there was a union of the Poor men of Lyons, as some of the followers of Waldo were called, and the Arnoldists, who rejected infant baptism. (A History of the Baptists, Christian)
Ah, now I see your confusion. You agree with those Waldenses who agree with you. Those who you do not agree with are dismissed as not being true Waldenses. Isn't that convienent.
It was the received opinion among the Waldenses that they were of ancient origin and truly apostolic. "They call themselves," says David of Augsburg, "successors of the apostles, and say that they are in possession of the apostolic authority, and of the keys to bind and unbind"
Since they claim it, it must be true? Why can't they present any evidence to support it?
The great church historian, Neander, in commenting on this document, suggests that it may have been "of an elder origin than 1120. He further says:
But it is 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 churchthat is, as they believed,
Have you read Neader's works, or are you just posting some things you found on the internet? Neader is merely repeating some Waldenses' claims. Notice how he qualifies his comments with "that is, as they believed".
Such was the tradition and such was the opinion of the Waldenses in regard to their origin. They held to a "secret perpetuity during the Middle Ages, vying with the Catholic perpetuity" (Michelet, Histoire de France, II. 402. Paris, 1833).
"such was the opinion"? Just an opinion? No evidence?
Theodore Beza, the Reformer of the sixteenth century, voices the sentiment of his times, when he says:
As for the Waldenses, I may be permitted to call them the very seed of the primitive and purer Christian church, since, they are those that have been upheld, as is abundantly manifest, by the wonderful providence of God, so that neither those endless storms and tempests by which the whole Christian world has been shaken for so many succeeding ages, and the Western part so miserably oppressed by the Bishop of Rome, falsely so called; nor those horrible persecutions which have been expressly raised against them, were able so far to prevail as to make them bend, or yield a voluntary subjection to the Roman tyranny and idolatry
Have you read Beza's writings? Did you notice that he offers no evidence to support these claims? He just claims that the Waldenses are the "primitive and purer Christian church", but offers no historical or archaeological evidence to support his claim?
Jonathan Edwards, the great President of Princeton University, in his "History of Redemption," says of the Waldenses:
...
Then speaking especially of the Waldenses, he says:
... It is supposed, that this people first betook themselves to this desert, secret place among the mountains to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen persecutions, which were before Constantine the Great.[emphasis mine]
"It is supposed"? It seems the Edwards is admitting that the antiquity of the Waldenses is a supposition and not established by factual evidence.
The special historians of the Waldenses claim the most remote origin for them. For example, Mr. Faber says:
The evidence which I have now adduced distinctly proves, not only that the Waldenses and Albigenses existed anterior to Peter. of Lyon
Why not post Faber's evidence so that we can all evaluate it for ourselves? Do you have a copy of it? Anyone can claim that their evidence proves something. It is another matter to actual submit that evidence to examination.
but it is By the Blood of Christ that I have mercy with Him 
not by your blessing, which could be taken as a threat BTW.
