Replies

“...Waldensians, Cathars and Albigensians. The Papacy decided they were heretics for reading the Bible...”

Completely false. The Waldenses were a heretical sect/group that splintered off from Catholicism. Their sect appeared at the end of the 12th century. This group did not have a continuous tradition handed down from apostolic times. Furthermore, they continued to administer and receive the sacraments; they did not adhere to sola scriptura.

The Cathars and the Albigensians were neo Manichists, having a distorted concept of good and evil. The Cathars believed in reincarnation and celibacy. These heresies were not about “reading the Bible”, but rather involved made up distorted doctrines they came up with themselves. Modern day protestant sola scriptura adherents would most defintely not have agreed with their theology. They were not a proto type or precurser to modern protestants.

Do not forget!

Most people could not read at the time; we are discussing time periods in the 1100-1200’s. Illiteracy was the norm(!), and paper was not widely used or available. The entire premise that somehow “they were heretics for reading the bible” is absurd and based upon a distortion of actual history.

Non Catholics have no authority to judge and criticize Catholic doctrine. They do not understand Catholicism because they have no experience with or understanding of sacred tradition. They falsely state that Catholics do not read Sacred Scripture, which is truly absurd. Non Catholics have to resort to falsifying history in order to justify their errors.

Waldensians were the target of the Episcopal Inquisition enacted by Lucius III.The movement began, as you say, about 1177 by Peter Waldo. In 1170 Waldo gave away all that he had to his followers, all of whom were deemed Heretics along with Waldo. He memorized the Gospels and taught the scriptures. There were called the Poor Men of Lyons. Pope Alexander III was appealed to to allow him to preach the scripture to his followers and that was denied. Though their appeal to allow the preaching of the Word of God was denied. Waldo was later excommunicated by Pope Lucius III. The Fourth Lateran Council (aka General Concil of Lateran). Innocent III presided over the council and condemned as heretics, "high treason against God", Lucius III said. He called for their destruction and death. And for the cause of teaching the Scripture. Waldensians refused to swear allegiance to the Pope and the Roman church, choosing rather to suffer pain of burning to death for their savior, Jesus, than swear allegiance to Rome. Witchcraft charges were trumped up and the practice of witchcraft caused the Waldensians to be among the most persecuted in Europe's Great Witch Hunt (1450 - 1750).

Now whether your description is correct or not, it remains a fact that these Popes ordered their deaths, mostly by fire. As it turned out Waldo himself, escaped to norther Italy and died there a few years later.

So, my statement, notwithstanding your accusation of "completely false" is not false in the least. And if they were heretics, I do not believe scriptural Biblical truth would indicate Jesus would have ordered them to be burned alive. If that is your position, it is consistent with the popes who I mentioned.

The Cathars were treated even worse. Historians report that somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 Cathars were murdered at the order of the Popes, especially Gregory IX. In fact, Gregory used the Order of the Dominican to carry out much of his killing.The swore an allegiance to this cause.

These religious leaders which over 1 billion people follow is inexplicable to me, that they would know this history, associate it with the will of God, and be fine with it.

Noncatholic, you say, have no 'right' to judge Catholic doctrine. So, your position is that these behaviors of the Popes are out of bounds to make a judgement regarding whether they were moral or not. You position is odd in that you just judged that non Catholics cannot judge. Your logic becomes circular and thus irrelevant. Are we allowed to discuss history by your view.

Non Catholic history says these accusations are not true...What we do know however from Catholic history is that these groups refused to accept the self proclaimed authority of your religion and your popes...

We also know from your religion's history that those reasons for rejection of your religion were justification for murdering the accused...And your religion admits murdering them...

Non Catholics have to resort to falsifying history in order to justify their errors.

The same could be said for many or most Roman Catholics, with the only real variable being to what degree or extent.

Your assertions here are a blend of fact, partial fact, accusations made-up by Roman Catholics after the fact, and much repeated fiction.

The Waldensians did indeed hold that Scripture be available in common vernacular -- and received various levels of official opposition, for that too, although the opposition would take other forms, and go after whichever details could be more easily openly criticized -- and/or ginned up (as in false accusations).

One lying "Catholic" trick was to accuse them of witchcraft.

Modern day protestant sola scriptura adherents would most

defintely not have agreed with their theology. They were not a proto type or precurser to modern protestants

The Waldenses, more to the actual facts, were in many ways comparable to those whom later voiced much similar objections, often for very similar reasons.

That they were perhaps not in all ways identical makes them no less, as you would have it -- precursor or proto-protestant, regardless of the Romanist arguments which assert such -- those arguments needing to always do so while focusing only upon what differences can be strained out -- and FULLY IGNORING the many basic similarities with later Protestant expressions and beliefs which do strongly overlap, those things being based much upon the Scripture themselves, and can find support also for in what can be known from the most primitive 'Church'.

Non Catholics have no authority to judge and criticize Catholic doctrine. They do not understand Catholicism because they have no experience with or understanding of sacred tradition.

So you say. Or should I say... so you assert.

But too bad, for what you say is not true, regardless of what errors *some* critics (of Western Catholicism) may occasionally fall into.

One cannot dismiss all, just for reason of some portion of criticism being not be well enough worded...or else being as Romanist arguments themselves frequently are -- containing seeds or elements of truth, but not being entirely true -- particularly in how things are often asserted to be while using broadly sweeping statements which for too casually apply to all, and in all situations.

It certainly seems that "Protestants" (whoever in the heck those people are) are fully enough able to judge Roman Catholic doctrine and traditions -- when or if they agree with them!

On these pages we have been long subjected to a (repetitious) parade (chiefly of the same individuals) of converts from "Protestantism (as if there is such a thing) to Roman Catholicism, even as meanwhile, the word catholic itself has been all but entirely hijacked by the Church of Rome to apply only to itself, with only in the last fifty years or so there being official written policy that recognized so-called "Protestants" (from Roman Catholic perspective) as being part of the Church at all, expressing it as being something of a mystery to them (Catholics) of how that is, while at the same time declaring the bishop of the Church of Rome to being Supreme, and 'head' over these somewhat distantly associated, but still bonafide Christians.

So I ask you now, that in the future, for your statements here on these pages to be just a bit more circumspect, and refrain from making broadly sweeping statements which even your own (Roman Catholic) Church does not officially support, other than in it's more marginal quarters such as that area which holds sedecaventists, and those just mildly so, etc...