So much for the 12th century claim of squatter's rights:
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. ~ St. Ignatius of Antioch 110AD. [1]
That "they" used to murder dissenters by the cartload proves the points, well enough.
To put down rebellion is not murder.
Which leads us to Waldo and his merry band of outlaws damning souls to Hell with their dualist semi-pelagian heresy who had no authority from the bishops to preach. So they rebelled which protestants are wont to do. And so today we have protestant holding them up as some sort of shining example of proto-protestant. Even Waldo came back to the Catholic Church. If its the ascetic nature that is appealing then the protestant would do well to emulate St. Francis.
Later came the Lollards. They were persecuted, chiefly for their opposition to 'popery'. Oh, and having different ideas, ones which by-passed the sacerdotalism of the so-called 'priesthood' of the Romish Church.
More criminal heresiarchs. But of course speculative theology was welcomed and protected in the schools of the time. It's only when Wycliffe's acolytes used lollardy as a casus belli for rebellion against authority that they needed to be put down and rightly so.
That was Rome's last chance, in a sense. For after that came the the much larger and widely sweeping Reformation. The rest is history -- and a history which the RCC cannot CONTROL. The truth still gets out (much to their chagrin)
A history of relativism, materialism and self-deification which has led to the downfall of western civilization: "London isn't burning. It's burnt." Some truth. I'm more interested in the future. A future, which I suspect the generations that come after us, will reject the post-modern rationalism which prizes the supremacy of that which is preferred over that which is true. And like the rest of the heresies, Protestantism will be consigned to the dustbin of history. A future where the Catholic Church will remain for those who wish to return.
[1]Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 89–90). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Where is Waldo now?
#1463
This is all too funny.
That one has been misused for so long, it has lost all it's original meaning.
I would suggest that you go find it in the [greater] context from where that one originates. It's in the footnote you supplied (but obtained form some RC apologetic page -- correct?).
It is not exactly substantiation for later Romish claims, as it can be reasonably interpreted to undo them -- as regards to singular papacy and the like.
Hence -- "squatters with mouths full of lies" still stands.
It was still murder -- much more than not. All the latter-day justifying for it engaged in by RC apologists serves chiefly to indicate those persons be sons of those fathers, similar to the Jews who Christ called out as having established that they were 'sons of' those whom had murdered the prophets.
Not all the "Waldensians" who came after Waldo were semi-pelagian, although that is a convenient accusation -- it still is not enough to justify what was done to "them" indiscriminately.
That sort of thing which you wrote, is so messed up it is difficult to know where to begin.
Semi-pelagian? The Waldensians were not accused of that -- that I know of. Then, even if accused, one would need prove the accusation.
That leads to mention of the Cathars and Albegensians.
Those were not identical to Waldensians, though there was some degree of overlap. The latter two were not even identical to each other, much less the Waldensians, although there may well have been a semi-pelagian aspect to *some* of the so-called Cathars, was it?
These things are difficult to establish, since Roman Catholics killed so many of them, there exists some documents which accuse, but when the parties themselves are allowed to speak for themselves -- then the accusations brought by Roman Catholic murderers are less than fully established (to say the least).
And I really don't think Waldo ever "came back' to the Roman Catholic Church.
You said that.
Now -- prove it, or retract that statement.
Meanwhile, read and learn -- before speaking.
Here's a good place to start ---->Schaff, History of the Church § 84. The Waldenses.