Like when it is demonstrated that the Catholic claim of universality goes all the way back to 110 AD in contradiction to the initial claim of 12th century AD and so then the issue becomes papal primacy, is that the kind of goal post moving you're talking about?
He was ex-communicated. And according to historians, no one knows precisely where he breathed his last.
You're right. Nobody knows. We can hope and pray though. I'll concede that one. Must've been something I picked up along my travels.
But I KNEW the wiggle-worm serpentine RC apologetic (such as characterized by that which is highlighted in brown text, above) in attempt to distance the wholesale murders from the Roman Catholic Church -- would come out, doing it's usual snake-footed, slithering tap-dancing. I've seen it a thousand times.
So sorry that the details of the matter screw up a good protestant screed.
Meanwhile -- to any rebutal and additional claims you may wish to make -- bring proper documentation. I get sick and tired of doing all the work around here -- combating erroneous & twisted assertions. The half-truths, with a cunning twist to them -- which turns what truth there is of a thing into misleading statements which obscure or turn things sideways -- take much time to straighten out.
It's a heavy burden being the smartest guy in the room. I sympathize.
Oh, they believed they needed to live a pure and sanctified life alright, but it is highly doubtful they believed they could do so "without His grace".
I don't think so:
In its semi-Pelagian component, an emphasis on the human capability to choose righteousness and reject evil deliberately, Waldensianism stressed that it was in the here and now, in faith and in works, that every Christian could and had to choose between the two. [1]
Even today --- there are many Roman Catholics, and others also -- who although they say they believe in Grace --- still believe they must also work to earn it. cooperate with it.
Which assumes that one isn't intentionally misconstruing what they are saying when they say work as a euphemism for cooperation with God's grace. So I ask, again: when you encounter Catholics whom you know are saying things contradictory to the teaching of the Church do you correct them? It would go something like this, "Actually the Catholic Church teaches..." We wouldn't want them to fall into anathema now would we?
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema [2].
A wise, all-knowing God (which He is) would not have set up such a system -- as the Romanist one, as that was known (and functioned!) in centuries past. God is good. Not stupid, and cruel.
Yes He is. And everything God made is good including the universe, everything in it and the human body. So He is not predisposed to engage in the gnostic predilections of protestants with their ignorance and bias toward the created world. In it we find His Church which is the epitome of His intellect and mercy.
[1] Kaelber, L. (1998). Schools of asceticism: Ideology and organization in medieval religious communities. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
[2] Paul III Council of Trent-6. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm
That sentence/paragraph makes makes so little sense -- is so vague as to what is being referred to, it is impossible to figure out. But it is a "making it personal" right off the bat in the sense that it appears to me to be part of the continuing efforts of more than a few here to raise accusations of many sorts against myself (in hope that other RC'ers will believe them?) in order to discredit myself personally.
That is in part--- coming from yet another thread too --isn't it? One were I had engaged with you concerning various layered claims to 'authority' which the Church of Rome boasts as prerogative belonging solely to themselves -- which there after you had left off discussion, one of your co-religionists then accused me of "conflating" and being confused, etc., even after I had shown him the plain wordings which supported my overall contentions.
And now here on this thread, as it comes out (again) the claims are off-handedly and casually extended to be even over the very lives of persons -- should any dare to disagree or disobey -- in this instance -- the "any" being the Waldenses of old.
The combination of these things more than justifies my own contentions -- both on this thread and the previous which you seemed to have been alluding to.
Meanwhile, one of your your own initial statements;
I very well DID provide evidence such did indeed occur.
This was and still is a central point in this ongoing discussion.
I've heard quite a lot from you --- but not much yet as for owning up to the ramifications of statements which you have made, such as the one highlighted above. .
"Removed from our midst". What a way to speak of wholesale murder!
As for the Waldenses being allegedly semi-pelagian (according to Lutz Kaelber) it stands to mention that he was writing of them in context of schools of asceticism in medieval religion. If the Waldenses are semi-pelagian there, then so would many Roman Catholic, monkish religious orders...
Regardless if there were something to be desired among Waldensian religious thought, that scarcely justifies what murdering papists did to them.
Somewhere along the line you told me to go look up the 'confession of Waldo'. I did so, finding on one RC apologetics webpage, where what they presented as alleged to be Waldo's confession was in their own opinion, Catholic to the core.
Of course, there on that page, they were of the polemic that the Waldenses were not 'proto-protestant' and attempting to make the case for that, even though it can be well enough established that the Waldenses did share much which is fundamental to Protestant differences in comparison to Roman Catholicism, when utilizing other sources, with myself having pointed out that their biggest theological "crime" as it were, was not bowing down to Romish sacerdotalism and further claims to authority... which is established well enough in the link for American Journal of Theology (1900) provided in this note [below].
But I find it interesting that among modern-day Catholics, on the one hand they (Waldenses) are described as heretics, and on another -- described as "Catholic to the core". Kind of reminds me of some of the Anglicans, a wee bit. :^')
As I had also said;
Which you had 'fixed', replacing work to earn it with -- "cooperate with it."
One subtle thing you may have overlooked -- I was not talking about what is taught (by some?) among the Roman Catholic church, but was speaking towards what many thought.
I don't know how many times I have seen the faith/works argument on these pages, with some FRoman or another woodenly reciting from the book of James. Faith without works being dead, and so on.
Then there are subtle things such as this from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm;
"2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. ..."[underlining for emphasis added]
In that portion of the CCC, as far as I can determine, there is little to no difference between attitudes commonly found among the first couple of centuries of Waldenses as those can be found spoken about in detail, here, Origin and Early Teachings of the Waldenses, According to Roman Catholic Writers of the The Thirteeenth Century" American Journal of Theology, IV (1900) p. 465-489 for they did include speaking much towards reliance upon the Spirit, in conjunction with their daily lives and works.
Who's to say that they did not incorporate this "cooperate with it" aspect which you used as a 'fix' to one of my statements? That one researcher? Himself possibly following others who had came to those conclusions -- all of that sort of expressing opinions done while the material they relied upon in formation of those opinions is not brought into view.
Thus --your citing of that man twice now -- is what is called "appeal to authority" and thus can be something of a logical fallacy. He is by his own description a sociologist -- not necessarily a theologian. Briefly scanning to page 24 of his book which have cited as if it were authoritative, there is evidence that generally supports my own contentions -- with it becoming obvious that the small portion which you brought as if it were some sort of compelling evidence, was like near-meaningless "cherry picking", as that bears upon our conversation here, yet your having done so serves to show how accusations against the Waldenses are still be grasped at in order to justify past centuries Romish atrocities ---much more than actually providing the sought for justification.
There is still yet another thing ---
Nowhere in earliest of the past centuries in which the Waldenses were persecuted were they THEN -- during those earliest times accused of being "semi-pelagian". The wording of that charge itself -- was not concurrent with the first centuries of them being persecuted by papists.
Getting back to how grace itself is described to function;
There is little difference there in CCC page I quoted from, compared to Calvinism either --- for in that systematic description, cooperation with the Spirit of the Lord is said to be impossible but for the regenerated soul -- and it being only that portion, Him by way of His own Spirit within a person -- which can do any work which can be called "good".
That type of Calvinistic description also does not conflict with your attempted correction of what I spoke about in how people -- Roman Catholics in that instance, would often think (judging from how they would talk about such things) as if they had to be constantly earning or perhaps better put (?) meriting by their own "cooperation" ...graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.
It stands to recall also our conversation on this thread in regards to past Roman Catholic persecution of Waldenses, included myself having said;
To which you replied;
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. ..."
They were not "dualist" in the sense which Arians could be though to be so, so be careful with the terminology...
First -- many of the 'Waldenses' were driven out of cities. Some of them retreated to the mountains, though others were also were said to circulate into towns and villages, plying various trades -- even attending Roman Catholic masses, at times, although accused by Inquisitors and others of doing so mockingly.
What could be missed in theological considerations -- is that receptionist, 'low church' views towards what Roman Catholics call Eucharist, and Anglicans and Lutherans refer to as the Lord's Supper and/or Holy Communion, is that the low view can carry one through participation in even those places where others hold to sacerdotal view towards the taking of communion, although being present within RC settings when doing so would be generally, according to those of the RCC to be considered to be a trespass.
From those holding low church view --- there would be no trespass, that aspect being all in the minds of others (and an erroneous view --from low church, receptionist perspective) leaving themselves not in theological contradiction with themselves, despite not being in full accord with sacerdotal views.
I emphasis this -- for it becomes plain enough that quite early on, even with Waldo himself, there was rejection of the sacerdotal aspect, which could leave them able to say honestly enough, that they agreed with the proposition that the mass could be valid enough, including "sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest...."
Now, that above part did change, later -- according to the testimony of RC Inquisitors, with later Waldenses rejecting the Romish church more entirely.
I will add here that despite not bringing citation to these pages from the The American Journal of Theology, Volume 4, published in 1900, that source does appear scholarly enough, and I do much base my own understanding and possible further argument or discussion on such as that source, though there are yet more sources, including also the many I have already provided links to.