Many of the doctrinal points Melia wishes to make (which he does by means of collating numerous quotations and references) are troublesome to the type of Protestant history one encounters with someone like JA Wylie. Melia wants to show how Catholic the Waldenses were and thus drive a wedge betwixt the group as they appeared in history and the romanticised narratives of later historians.
And yet for someone like myself who argues the First
Reformation was essentially different on many key points than the Magisterial
Reformation, these claims made by Melia are not troubling in the least.
For example, he demonstrates their acceptance, use of and
affection for the Old Testament Apocrypha, a point this author will readily
grant. He also shows that they adopted the Roman Catholic framing of the
Decalogue as opposed to the later Protestant re-structuring of it. This is
inconsequential for many reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, even if
it is problematic for later Protestant orthodoxy and Confessionalism.
Melia insists they retained the Seven Sacraments. This may in
fact be true (in part) when it comes to the Lyonist faction but by all
indications this was not so with the Lombards who (it seemed) even celebrated
their own communion services. The Lyonists modified the cult of saints and did
venerate the Virgin, but the theology behind it (however misguided) marked a
break from Rome. The Lyonists could attend Roman services more readily often
interpreting things through different terms. The more radical Lombards had a
much harder time doing so as they viewed Rome as the Antichrist.
And yes, Melia is correct, these groups all retained
paedobaptism, this despite the claims of later groups that have tried to
appropriate the Waldenses and other dissenters from before the Magisterial
Reformation under the Baptist banner.
On the question of divorce, the Waldenses were more in
keeping with Rome than what would emerge with the Reformation – a point I would
concede and largely applaud.
Melia's flawed polemics become frustrating at times as he
engages in many of the word games we've come to expect with the apologists of
Rome. He is forced to admit the Waldenses upheld Scriptural authority and as
such condemned extra-Scriptural rites – the application of this being mixed and
comprising, more a spectrum than a specific practice.
They universally condemned the papacy and in many instances
seem to reject the principle of prelacy. The discussion is muddled and confused
by Melia's many false assumptions and his insistence on identifying the True
Church as an institution. As such he cannot quite grasp what is being implied
by the Constantinian Shift. The doctrine does not say the Church failed but
that a Great Apostasy took place and yet there was always a remnant of
believers. The same is true in the Old Testament during the times of the kings.
Melia is critical of lay preaching and he cites the Waldenses
permitting women to preach. This latter point has also been the subject of a
great deal of confusion. First one must define preaching. Are we speaking of
doctrinal exhortation in the context of a woman speaking to some people in a
household? If so, that's not what I would call 'preaching' at least not in the
proper sense. It is more reminiscent of Priscilla instructing Apollos.
Even Euan Cameron who as a historian demonstrated remarkable
hostility toward the Waldenses, admitted the whole 'women preaching' thing was
completely overblown and misunderstood. Those who cite it today usually do so
to score a point against them to discredit them or to suggest that prior to the
Reformation, there was some kind of egalitarian movement afoot. Neither are
true.
Melia comments on the fact that the Waldenses were opposed to
oaths (which is true) and sets them at odds with the Magisterial Reformation
which put great stock in the practice.
They rejected Purgatory but interestingly they retained use
of the Apocrypha. Contrary to some arguments, apparently treating these books
as Old Testament Scripture does not mean that one must embrace Rome's
unfortunate doctrine and all that goes with it.
And in connection to these points they also rejected
indulgences, holy days and no, they were not Seventh Day Sabbatarians. They
also rejected the use of images in worship.
It must be admitted that the Waldenses were not always
consistent in applying their doctrine of non-resistance and the Lyonist-Piedmont
branch (it would seem) abandoned it altogether at times. These inconsistencies
were often fueled by crisis and the desperate times and situations they faced. An
inquisitor was coming to their valleys and were he allowed a free hand, many
would die and generations of both physical and spiritual labour would be
destroyed. Consequently we read of inquistors being assassinated on the road
and that sort of thing. It cannot be defended but it's hard to imagine watching
the ones you love suffer torture, your community destroyed, and your family
members burned alive. These days so many wish to paint pre-Reformation Rome as
something flawed but beautiful, a heritage worth preserving and celebrating.
This is nonsense. It was a bestial monster and those historians that distorted
the Waldensian tale knew this. I cannot condone their end justifies the means
approach to reporting history but in some respects I find today's attitudes
more troubling. It's no wonder groups like the Waldenses have fallen by the
wayside.
Melia then diverges a bit and there's a small section on the
doctrinal beliefs of the Bohemian Waldenses. This is interesting because this
would have been an offshoot of the Lombard branch and yet would over the course
of the fifteenth century interact with, affect, and also be affected by
Hussitism. While Melia admits they antedate the Reformation, he still avoids
the topic of their origins focusing only their hostility to auricular
confession – again an indication that the Seven Sacraments were rejected by the
non-Lyonist groups. Additionally he picks up on their doctrines concerning
election and predestination and how they consequently defined the Church in
invisible terms. This is certainly different from what we find among the
Piedmont group and is usually traced to the influence of Wycliffe and Hus who
also re-cast ecclesiology in such terms. There are dangers in overemphasizing
this point just as the absolutized visibilism of Rome (advocated by Melia) also
leads to profound problems and cases of ritual conformity utterly lacking
substance or spiritual fruit.
Melia also identifies these Bohemian Waldenses as emphasizing
communion in both kinds which would certainly resonate with their Hussite
neighbours, but this isn't necessarily unique. Other Waldensian groups that
were celebrating their own Eucharistic services would certainly have been
serving both elements in accord with New Testament practice as opposed to
following the Roman practice of the laity receiving only the host – a practice
which only became normalized with the formal recognition of transubstantiation
in the thirteenth century.
In the end, Melia's work proves an interesting resource if
deeply flawed. The points he makes might lead to some problems for the
apologists and historians of the Magisterial Reformation – those that wish to
appropriate the Waldenses to their side or incorporate them into the larger
narrative.
For my part I find the end result is in keeping with the
First Reformation narrative that I maintain. The Waldenses (even the Piedmont
group) belong neither to Rome nor to the Magisterial Reformation. Obviously in
the case of the Piedmont faction, they did become Magisterial Protestants in
the sixteenth century.
Melia's thesis ultimately fails. Proving the Lyonists
originated with Peter Waldo as opposed to a figure in the fourth century or
even the Ante-Nicene context proves nothing. It does not delegitimize their
protest against Rome or somehow excuse Rome in its sins, distortions of
Scripture, idolatry, and murder.
As far as doctrine is concerned, he demonstrates they were
not true Magisterial Reformation Protestants in the Middle Ages – a point we
will readily grant. But they were still Protestants of a kind, and part of a
larger movement that antedated the sixteenth century Reformation. The First
Reformation was similar but at the same time quite different in certain
respects. And that's more or less what we find confirmed by Melia's research.
He makes many valid points and convincingly exposes some of the manipulation on
the part of Magisterial Reformation-affiliated historians.
Consequently the true tale of groups like the Waldenses has
been lost. The Magisterial Reformation would change its attitude over time and
want to 'claim' the culture and institutions of High Christendom – a move that
leaves no place for a dissenting counter-cultural and underground group like
the Waldenses. Consequently they are largely ignored and swept under the rug –
with most of the focus being on the 1655 massacres and the British response in
the form of Cromwell's threats and Milton's poem.
Despite Melia's obvious hostility to the Waldenses, their
tremendous story is still evident which can be woven in with a larger narrative
about the history of the Church and the testimony of the faithful in light of
Antichrist's persecutions.