But I didn't say that. I said Baptists are not gnostics, dualists, or any number of other things typically associated with "Albigensianism." But how can we know whether Baptists are like Albigensians until we know, with certainty, what it meant to be an Albigensian?
Where, for example, may I find a confessional statement, crafted by a practicing Albigensian of the relevant period, that incontrovertibly proves them to be gnostic, dualist, or any other heresy tag you may wish to apply? I'm not saying there are no such evidences, only that I am fascinated at the lack of them in these discussions.
As for taking responsibility for the spiritual consequences of the Reformation, you are again front-loading your assertion with the presumption that departure from Rome was a bad thing, and that is yet another fact not in evidence.
At this point, I’d say we did not crush enough.
Now how am I to understand this statement? The mode of "crushing," say, the Albigensian "aberration" would be acceptable to you? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, only trying to understand the words you actually used. If by "crushing," you mean to imply the powers of ordinary persuasive communication, that would be understandable.
But if by crushing you mean to say that the original murderers of the Albigensians were some how lax in their murdering and didn't wipe out enough heretics, whether man, woman, or child, to suit your tastes, that would have quite a different meaning.
After all, I am to you just another irritating heretic, right? As would be my wife, my children, my young grandchild. If you held the sword of the Holy Roman Empire in your hand, and could exercise it with impunity, would you run us through with it, or would you merely try to persuade us of the error of our ways?
Peace,
SR
I don't know about a historical proof, but here is an article entitled "Cathar Beliefs" from a site dedicated to Catharism and called www.cathar.info. Albigensianism is, they claim, and Wikipedia agrees, another term for them. I excerpt relevant parts below.
On the surface, their basic beliefs seem unremarkable. Most people would have difficulty in distinguishing the principle Cathar beliefs from what are now regarded as conventional orthodox Christian beliefs.
That is most startling, had it been true, since the article goes on to explain that they are dualists, gnostics, and universalists, and also believe in reincarnation, -- three major, fundamental heresies and one silly superstition.
Like the earliest Christians, the Cathars recognised no priesthood. They did however distinguish between ordinary believers (Credentes) and a smaller, inner circle of leaders initiated in secret knowledge, known at the time as boni homines, Bonneshommes or "Goodmen" , now generally referred to as the Elect or as Parfaits . Cathars had a Church hierarchy and a number of rites and ceremonies. They believed in reincarnation, and in heaven, but not in hell as it is now normally conceived by mainstream Christians.
Priesthood, "presbytery", occurs several times in the New Testament, at times in context that indicates sacramental priesthood and not priesthood in the church domestic, nor high priesthood of Christ explained in Hebrew (1 Timothy 4:14, 5:17,19, Titus 1:5, James 5:14). So it is already quite idiotic to "recognize not priesthood"; but perhaps they could not read or did not hold the Holy Scripture all that authoritative. The rest is already arch-heretical: Catholics for sure but also, hopefully, mainstream Protestants abhor the idea of secret teaching.
The article then says that about the Cathars the Church "imagined a range abominable practices which would have been amusing except that, converted into propaganda, they led to the death of countless thousands through the Cathar Crusades and the Inquisition." Then it proceeds to say that "modern historians have shown that many Catholic claims were false, while they have vindicated many Cathar claims", and then it lays out the following:
Cathars were dualists. That is, they believed in two universal principles, a good God and a bad God, much like the Javeh and Satan of mainstream Christianity. As dualists, they belonged to a tradition that was already ancient in the days of Jesus. (The revered Magi in the nativity story were Zoroastrians - Persian Dualists). Dualism came, and still comes, in many flavours. Even the Cathar variety came in more than one flavour, but the principal one was this: The Good God was the god of all immaterial things (such as light and souls). The bad God was the god of all material things, including the world and everything in it. He had contrived to capture souls and imprison them in human bodies through the process of conception. As Cathars put it, we are all divine sparks, even angels, imprisoned in a tunic of flesh....
Cathars were also Gnostics. Gnostics believed, and still believe, that divine knowledge is granted only to an inner elite, like the "esoteric" knowledge of the Pythagoreans. The inner elite undertook a long period of training before becoming a member of the elite, and thereafter leading severely ascetic lives. Their lives of meditation, fasting, hardship, poverty and good works matched exacly the highest ideals of Catholic and Orthodox hermits, monks and friars.
...
They also believed in metempsychosis or the transmigration of souls, as had the Pythagoreans. In other words, both Pythagoreans and Cathars believed not only in reincarnation but in the rebirth of the soul in animals as well as humans - and both refrained from eating meat for exactly this reason.
Cathars were also universalists, which means that they believed in the ultimate salvation of all human beings.
So, it is quite possible that the Church had exaggerated or outright false regarding their doctrines and practices. It is also quite possible that many if not most of the practicing Cathars could not understand the doctrines that their Parfaits were preaching; further, that the Inquisition that was set up did not properly establish heresy by intent among those it convicted. However, so far as the beliefs that the learned authors of cathar.info state were properly Cathars' doctrines: dualism, reincarnation of souls, secret knowledge, -- what kinship do you as a Reformed Christian have with those?
Or if, despite the generally accepted identification of the Cathars as dualists and gnostics (I checked around some ordinary reference materials as well), you claim that these, too, are slander, -- on what basis do you do that? Pending your answer, I'd rather trust the people of cathar.info who are sympathetic to the Cathars as they describe them, and separate "abominable practices" from aspects "vindicated by modern historians".
Annalex: we did not crush enough.
Springfield Reformer: how am I to understand this statement?
Understand it as written. The Church throughout her glorious history had to confront and destroy a number of heresies that have lead those falling into them away from the light of Christ. In that process she wisely set up the Holy Inquisition where she strove to distinguish the innocently confused from the heretics by their free will. It is possible that in some cases, like with any system of justice, the Church failed, but as a whole, I do not see what better service to God could we have provided at the time.
Further, the Church also inspired certain wars, most notable the Holy Crusades, where just cause to take up arms was established. I am proud of that history as well.
I have a regret: I think that the Counter-Reformation that started with Trent did not quite finish the job. Perhaps it was divine providence in how the Protestant heresies were permitted to linger on and devour souls to this day; perhaps it was meant to calmly find its way to the ash-heap of history by itself. But I am a fighting Christian; I wish my beloved Church could do more, for Christ.