Posted on 06/18/2008 5:52:49 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
Which is why I don’t use Wikipedia. You can’t check the sources.
All of the sources I’ve seen that would say the Cathari were heretics, (gnostic, or holding to a dualist theology); come from late sources that restate the pronouncements of authors of the Inquisition, and amounts to nothing more than name calling. And for good reason: the Cathari (Albigenses) actually believed in the Bible, and held it above the Catholic Church; as witnessed by the surviving manuscripts of their enemies: the inquisitors themselves that recorded the proceedings; and the surviving Cathari manuscripts, which are largely ignored.
For example, Dr Leo Levitov’s 1987 treatment of the Voynich Manuscript, suggesting the Cathari held to an eastern cultism centered on Isis, shows his ignorance of the surviving Cathari primary and secondary sources, and his reliance on old and speculative sources (Guiraud, 1928; Lea, 1888; and Molinier, 1881), or rather speculative (Baigent, Leigh, & Lincoln).
Absent credible primary/secondary sources that say different, I pick the Cathari/Abigenses as my church fathers for their adherence to the basic, fundamental doctrine of “sola scriptura”; or, Scripture Alone for all matters of faith and practice in authentic Christianity. That is what they were slaughtered for.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
you’re correct about the Albigensians being closet-Gnostics. It’s strange how the BAptists add them to their “ancestors”
I think it would be fair to say the Baptists added to the Albigenses as their church fathers because of the empirical evidences shown by the testimonies of their enemies, and the few remaining testimonies authored by them. Arbitrary judgments without the data to support it would be dishonest in any discussion on this, or any other topic. If you were to investigate why the Albigenses were slaughtered, it was because they practiced believer’s baptism, not infant baptism; as clearly shown by Scripture. As a result,
“manichaeism” was leveled at anyone who disagreed with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. St Augustine used it profusely, particularly in his attacks on the Donatists. Go back and read his letters on this point. He actually tips his hand in revealing what the Donatists believed in by his very accusations; a trend that would continue by his church throughout the dark ages. The primary sources available to us show the Donatists were intent on applying Scripture to all matters of faith, beginning with those bishops who chose to side with the Romans during the many persecutions of the Christians, then chose to come back to the church, as if nothing happened, after Constantine legalized Christianity.
Good conversation.
That’s why I don’t use Wikipedia. I use primary/secondary sources.
Please name them.
I should also point out that there is a branch of the Catholic church known as the Eastern Rite Catholics. They're under the authority of the Pope but their worship style and traditions are very different from most of the Catholic world as they use the traditions of the eastern churches (greek orthadox, russian orthodox, etc.) Many of them were former breakway Orthodox churches that decided they wanted to be back in the Catholic fold and the Pope accepted after they agreed to incorporate a few changes.
I'm a lifelong Roman Catholic and thinking of switching to Eastern Rite Catholic myself. I wouldn't have been confirmed Catholic if I didn't accept the churches teachings, but I find something special in the eastern rite traditions that is lacking in the modern latin mass.
Surprisingly, there are even some Eastern Rite Catholic priests that are allowed to be married, which special permission from the Vatican. Apprently the rules are almost identical to the Episcoplian church (Priests can be married, but have to be married before they are ordained They can't get married after taking holy orders). This is rare in the U.S. churches though.
So for anyone who believes in the Catholic churches doctrines and values but is a little wary about worship services being too "Roman", the Eastern Rite Catholic churches might be the way to go. That beings said, a traditionalist anglician would probably find the current Roman Catholic church to be 90% alike of what they grew up on in the Episcoplian church. I think Henry VII basically copied everything the Roman Catholics did when he started his own church, so as Robin Williams said, Episoplians are already "Roman Catholic lite"
I should also point out that there is a branch of the Catholic church known as the Eastern Rite Catholics. They're under the authority of the Pope but their worship style and traditions are very different from most of the Catholic world as they use the traditions of the eastern churches (greek orthadox, russian orthodox, etc.) Many of them were former breakway Orthodox churches that decided they wanted to be back in the Catholic fold and the Pope accepted after they agreed to incorporate a few changes.
I'm a lifelong Roman Catholic and thinking of switching to Eastern Rite Catholic myself. I wouldn't have been confirmed Catholic if I didn't accept the church's teachings, but I find something special in the eastern rite traditions that is lacking in the modern latin mass. (Please note however, that the eastern rite mass is NOT the pre-vatican II tridintine mass, but rather the worship style used in Constantinople since the 500s)
Surprisingly, there are even some Eastern Rite Catholic priests that are allowed to be married, which special permission from the Vatican. Apprently the rules are almost identical to the Episcoplian church (Priests can be married, but have to be married before they are ordained They can't get married after taking holy orders). This is rare in the U.S. churches though.
So for anyone who believes in the Catholic churches doctrines and values but is a little wary about worship services being too "Roman", the Eastern Rite Catholic churches might be the way to go. That beings said, a traditionalist anglician would probably find the current Roman Catholic church to be 90% alike of what they grew up on in the Episcoplian church. I think Henry VII basically copied everything the Roman Catholics did when he started his own church, so as Robin Williams said, Episoplians are already "Roman Catholic lite"
I would never dismiss any data. I do however, assess data to determine the credibility of it, like any work. If you can find some primary sources, I’d love to read them. In fact, most of what we know about the Albigenses come from the inquisitors (the RCC). Great sources, and are very telling.
And there are a few surviving works from the Albigenses themselves. I’m surprised you missed them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.