Posted on 08/14/2009 9:29:49 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Well, the "Church", by which is meant the Roman Catholic religion, destroys souls. Freeing someone from it would be the best starting place anyone do for someone else.
Further, and once again, the satanic charactre of Catholicism is shown in its reliance upon the sword to "convert heretics." That's most definitely NOT in the charactre of the New Testament, and also shows the mental deficiencies of Catholicism's defenders. Simply put, if someone has to try to force someone to accede to a doctrine or religion through force, then it's because that individual is simply too stupid to know how to present their case reasonably.
No, your misrepresentation of what happened isn’t helping. These people were not murdered. And even if they were, it would not show the Catholic faith to be false.
So the people of Beziers - several thousands of whom were massacred by Simon de Montfort in an effort to "defend their souls" - don't qualified as being murdered? Odd.
By their fruits, ye shall know them. When you have an entire religious organisation sanctioning the destruction of entire cities and the massacring of thousands of people, all because those people belong to the wrong religion, then yes, that shows the completely unbiblical charactre and spirit that motivates that religious organisation.
So Satan motivated Moses to go through the camp with the Levites? You might want to read Exodus 32 again.
Apples and oranges. Israel was a national theocracy, and idolatry and sin were more than just idolatry and sin - they were things that would have destroyed the very fabric of the national, theocratic society.
In the New Testament, on the other hand, Christians are not a physical, ethnic nation, nor are they a theocracy which has the duty to impose itself on entire nations and geographic areas. You might, in turn, want to read II Corinthians Chapter 10 again,
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (vv. 3-5) That's an important distinction - and one which is defined by the NT, and in turn defines NT Christianity - that you are missing.
You wrote:
“Well, the “Church”, by which is meant the Roman Catholic religion, destroys souls.”
No. The Church has no ability of authority to destroy souls. People allow then to be destroyed, or people destroy them. The Church never destroys souls.
“Freeing someone from it would be the best starting place anyone do for someone else.”
Christ sent the Church. The idea that taking people from the Church is beneficial would mean Christ sent evil into the world. Such a concept is not only illogical but anti-Christian.
“Further, and once again, the satanic charactre of Catholicism is shown in its reliance upon the sword to “convert heretics.””
No. These people - having been baptized Catholics at one time - were not converted formally, but brought back to their senses and the practice of the faith if they were open to it. That’s what the inquisition was ultimately established for. There was no reliance on the sword. If one totals up all those executed over a several hundred year existence of the inquisition the number is so small that no rational person can claim “reliance upon the sword” was in play.
“That’s most definitely NOT in the charactre of the New Testament, and also shows the mental deficiencies of Catholicism’s defenders.”
No. Christ and the Apostles carried at least two swords for self-protection - according to the New Testament. The idea that the Church has no authority to defend herself, her members or society in general is laughable.
“Simply put, if someone has to try to force someone to accede to a doctrine or religion through force, then it’s because that individual is simply too stupid to know how to present their case reasonably.”
Your point is nonsensical. 1) Have you ever read Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles? He wrote it in the very same century in which the inquisition tribunals were established (which was also the same century universities took off!). It is a masterwork of explaining the faith in a reasonable way. When you are dealing with heretics, you cannot assume reason will ever work. I see that reason doesn’t work here in this thread or in others on FR with people holding bizarre, ahistorical, and completely nonsensical beliefs and who ignore known and definitive scholarship as well. That’s why I say it is sometimes like talking to 9/11 Truthers. Reason simply doesn’t matter to them.
“So the people of Beziers - several thousands of whom were massacred by Simon de Montfort in an effort to “defend their souls” - don’t qualified as being murdered? Odd.”
First, Simon de Montfort wasn’t the Church - and whatever evil he or others committed is squarely laid upon their own shoulders and not those of the Church. Second, Simon de Montfort’s sack of the city - as horrible as we think it today - was standard practice from the dawn of time when cities refused to yield to attackers. (Malcolm D. Lambert, The Cathars, 103) By the way Albigensians in that same town had attacked and murdered a previous Catholic bishop of Beziers knocking his teeth down his throat. That was in 1167. (Charles Harry Clinton Pirie-Gordon, Innocent the Great: an essay on his life and times, 122). What apparently pushed the crusaders to storm the city was the fact that some Albigensians throw a copy of the Bible over the wall and mocked it. Yeah, I could see where that would make a group of armed crusaders mad!
And one more thing about Simon de Montfort. When crusaders had their crusade to the Holy Land re-routed to Constantinople by unscrupulous merchants who wanted to be paid for their housing and food deliveries, it was Simon de Montfort who refused to participate. He, instead, went on and fought in the Holy Land as was always intended. (Joseph Reese Strayer The Albigensian Crusades, 67)
“By their fruits, ye shall know them. When you have an entire religious organisation sanctioning the destruction of entire cities and the massacring of thousands of people,”
But that isn’t what you had. Show me council document or papal document that says its okay to massacre entire cities. Can you?
“...all because those people belong to the wrong religion, then yes, that shows the completely unbiblical charactre and spirit that motivates that religious organisation.”
Again, you apparently never read Exodus 32. Is Exodus 32 in your Bible? You might want to check before you make these sweeping and erronous statements.
“Apples and oranges. Israel was a national theocracy, and idolatry and sin were more than just idolatry and sin - they were things that would have destroyed the very fabric of the national, theocratic society.”
Uh...EXACTLY. It’s more oranges and oranges than you realize.
“In the New Testament, on the other hand, Christians are not a physical, ethnic nation, nor are they a theocracy which has the duty to impose itself on entire nations and geographic areas. You might, in turn, want to read II Corinthians Chapter 10 again,”
I have read it and know it well. And it has no bearing on what you’re talking about.
“That’s an important distinction - and one which is defined by the NT, and in turn defines NT Christianity - that you are missing.”
I’m not missing anything. All the facts support exactly what I have said all along while you have NOTHING. Even the verse you cite do not point to what you believe or post. II Corinthians says nothing about the civil authorities using their authority to ensure good order, to suppress dangerous, murderous cults like Albigensians.
I already did, you just didn't like the answers.
Your discourse on methodology is lacking to say the least. For one thing, you do not understand what a primary source is. A primary source is not just a document produced by the heretical group in question. It is a document produced by someone immediately connected to the time period or issue involved. Thus, Reinerius Saccho, who was once an Albigensian and later an inquisitor is in fact a primary source of information about events and even beliefs about the Albigensians.
I'm utilising the same methodology that Wansbrough, Rippon, Crone, etc. use in Islamic studies. And again, you've provided no reason to think that Reinerius wasn't biased in his records - which taints him and his status as a "primary" source. The problem is not that the Catholic records were not written by the Cathar themselves, but that the Catholic records are justifiably questionable on the basis of their subjectivity, bias, hostility, and polemical motive.
Ian Paisely knows little to nothing about the Catholic faith, nor was he ever Catholic. Reinerius, however, was once an Albigensian, and an inquisitor and knows both faiths from the inside. Also, Reinerous is often backed up by other sources contemporary to him. Paisely has only an echo chamber of like minded fringe bigots. Reinerius was very much part of the mainstream of society.
The fact that Reinerius was part of the mainstream of his society - what at this time and in this context was basically an echo chambre for bigots - is less than stunning. Once again, converts from one religion to another generally have reasons for downgrading their former belief system.
Again, no. McGoldrick is a professional. His expertise may not have started with medieval heretical groups but he is equipped with the necessary tools to master the field as his book shows. Also, I am even better equipped than he is in regard to studying medieval heretical groups and I know the value of his work. You are doing what I mentioned before. You are simply dismissing all that is known and you still have not produced a shred of evidence that that is a good or reasonable course of action.
Well, that's your opinion, and everyone has one, but for someone supposedly equipped for the task, you seem to be rather gullible where "tradition" is concerned. Personally, I find it hard to believe that someone educated and supposedly of at least somewhat enlightened opinion, would make excuses for butchery such as you've done on this thread.
Did you ever read Belloc’s chapter on the Albigensians? Apparently not.
Yes, I have, and I know that his entire work on "the great heresies" is considered to be polemical and biased towards an extreme Catholic viewpoint, which is why it isn't considered reliable as a source. Which makes my point.
This, however, is completely beside the point with respect to Belloc's statement that I cited earlier. He was speaking of the general tendency of historians to value "tradition" in historical opinion over and against the value of actual source documents themselves - which is a true enough point, in and of itself, and which is what you're doing.
I cited Lambert earlier. He does not believe the sources - from anyone - are perfect. Again, you make an assertion in direct contradiction to what is actually known.
You need to read a little more precisely, and parse what you read better. I didn't say that Lambert did this, specifically. I merely referred to "those" who do uncritically rely upon biased and polemical sources, regardless of whether Lambert falls into that category or not.
No. 1) They are all PRIMARY SOURCES.
Not necessarily. Much of what you've cited amounts to little more than hearsay, and even the inquisitional records you adduce below certainly have no guarantee to accuracy, non-redaction, etc.
2) Modern historians follow the Annals School approach to history (do you know what that is?) and use all relevant sources and disciplines.
Well, some historians follow the Annales School, but outside of France, and perhaps South America, the success of that viewpoint has been decidedly mixed.
3) What you’re doing is setting up a false alternative: only Cathar documents are worthy of study; all others are never to be trusted.
No, that's not what I've said. I've simply been dealing with the relative weights that evidences should be given. I don't believe that the Catholic material from the era should be given great weight due to the various deficiencies which it has in subjectivity, hostility, and so forth. I don't throw them out altogether - as if they simply didn't exist - but I also refuse to grant them greater authority than what the Cathars actually had to say for themselves, when such is known.
No, actually it isn’t. Ever read any of the inquisition trials when court testimony from Albigensians was written down word-for-word? Yeah, they were heretics. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty_and_staff/course_detail.jsp?id=4268
Again, we have no guarantee that these records weren't redacted to conform them to the stereotyped criticisms of dissenters that had been in play for centuries. Further, there's no reason to think that individual testimonies - often from people who were in no position to be doctrinally authoritative (e.g. the daughter of a miller, probably illiterate???) within a Cathar group - count strongly towards what these groups really believed. I've personally spoken with Catholics who reject all sorts of doctrines held by Catholicism - the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, transubstantiation, etc. Some have thought that while Jesus was a "good man", that it's just unbelievable to think He was "God." Their doctrinal deficiencies were based on ignorance and individual, personal opinion, not on the normative teachings of the Catholic religion. Why should we rule out the same for people eight centuries ago?
Again, no. We know that the Albigensian groups differed in their beliefs and practices. To dismiss all that is known about the Albigensians because someone doesn’t want them to look bad is unreasonable. Besides, you’re wrong in any case, because as Reinerius wrote:
This brings up an obvious problem with your logic - if you admit that the Albigensian groups differed in their beliefs and practices (as I've pointed out a number of times in this thread), then why do you act as if the testimonies of a few people, many of them not likely to have been doctrinally sophisticated anywise, is some sort of end all and be all of what "Cathars" believed?
"Cathar" was basically an umbrella term. It was used to describe any "heretic" in that region and that era, with specific terms like "Albigensian" being appended to provide additional specificity. This being the case, why would you assume that one group, such as the "extreme" Cathars in Northern Italy that Reinerius was questioning, would have even identified itself or agreed with other "Cathar" groups, such as those in Languedoc? The situation is much like we have today, where many Catholics will simply refer to anyone who isn't Catholic or some other obviously Catholic-like group - be they Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Russellites, or what have you - as "Prods?" After all, when they're all just a bunch of dirty heretics anywise, who really cares about the finer distinctions between one versus the other?
That's also the point about the Ritual. While the Ritual also can face the same criticism - it could only really apply to one particular group of Cathari - this is blunted by the fact that nobody really claims that it is universal anywise. The historians say that it may be representative of many Cathar groups, but I can't think of anyone who says that every single congregation of Cathars, all across southern Europe, would have used or even been in agreement with the Ritual. But, many in Languedoc probably were.
“Also, that the Devil was author of the whole of the Old Testament, except these books — namely, Jonah, the Psalms, the hooks of Solomon, of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve Prophets; of which some were written in heaven, namely, those which were written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which they believe to be the heavenly.”
Presto! Your complaint is dealt with just like that. See how easy history can be when you actually read the history books? :)
Hardly. Reinerius' words which Peters cites are referring specifically to the Albanenses - John of Lugio's group. They don't have any application, as far as we can tell, to the Cathari of Languedoc to whom the Ritual applies (and who are the group basically under discussion in this thread, as they are the main ones Christian writes about). Especially since many of the other charges - such as rejection of the Trinity - are refuted by the Ritual.
The Bishop of Lodeve questioned Albigensians about matrimony. This is what happened: “ V. He asked them what they thought of matrimony; and if a man, and a woman, who were so joined together, could he saved ? They would not answer, except this only — namely, that man, and woman, were united to avoid luxury, and fornication, as St. Paul has said in his Epistle.”
Ringing endorsement, huh?
Not exactly conclusive, especially as the only thing they did positively affirm is scripturally accurate (and, IIRC, not that dissimilar to what Catholicism has taught in years gone by). While I disagree that avoidance of fornication is the ONLY reason for marriage, at the same time, it's a stretch to read that into the one sentence statement anywise.
Nevertheless, what you cite actually refutes the statement you had made that I challenged you on. You made the charge that the Cathari were involved in lasciviousness and sodomy. I challenged you on it. In response, you cite a statement by one of them that would seem to suggest exactly the opposite - that sex was something only to be engaged in to AVOID fornication. This is in accord with the statement in the Ritual whereby the postulant affirms that he will not abandon his "body to any form of luxury." This is exactly the opposite of the ignorant calumnity you accused them of.
You see, we actually know enough about the Albigensians that we know they eventually began to embrace marriage and encourage it within their ranks (probably because they were worried about their declining numbers). See Rene Nelli’s book, La vie quotidienne des Cathares du Languedoc au XIIIe siecle (1969). Duvernoy, a French historian, who studied the Albigensians intensively, even related that they compiled a list of New Testament quotes to use against marriage. They obviously had varying views over time and from place to place.
I don't deny that - but all the same, I doubt their list of verses against marriage would differ greatly from that used to justify celibacy in the Roman Catholic priesthood. Again, simply pointing to their views against marriage neither proves lasciviousness on their part (especially since everyone all around understood that they held these views because they thought sexual intercourse was a sin, not because they wanted to be swingers), nor does it prove gnosticism on their part.
Nope. Albigensian deception is much more likely. In 1326 a Cather claimed that the Trinity were made up of earth, wind and water. Does that sound orthodox to you? (Heinrich Fichtenau, Denise A. Kaiser, Heretics and Scholars in the High Middle Ages, 1000-1200; page 197).
So? Because one person affirms that, this means that every other Cathar who affirmed an orthodox Trinity, even in religious documents intended for internal use, was just being deceptive? That argument is so astoundingly stupid that it borders on the unbelievable.
No. Once again you are trusting the men who were actually dishonest. Take for instance the Cathar bishop and his deputy who were question in Toulouse in 1178. Soon afterward one was living off a new stipend in the local cathedral as a canon. The other became a canon at a parish. They clearly had to pretend to be Catholics to get those positions. The Cathars were simply deceptive people.
I assume you are again citing from Fichtenau and Kaiser, so I will respond by assessing what they say (p. 147). Nothing is said about the Cathars being "deceptive" in holding a bishopric. Any number of reasons, including conversion after obtaining the office, could be in play - and your interpretation is simply that - your interpretation. Further, their holding of canoncies three years later is reported with this remark,
"What mattered most at the time was not their preparation for office, but seeing to it that two officials "converted" from the opposing camp were provided for and under supervision."
This seems to suggest that these two men had made acceptable recantations, and were placed into these offices in a probationary manner. Nothing here about any supposed subterfuge to "sneak" into these offices. Frankly, their "deception" exists in your own mind.
And about salvation, the Cathars believed you had to be a Cathar and receive the consolamentum to be saved.
The consolamentum was not about salvation, it was about formal induction into the church after a person had undergone a period of catechising and probation, and in fact was not unlike the probationary period that novitiates were expected to undergo in the first few centuries of Christianity. Wakefield and Evans observed this, when they wrote,
"Like a catechumen of the early Church - Catharist practices reflect the ancient usage - a believer had to undergo a period of probation, normally at least a year, during which he was instructed in the faith and disciplined in a life of rigorous asceticism." (Wakefield and Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, p. 465)
And as they also imply, someone who was undergoing this was a "believer," i.e. somebody already in the faith, but not fully catechised. The practice actually seems to be very ancient, but nothing about it - again, when you actually read the Traditio instead of just reading what people have said about it - suggests that salvation is in view.
My case was won by me long ago. You have utterly failed to present any proof that overturns what I posted.
Well, if it makes you feel good about yourself to believe that, then have at it.
Let's see if I have this right. Bernard Gui, who as an inquisitor and polemicist had good reason to cast the Cathars and other "heretics" in as negative of a light as possible, is nevertheless entirely trustworthy when it comes to his inquisitorial record and polemical writings about said "heretics."
At the same time, a document produced by a group of Cathari - whose purpose was that it be used within their own group - must be nothing but dissimulation. Since, after all, the Cathari would obviously want to deceive their own catechumens about what the group believes.
Now, these "heretics" lie at every opportunity they can get. Except that their testimony is completely, absolutely, unimpeachably trustworthy when they are questioned by the inquisitors and tell them about all kinds of perfid heresies.
And there is no possibility that the same inquisitors would ever even consider "fudging" the record just a bit to justify their own existence, if for no other reason.
Sure. And I've got a rainbow-coloured unicorn that I ride to work everyday, too.
As Conybeare remarked about the sometime honesty of "orthodox" polemicists,
"In their confutation of heretics the orthodox fathers were none too scrupulous of the truth. They all carried in their bag two weights, a heavier and a lighter, and in their dealings with so-called heretics used the latter."
With that, I leave you to your fun. I've donated enough of my time today to you.
You wrote:
“I already did, you just didn’t like the answers.”
No, you just didn’t answer them. You also simply dismiss what you don’t like.
“I’m utilising the same methodology that Wansbrough, Rippon, Crone, etc. use in Islamic studies.”
We’re not doing Islamic Studies.
“And again, you’ve provided no reason to think that Reinerius wasn’t biased in his records...”
I don’t need to. Everyone is biased. What is at issue is the veracity of Reinerius’ comments - not his bias. You, for instance, have shown unbelievable bias in this thread - to the point that you’ve called the Catholic Church satanic. By your standards, that means no one should ever listen to you. Do you see how that works? Is that reasonable?
” - which taints him and his status as a “primary” source.”
No. Bias in no way “taints” something as a primary source. It may mean something is tainted with bias, but it doesn’t change a primary source into a secondary source. To use your own earlier analogy of apples and oranges: a biased source is like a blemished fruit. If you’re really hungry, you use what’s useful about the fruit. You don’t just throw it away.
“The problem is not that the Catholic records were not written by the Cathar themselves, but that the Catholic records are justifiably questionable on the basis of their subjectivity, bias, hostility, and polemical motive.”
No. They are all still valuable sources. Yes, they all may have either a bias, a subjectivity, or even a hostility or polemical motive, but none of that invalidates the information therein. Also, the Cathars themselves were known to engage in debates and polemical discussions not to mention violence when it suited them so they must also be thought of as biased, subjective, hostile, and polemical.
“The fact that Reinerius was part of the mainstream of his society - what at this time and in this context was basically an echo chambre for bigots - is less than stunning.”
To you, perhaps. But when one remembers - as you seem to want us all to forget - that he was once an Albigensian and THEN BECAME a Catholic in the mainstream it shows your hostility to him is more about you than about him.
“Once again, converts from one religion to another generally have reasons for downgrading their former belief system.”
As the Albigensians did? Could it be then that Albigensians - most of whom had to be converts - could also be dissemblers and so forth in order to make their cult look good? Yeah, again, your philosophy works against you.
“Well, that’s your opinion, and everyone has one, but for someone supposedly equipped for the task, you seem to be rather gullible where “tradition” is concerned.”
Nope. Remember, the reputable historians have shown what’s what about the Albigensians. That’s not being “gullible” about tradition. That’s just knowing history and historiography. How many books on the Albigensians by a reputable historian have you read? Any? Any at all?
“Personally, I find it hard to believe that someone educated and supposedly of at least somewhat enlightened opinion, would make excuses for butchery such as you’ve done on this thread.”
I made no such excuses. I am educated and enlightened enough to simply get the facts right. I do not confuse facts with excuses. You seem to know little about the actual history of Albigensians. You seem to know nothing about their acts of violence, their beliefs, their trials, the records, etc.
“Yes, I have, and I know that his entire work on “the great heresies” is considered to be polemical and biased towards an extreme Catholic viewpoint, which is why it isn’t considered reliable as a source. Which makes my point.”
No, actually it doesn’t make your point at all. Belooc was still right even though he was biased.
“This, however, is completely beside the point with respect to Belloc’s statement that I cited earlier. He was speaking of the general tendency of historians to value “tradition” in historical opinion over and against the value of actual source documents themselves - which is a true enough point, in and of itself, and which is what you’re doing.”
Nope. I am relying entirely on documents and those who read them. So far you have shown that you’ve read perhaps ONE primary source document - the Ritual of Lyons. You don’t even seem that knowledgeable about Reinerius’ work. Unless you plan on learning Latin and Old French, you will never know anything about the Cathars without relying on translations and secondary sources. Yet you don’t seem to have invested much time into learning about those sources. Just last night I stumbled across my copy of Malcolm Lambert’s Medieval Heresy (3rd edition). Ever read it? Look at chapter 7. Read it and tell me how Lambert’s wrong. Can you?
“You need to read a little more precisely, and parse what you read better. I didn’t say that Lambert did this, specifically. I merely referred to “those” who do uncritically rely upon biased and polemical sources, regardless of whether Lambert falls into that category or not.”
Who uncritically relies on “biased and polemical” sources? If you say I am doing it then please show the errors in the documents I have cited. I don’t want your opinions. I want proof that there are errors in those documents that some how crept into my posts here because I was using them uncritically. Can you do that? I don’t see how you can, because I never use anything uncritically. The simple fact is that Reinerius has stood the test of time and other sources bear him out on many, many points.
“Not necessarily. Much of what you’ve cited amounts to little more than hearsay, and even the inquisitional records you adduce below certainly have no guarantee to accuracy, non-redaction, etc.”
And neither does the Ritual of Lyons. Again, you’re sounding like a 9/11 Truther: “Gee, we can’t trust anything that puts forward the idea we already assume to be untrue.”
“Well, some historians follow the Annales School, but outside of France, and perhaps South America, the success of that viewpoint has been decidedly mixed.”
No, actually it has been a resounding success. That’s why so many historians utilize archeology, art history, linguistics, etc.
“No, that’s not what I’ve said.”
Essentially it is. You have, at one time or another, implied that 1) only Cathar documents are “primary sources”, 2) that Catholic documents are not to be trusted because their biased, 3) that a monolithic tradition has trumpted actual investigation, 4) and all of this you’ve done without apparently actually knowing the sources, primary or secondary.
“I’ve simply been dealing with the relative weights that evidences should be given. I don’t believe that the Catholic material from the era should be given great weight due to the various deficiencies which it has in subjectivity, hostility, and so forth.”
So, if you gave them less-than-great weight would that not still mean that much of what was said of the Albigensians would have to be true? By your calculus, then, the Albigensians may have been sodomites but not dualists. Or they may not have been dualists, but were murderers. Come on!
“I don’t throw them out altogether - as if they simply didn’t exist - but I also refuse to grant them greater authority than what the Cathars actually had to say for themselves, when such is known.”
That still avoids the elephants in the room: 1) if you accept the Catholic sources at all, on any level, the Albigensians were terrible heretics and dangerous. They also could not be Bible loving proto-Protestants either. 2) The Cathars spoke for themselves in inqusition trials too. What do you do about that? Do you just ignore what they say? Dismiss it with some sort of caveat? Oh, they were scared to death so they made stuff up, right? 3) What about those former Albigensians, like Reinerius, who told us some of what the Albigensians did and believed? You just dismiss those too, right?
“Again, we have no guarantee that these records weren’t redacted to conform them to the stereotyped criticisms of dissenters that had been in play for centuries.”
9/11 Truther talk. Couldn’t we also say that we don’t really have a guarantee that the Albigensians made up the Ritual of Lyons as a cover?
“Further, there’s no reason to think that individual testimonies - often from people who were in no position to be doctrinally authoritative (e.g. the daughter of a miller, probably illiterate???) within a Cathar group - count strongly towards what these groups really believed.”
I agree. But then again, she’s just ONE. There were others. Hundreds or thousands of trials. And we have records of many of them. And none of them say that the Albigensians were just good little ol’ Baptists.
“I’ve personally spoken with Catholics who reject all sorts of doctrines held by Catholicism - the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, transubstantiation, etc. Some have thought that while Jesus was a “good man”, that it’s just unbelievable to think He was “God.” Their doctrinal deficiencies were based on ignorance and individual, personal opinion, not on the normative teachings of the Catholic religion. Why should we rule out the same for people eight centuries ago?”
I don’t. I already said that the Albigensians had a variety of beliefs that differed from region to region and leader to leader. Many historians show examples of this sort of thing and believe the imaginations of the new found cult leaders played a role in the development of the religion and its evolving theology. I think that’s apparent with their gradual development toward a healthier view of marriage for instance. What didn’t change is that the core beliefs were heretical. And that miller’s daughter apparently learned her heresy from Albigensians not just poorly catechized Catholics.
“This brings up an obvious problem with your logic - if you admit that the Albigensian groups differed in their beliefs and practices (as I’ve pointed out a number of times in this thread), then why do you act as if the testimonies of a few people, many of them not likely to have been doctrinally sophisticated anywise, is some sort of end all and be all of what “Cathars” believed?”
First, I don’t. I believe the whole composite picture shows the Albigenians were the heretics that all rational, educated historians know them to be. What the trial records generally show us is a constancy of thought and practice and dissembling among the Albigensians from whatever rank whence they came.
“”Cathar” was basically an umbrella term. It was used to describe any “heretic” in that region and that era, with specific terms like “Albigensian” being appended to provide additional specificity. This being the case, why would you assume that one group, such as the “extreme” Cathars in Northern Italy that Reinerius was questioning, would have even identified itself or agreed with other “Cathar” groups, such as those in Languedoc?”
I don’t believe - nor have I ever suggested - that they would agree on all things. We know, for instance, that they actually disagreed quite frequently and had disputes with one another over doctrine. What is also known, however, is that the Cathars were heretics. The fact that some heretics disagree with other heretics doesn’t change the fact that both groups are heretics. Likewise, the Waldensians argued with the Albigensians. Ever see Mormons arguing with Jehovah’s Witnesses? Same idea.
“The situation is much like we have today, where many Catholics will simply refer to anyone who isn’t Catholic or some other obviously Catholic-like group - be they Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Russellites, or what have you - as “Prods?” After all, when they’re all just a bunch of dirty heretics anywise, who really cares about the finer distinctions between one versus the other?”
First, I have never encountered any Catholic who does that. I can’t say they don’t exist, but I have never come across that. Second, I would never confuse a Lutheran with a Mormon. The former is a Christian. The latter is not. I also don’t confuse the Albigensians and Waldensians. Someone else in this thread did so - because he relied on a Protestant source that also did so. There were many different kinds of Cathars. But they were all still Cathars.
“That’s also the point about the Ritual. While the Ritual also can face the same criticism - it could only really apply to one particular group of Cathari - this is blunted by the fact that nobody really claims that it is universal anywise. The historians say that it may be representative of many Cathar groups, but I can’t think of anyone who says that every single congregation of Cathars, all across southern Europe, would have used or even been in agreement with the Ritual. But, many in Languedoc probably were.”
Based on what? Again, you can’t even prove that they really believed in the document’s doctrines or that they believe in them in an orthodox way.
“Hardly. Reinerius’ words which Peters cites are referring specifically to the Albanenses - John of Lugio’s group.”
Oh, I see. So, it isn’t that Reinerius was wrong you’re saying. You just think it only applies to group A rather than group B. Perhaps it does. That would still mean that one of more Cather groups denied the Bible. I can live with that. So, by your own standards, you must now admit that some Cathars had to be terribly unchristian heretics. Unless you’re going to claim denying dozens of Old Testament books is not a terrible heresy. Is that what you’ll do?
“Not exactly conclusive, especially as the only thing they did positively affirm is scripturally accurate (and, IIRC, not that dissimilar to what Catholicism has taught in years gone by). While I disagree that avoidance of fornication is the ONLY reason for marriage, at the same time, it’s a stretch to read that into the one sentence statement anywise.”
I’m not reading into the statement. The statement mererly support what we already know.
“Nevertheless, what you cite actually refutes the statement you had made that I challenged you on. You made the charge that the Cathari were involved in lasciviousness and sodomy. I challenged you on it. In response, you cite a statement by one of them that would seem to suggest exactly the opposite - that sex was something only to be engaged in to AVOID fornication. This is in accord with the statement in the Ritual whereby the postulant affirms that he will not abandon his “body to any form of luxury.” This is exactly the opposite of the ignorant calumnity you accused them of.”
No. The sources say they engaged in sodomy. Unless you can show they are mistaken, that’s what we have.
“I don’t deny that - but all the same, I doubt their list of verses against marriage would differ greatly from that used to justify celibacy in the Roman Catholic priesthood.”
Now I’ll have to say apples and oranges. Those for priestly celibacy are not opposed to marriage. Yet we know that the Albigensians opposed marriage in the beginning. That’s an entirely different idea than just having a celibate priestly class - which by the way, the Albigensians also had.
“Again, simply pointing to their views against marriage neither proves lasciviousness on their part (especially since everyone all around understood that they held these views because they thought sexual intercourse was a sin, not because they wanted to be swingers), nor does it prove gnosticism on their part.”
What the sources do prove is that the Albigensians hated - doctrinarily - marriage. Hence, they were terrible heretics. And they hated marriage NOT because of sex in itself or even some “weaking” of discipline they believed sex could lead to (as some medieval ecclesiastics believed as well), but because they hated for souls to be brought into the material world.
“So? Because one person affirms that, this means that every other Cathar who affirmed an orthodox Trinity, even in religious documents intended for internal use, was just being deceptive? That argument is so astoundingly stupid that it borders on the unbelievable.”
No, not at all. You want to dismiss ALL evidence - all of it - that in any way implies anything unorthodox or heretical among the Albigensians. You come up with one excuse after another for how every trial record is only worthy of ignoring, every confession is unworthy of time, every book about the Albigensians is just biased, every fact is just “tradition” and so on. In the meantime, I have posted again and again, facts from records, primary source records, that have gone completely unrefuted as to what they say. We can say that the man who did not understand the Trinity is just a crank, an ignorant fool. Fine. But you said that about the miller’s daughter as well. And any and all examples I post you will dismiss those too. And you post no evidence - nothing - that vindicates of exonerates the Albigensians at all. Rumsfeld once said you go to war with the army you have. Well, we study history with the records we have. Repeatedly dismissing ALL OF THEM makes no sense.
“I assume you are again citing from Fichtenau and Kaiser, so I will respond by assessing what they say (p. 147). Nothing is said about the Cathars being “deceptive” in holding a bishopric.”
They didn’t hold a bishopric. One was a CATHAR bishop. They became canons IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH after they had been questioned as suspected heretics.
“Any number of reasons, including conversion after obtaining the office, could be in play - and your interpretation is simply that - your interpretation.”
Alright, let’s look at it this way then: This was 1178. And you see the Church trying to convince Cathars to become Catholics. Apparently they even made efforts to financially supprot them if they converted. Where’s the violence against the Cathars? Didn’t that come 31 years later? So, the Church was using every good thing it could think of to get people away from the pernicious Albigensian heresy...and it didn’t work.
“This seems to suggest that these two men had made acceptable recantations, and were placed into these offices in a probationary manner. Nothing here about any supposed subterfuge to “sneak” into these offices. Frankly, their “deception” exists in your own mind.”
No, there was plenty of deception on the part of Albigensians. It was a part of their life.
“The consolamentum was not about salvation, it was about formal induction into the church after a person had undergone a period of catechising and probation, and in fact was not unlike the probationary period that novitiates were expected to undergo in the first few centuries of Christianity.”
Completely false. Consolementum was usually only given when a person was near death.
“Wakefield and Evans observed this, when they wrote,
“Like a catechumen of the early Church - Catharist practices reflect the ancient usage - a believer had to undergo a period of probation, normally at least a year, during which he was instructed in the faith and disciplined in a life of rigorous asceticism.” (Wakefield and Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, p. 465)”
Look on page 365 and you see that the consolementum is discussed ONLY in regard to the sick, the invalids, in bed. They say on page 46: “But because the consolamentum cleansed one from sin AND BECAUSE IT WAS NORMALLY POSTPOSNED UNTIL THE LAST HOURS OF LIFE...”
Clearly you never read Wakefield and Evans. You apparently simply took the quote from this page instead: http://www.languedoc-france.info/12011001_consolamentum.htm
If you actually read page 465, you would see that that quote is not about the consolamentum. Wakefield and Evans say that it is a preliminary rite.
“but nothing about it...suggests that salvation is in view.”
Incorrect. Cleansing from sin is ALWAYS about salvation. and it says as much in the Cathar ritual in on page 481 of Wakefield and Evans. You might want to check that out.
“Well, if it makes you feel good about yourself to believe that, then have at it.”
And you might want to actually read Wakefield and Evans.
"Heresies of the High Middle Ages" by Wakefield and Evans along with "A History of the Baptists" by John T. Christian both look like something I should read.
You wrote:
“Let’s see if I have this right. Bernard Gui, who as an inquisitor and polemicist had good reason to cast the Cathars and other “heretics” in as negative of a light as possible, is nevertheless entirely trustworthy when it comes to his inquisitorial record and polemical writings about said “heretics.” “
No. 1) Gui didn’t have to cast the heretics in a bad light. They were already universally accepted as heretics except by their fellow heretics.
“At the same time, a document produced by a group of Cathari - whose purpose was that it be used within their own group -...”
How do you know? If you can question every Catholic writer on every possible syllable they wrote, can you please show me any evidence you have that the Cathar rituals are genuine and really express the same beliefs as Christians hold them?
They answer will logically have to be no. But I thought I’d at least ask.
“...must be nothing but dissimulation.”
No. I said it could be. I also said that the Albigensians - just like Mormons - might have used the same terminology with drastically different connotations.
“Since, after all, the Cathari would obviously want to deceive their own catechumens about what the group believes.”
No. But then again you claim the same for ALL Catholic writers opposed to the Albigensians - including converts. You essentially claim they are all lying. All of them. The inquisitors were all lying according to you as well. You can’t seem to show any evidence of that, but you keep implying it.
“Now, these “heretics” lie at every opportunity they can get. Except that their testimony is completely, absolutely, unimpeachably trustworthy when they are questioned by the inquisitors and tell them about all kinds of perfid heresies.”
The inquisitors knew what they were doing. They often had evidence from other witnesses already gathered before they questioned a person. You have to ask yourself why these people would lie when it meant that they could suffer for it. Men will lie to avoid suffering (like perhaps producing false rituals or couching them in terms that sound orthodox). What they will not do is lie in such a way that they can only get into more trouble.
“And there is no possibility that the same inquisitors would ever even consider “fudging” the record just a bit to justify their own existence, if for no other reason.”
Well, let’s look at that idea. Take the records of the Bishop of Pamiers, Jacques Fournier. He conducted heresy trials in his diocese for seven years altogether. The trials did not run continuously of course. He left behind one of the most lengthy and detailed sets of records. Only a very small portion has been published in English.
Now, Jacques Fournier may have had inquistorial trials conducted over seven years, but the actual number of trial days was less than 400. He questioned almost 600 people. As a presiding bishop, he need to do exactly NOTHING to “justify” the trials. When he believed he has discovered the last Cathar, he stopped having trials.
“Sure. And I’ve got a rainbow-coloured unicorn that I ride to work everyday, too.”
Unicorn owner or not, you could know more if you simply read some books on the subject rather than scoff at what you’ve apparently never studied.
“As Conybeare remarked about the sometime honesty of “orthodox” polemicists,”
Anything Conybeare said on such a topic is unintentionally funny since he could have been argued to have been on both sides of the Jesus Myth controversy. I wonder if he ever regretted his membership in the Rationalist Press Association?
“With that, I leave you to your fun. I’ve donated enough of my time today to you.”
I understand. Soon I’ll be on the road - no not on a unicorn - and unable to post much. That’s several days away, but I have a lot of work to do in the meantime.
### You rely to much upon Nina Garsoian’s argument, not to mention ignoring the work of Paul Lemerle. ###
>>> Lemerle and Hamilton are simply repeaters of traditional arguments. Well and good, as far as that goes, but not particularly convincing. <<<
Not so sure about Lemerle, but to call Bernard Hamilton a simple repeater of traditional arguments is patently false. You are parading your ignorance.
“Not convincing,” perhaps, to someone who hasn’t read their work, or someone with an axe to grind. In your case, I’d guess both to be the case.
### Once again, the description of the Paulicians as “dualists” comes from not just Greek Orthodox sources but also from those within the Orthodox Armenian church and from Islam. Read Lemerle. Read Hamilton. Remember that there were many Paulicians outside of Armenia. ###
>>> The Islamic evidence is inconclusive, simply for the fact that it remains to be conclusively shown that Masud’i was actually referring to the group we’d call the “Paulicians.” As for the Armenian Orthodox evidence, it is divided, and much of it does NOT, actually, suggest that the Paulicians were dualists.
<<<
Inconclusive how? More likely it is simply inconvenient — for your farcical historical reconstruction. As for the Armenian evidence — so what? Point of origin does not determine the entire doctrinal history of a group that for centuries established strongholds well outside of that territory.
### I find Conybeare’s dating unreliable, to say the least. Bernard Hamilton rejects the dating, as does Runciman; I’ll take their word about it over yours and your mostly-anonymous Armenianists. ###
>>> That’s fine, I’m sure you do. Others don’t find it unreliable. The arguments adduced against it - such as the occasional appearance of archaic Armenian in ecclesial documents even into the 19th century - do not really prove anything. An entire treatise in an archaic form of Armenian is several orders of magnitude different from the occasional archaic word or phrase. <<<
Um, you’re not addressing the points raised by Runciman and Hamilton. You also ignore the problem of the Paulician/Tondrakian connection. I find it amusing that you’ve latched on to Conybeare, who used his interpretation of the _Key_ to support his farcical notion that the earliest Christians were Adoptionists. Heresy becomes you.
>>> See, the “Book of the Two Principles” to which you refer is reputed to have been written by one John of Lugio, near Bergamo (not anonymous, as you assert), who was an “extreme Cathar” in northern Italy and the founder of a smallish group known as “Albanenses”. He is said to have prepared it as a reply against more “moderate” Cathar groups that he had been in contact with. <<<
I “see” more of your ignorance. Antoine Dondaine, the editor of “Le liber de duobus principiis,” was the one who “tentatively suggest[ed]” that John of Lugio was the author. What is the full title of Dondaine’s edition? It is as follows (emphasis mine):
_Un Traite NEO-MANICHEEN du XIIIe siecle: Le liber de duobus principiis, suivi d’un fragment de rituel cathare._
Hmmmm... I wonder what “neo-manicheen” might mean? I also note that Dondaine’s edition was printed in 1939 in ROME. Be careful, Cincinnatus: you might be using the work of some duplicitous Catholic polemicist.
>>> However, you’re attempt to use this work as genuine, primary source evidence of Cathar belief is not tenable. As has been pointed out by others (e.g. Christine Thouzellier, Livre des deux principes, p. 33), we do not actually possess the original treatise by John. Instead, we have a summation of the work, prepared by *drum roll please* Catholic polemicists who disputed with him - with all the attendant problems concerning their reliability that have been discussed previously. <<<
I call foul. I’ve read a recent (2004) article by Raymond Powell, who uses Thouzellier’s 1973 edition, and he consistently refers to the author of the _Liber de duobus_ as “Anonymous.” Not John of Lugio. I don’t have access to a copy of Thouzellier’s edition, but I wouldn’t doubt that when you say that the manuscript is the product of “Catholic polemicists” you are probably (once again)misrepresenting a tentative suggestion as a historical fact.
Your speculations about the “representativeness” of the _Liber de duobus_ are worthless without giving a DOCUMENTED context for comparison, which you do not provide. By the way, the comparisons I’ve read have not been between “extreme” and “moderate” Cathars, they’ve been between “extreme” and “moderate” dualisms held by Cathars per se.
Your fanciful attempt to create a miscellany of Cathar “dissenting groups” is once again unrestrained by historical proof or context. By the way, John Christian’s fancies have not been ignored by me, either, given that many Cathars fled to Northern Italy after the crusade began in the Languedoc.
The Cathars were dualists, and can readily be characterized as gnostic in their outlook. They were Christian heretics by any plausible definition of the term. For you to deny that strikes me as a mixture of special pleading and falsehood.
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.