Posted on 08/14/2009 9:29:49 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
This was not a Catholic clergyman's source, that's C. Schmidt, Schaff-hersog saying it.
Well, then the problem is simply that YOU aren't reading the text carefully enough. In the portion you quote, Schmidt clearly indicates that the Manichaeans were a separate group. In fact, the only groups he lumps together are the "Cathari, the Bogomils, Patoreni, Albigenses..." which he says were "all of the same family." What that means is that he is not lumping them together with the Manichaeans - he says NOTHING about the Manichaeans being "of the same family" as the rest of these. That delusion is entirely of your own making, coming from an imprecise reading of the actual text.
In fact, when we consider the timeline involved, it's clear why Schmidt chose to word it the way he did.
The Manichaeans who came flowing west did so in the 2nd-4th centuries, several centuries before the Paulicians, Bogomils, etc. In fact, if you will recall, none other than Augustine was originally a Manichaean. As has been noted, even after his conversion to Christianity, he retained a lot of his Manichaean mindset. Given the influence which Augustine has had on Roman Catholic doctrine, it's more accurate to say that Catholics are Manichaeans than it is to say that the Bogomils were.
My bad, that should read "3RD-4th centuries"
Quite incorrect — I’ve not seen any real factual proof that declares that the Cathari were anything but what The Church called them — gnostics.
True, it is a 15 year old book. And if you feel better pointing that out, if it helps you feel better about things, more power to you.
I hope it helps.
It really is surprising how the "big lie" becomes a foundational truth over time.
In reading about these Christian Churches I'm struck by how many things Baptists today share in common with them. They held to adult baptism. They said no to tradition and placed the emphasis on Scripture (Scripture Alone prior to the Reformation). They said no to transubstantiation (again prior to the Reformation). They were locally controlled congregations not a hierarchy where the clergy are elevated and separated from the congregation. They believed in church membership for the regenerated only.
It really is something how no matter how hard the state church tried to discourage, or eradicate, these Christian Churches the beliefs they held to couldn't be extinguished.
I know I would really enjoy reading them. If you have the time to do it, please ping me.
You wrote:
“They held to adult baptism. They said no to tradition and placed the emphasis on Scripture (Scripture Alone prior to the Reformation).”
Albigensians? The Albigensians had many traditions that had nothing to do with scripture or a proper interpretation of it. Their doctrinal support of sodomy over marriage, for instance.
“They said no to transubstantiation (again prior to the Reformation).”
Since they didn’t believe in an Incarnate Christ, they could never believe in the Eucharist.
As Dave Armstrong documents: Kenneth Scott Latourette [Baptist]: A History of Christianity: vol. 1: Beginnings to 1500 (NY: Harper & Row, 1953, 454-455):
The Cathari were dualists, believing that there are two eternal powers, the one good and the other evil, that the visible world is the creation of the evil power, and that the spiritual world is the work of the good power . . .
Some put forth a variant of this dualism, saying that the good God had two sons, one of whom, Satanal, rebelled, and the other, Christ, became the redeemer . . .
They held that since flesh is evil, Christ could not have had a real body or have died a real death . . .
You wrote:
“They were locally controlled congregations not a hierarchy where the clergy are elevated and separated from the congregation.”
Actually they had a hierarchy: “A regularized Albigensian hierarchy had come into existence, and local feudal lords, especially the count of Toulouse, supported the Albigenses.” http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:C4pypC9YzfwJ:www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/168658/Saint-Dominic+albigensians+hierarchy&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
“[There were others] Those were called “believers” of the heretics, who lived after the manner of the world, and who though they did not attain so far as to imitate the life of the perfect, nevertheless hoped to be saved in their faith; and though they differed as to their mode of life, they were one with them in belief and unbelief....As to the perfect heretics however they had a magistracy whom they called Deacons and Bishops,...”
http://www.midi-france.info/121202_raynaldus.htm
“It really is something how no matter how hard the state church tried to discourage, or eradicate, these Christian Churches the beliefs they held to couldn’t be extinguished.”
They were extinguished. When the Albigensians went, so did their heretical beliefs. The fact that some later groups believed some of the same heretical things only means people fall into similar heresies.
Well, at least we can both do the math.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
It really is. I think a lot of it has to do with the Catholic emphasis (or OVER-emphasis, one might say) on tradition. If tradition is your guideline, then it's easy to gloss over all kinds of inconvenient facts, if those facts don't accord with what tradition says. In the case at hand, since Mother Church says that the Bogomils, Albigenses, etc. were "gnostic heretics", then it's easy for your average lay Catholic, who probably hasn't actually studied gnosticism and related scholastic fields anywise, to just ignore what things like primary source documents say, and go with what Mother Church says. It's not necessarily "intellectual", but it IS comforting to them, I'm sure.
How can you not think of this as being a religion of the perfect and imperfect, the cognoscenti and the non-cognoscenti, those who had obtained the special knowledge (gnosis) and those who hadn't.
Well wait a second here, which type of gnosticism are you even trying to accuse the Paulicians, etc. of? The reason I ask is because, while the typical charge is that they were Manichaeans, the things YOU are arguing for are typical of the Syro-Alexandrian family of gnosticism, not Mani's doctrine.
I'm unsure of where you are even getting this whole notion of cognoscenti vs. non-cognoscenti out of the terms "perfect" vs. "imperfect" to begin with. Your terms don't apply. They are terms dealing with "knowledge" while "perfect" and "imperfect" carry moral overtones to them. You're simply lumping "gnosticism" together as if it were just one big happy family, without knowing the subject matter.
In Manichaeanism, the distinction between "classes" of believers was moral, and it was based primarily upon whether one followed a close adherence to the extreme asceticism of Mani. If you did, you were "True", if you didn't but were just a "normal" believer, then you were a "soldier" or "hearer." This notion of "cognoscenti" vs. "non-cognoscenti" doesn't really apply to Manichaeanism. Nevertheless, the fact of moral distinction in later medieval groups STILL doesn't show relation to the Manichaeans. After all, in none of the information we have about the Bogomils, Paulicians, Albigenses, etc. do we see anything about "the imperfect" (to use your term) being called "soldiers" or "hearers", nor do we see any of the distinctive doctrines peculiar to Manichaeanism, nor do we see any particular evidence of the extreme asceticism that Mani advocated. In short, there is a gross absence of any actual evidence - aside from the testimony of their enemies - that these groups had any actual Manichaean traits.
To the extent that there was any actual division of believers, it most likely was moral - the same sort of "carnal" vs. "spiritual" Christians that was made by none other than the Apostle Paul, if you will remember.
Your point about One can credibly make the same type of argument about Catholicism - the division between laity and clergy and the granting of different levels of "spirituality" to the one over the other sounds a lot like just this type of division. is incorrect as there is no such division of knowledge or spirituality or holiness between the laity and the clergy. In contrast, the gnostics had a very distinct, knowledge based idea of salvation, akin to the Freemasons.
Well, yes there is, that's why the priesthood in Catholicism is given exclusive right to conduct the sacraments from a spiritual and moral standpoint, as opposed to the mere positional distinction that appears in Baptist and Evangelical groups.
And yes, the gnostics DID have a "knowledge-based" idea of salvation - which is completely absent from the Paulician and Cathari source documents we have available.
Do Baptists believe in something like that? From what I've heard from Baptists, they don't. Seeking to make Baptists inheritors to Manichaenism is quite wrong for that reason
Since, as has been conclusively shown, the Paulicians, Bogomils, Catharis, Albigenses, and other medieval groups were in no way, shape, or form Manichaean, this is a moot point.
Back to your statement that However, since we know that the Cathari and other medieval groups considered adult baptism as a way of entering into the group, and since baptism was done to those considered "perfect" in this perfect/imperfect dichotomy, it would logically seem that the dichotomy divides "believers" from "nonbelievers", not two separate classes of believers, as Christian wrongly states. remember that the majority did not become baptised unless they had obtained the "knowledge" -- quite different from what Baptists now do -- the baptised don't have some secret "knowledge" separate from the unbaptised, rather the baptised Baptised are consciously accepting Christ as their savior. This is a completely different idea from what the Cathars had.
Exactly. Baptists baptise someone who has consciously taken Christ as their Saviour. But guess what? The Paulician Key of Truth, which is a primary source document and which basically contains their entire baptismal formula, says exactly the same thing. You were baptised after trusting in Christ - there's nothing in it about any esoteric "knowledge." The same can be said for the Cathari document known as the Lyon Manuscript. Nothing about "knowledge", everything about trusting in Christ.
I'm not sure of where you're getting your information that these groups baptised on the basis of "knowledge", but it's incorrect. These groups THEMSELVES said otherwise - so who cares what their enemies had to say?
Well, the Ritual of Lyon document, which is a primary source document written by the Cathari themselves, is quite different from the characterisation given of this group by the Catholic hierarchy, for one. For some reason, it doesn't seem to give a hint of the dualism and Manichaeanism ascribed to the Cathari. Which do you think I'm going to believe? The sworn enemies of this group, or a document which this group produced for itself, to be used internally?
At least we should be able to agree that it’s a good thing we can both do basic math. : )
You wrote:
“In fact, the Lyon Manuscript is a primary source document written by the Cathari themselves - and it shows no trace of dualism or other Manichaean doctrines.”
That in itself is meaningless. The Ritual of Lyon is not a complete statement of belief. It is not a creed in other words. It is a liturgical RITUAL.
Also heretical groups often use the EXACT same words and phrases as orthodox Christians, but with a very different sense. Ever listen to a Mormon pray while invoking the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Do you think they mean the Trinity as you think of it?
The simple fact is that the evidence is that the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that the Albigensians were not Christians in that they did not believe in the incarnation, creation of the earth by God, and a number of other orthodox Christian beliefs.
Here for instance is the short description of Cathar beliefs by Raynaldus, a former Cathar, as translated and published by the Protestant church historian S.R. Maitland:
First it is to be known that the heretics held that there are two Creators; viz. one of invisible things, whom they called the benevolent God, and another of visible things, whom they named the malevolent God.
The New Testament they attributed to the benevolent God; but the Old Testament to the malevolent God, and rejected it altogether, except certain authorities which are inserted in the New Testament from the Old; which, out of reverence to the New Testament, they esteemed worthy of reception.
They charged the author of the Old Testament with falsehood, because the Creator said, “In the day that ye eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall die;” nor (as they say) after eating did they die; when, in fact, after the eating the forbidden fruit they were subjected to the misery of death. They also call him a homicide, as well because he burned up Sodom and Gomorrah, and destroyed the world by the waters of the deluge, as because he overwhelmed Pharaoh, and the Egyptians, in the sea.
They affirmed also, that all the fathers of the Old Testament were damned; that John the Baptist was one of the greater demons.
They said also, in their secret doctrine, (in secreto suo) that that Christ who was born in the visible, and terrestrial Bethlehem, and crucified in Jerusalem, was a bad man, and that Mary Magdalene was his concubine; and that she was the woman taken in adultery, of whom we read in the gospel.
For the good Christ, as they said, never ate, nor drank, nor took upon him true flesh, nor ever was in this world, except spiritually in the body of Paul....
They said that almost all the Church of Rome was a den of thieves; and that it was the harlot of which we read in the Apocalypse. This is the best evidenced of all Raynaldus’s statements - we have it from a large number of sources, including some churchmen.
They so far annulled the sacraments of the Church, as publicly to teach that the water of holy Baptism was just the same as river water, and that the Host of the most holy body of Christ did not differ from common bread; instilling into the ears of the simple this blasphemy, that the body of Christ, even though it had been as great as the Alps, would have been long ago consumed, and annihilated by those who had eaten of it. Confirmation and Confession, they considered as altogether vain and frivolous. They preached that Holy Matrimony was meretricious, and that none could be saved in it, if they should beget children.
Denying also the Resurrection of the flesh, they invented some unheard of notions, saying, that our souls are those of angelic spirits who, being cast down from heaven by the apostacy of pride, left their glorified bodies in the air; and that these souls themselves, after successively inhabiting seven terrene bodies, of one sort or another, having at length fulfilled their penance, return to those deserted bodies.
It is also to be known that some among the heretics were called “perfect” or “good men;” others “believers” of the heretics.
Those who were called perfect, wore a black dress, falsely pretended to chastity, abhorred the eating of flesh, eggs and cheese, wished to appear not liars, when they were continually telling lies, chiefly respecting God. They said also that they ought not on any account to swear.
[There were others] Those were called “believers” of the heretics, who lived after the manner of the world, and who though they did not attain so far as to imitate the life of the perfect, nevertheless hoped to be saved in their faith; and though they differed as to their mode of life, they were one with them in belief and unbelief.
Those who were called believers of the heretics were given to usury, rapine, homicide, lust, perjury and every vice; and they, in fact, sinned with more security, and less restraint, because they believed that without restitution, without confession and penance, they should be saved, if only, when on the point of death, they could say a Pater noster, and received imposition of hands from the teachers.
As to the perfect heretics however they had a magistracy whom they called Deacons and Bishops, without the imposition of whose hands, at the time of his death, none of the believers thought that he could be saved; but if they laid their hands upon any dying man, however wicked, if he could only say a Pater noster, they considered him to be saved, that without any satisfaction, and without any other aid, he immediately took wing to heaven.
Remember, Raynaldus was once a Cathar.
About heretics being liars and dissemblers. That’s common in history. Heretics often seemed to believe they were morally free to dissemble. The inquisitor Bernard Gui described this in detail about interrogating Waldensians:
Bernard Gui: Inquisitorial Technique (c.1307-1323)
Bernard Gui: was Inquisitor in Toulousel 1307-1323. The medieval inquisition had been created during the reign of Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241). Its main technique was to extract confessions. Bernard describes the techniques used in interrogations.
When a heretic is first brought up for examination, he assumes a confident air, as though secure in his innocence. I ask him why he has been brought before me. He replies, smiling and courteous, “Sir, I would be glad to learn the cause from you.”
I. You are accused as a heretic, and that you believe and teach otherwise than Holy Church believes.
A. (Raising his eyes to heaven, with an air of the greatest faith) Lord, thou knowest that I am innocent of this, and that I never held any faith other than that of true Christianity.
I. You call your faith Christian, for you consider ours as false and heretical. But I ask whether you have ever believed as true another faith than that which the Roman Church holds to be true?
A. I believe the true faith which the Roman Church believes, and which you openly preach to us.
I. Perhaps you have some of your sect at Rome whom you call the Roman Church. I, when I preach, say many things, some of which are common to us both, as that God liveth, and you believe some of what I preach. Nevertheless you may be a heretic in not believing other matters which are to be believed.
A. I believe all things that a Christian should believe.
I. I know your tricks. What the members of your sect believe you hold to be that which a Christian should believe. But we waste time in this fencing. Say simply, Do you believe in one God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost?
A. I believe.
I. Do you believe in Christ born of the Virgin, suffered, risen, and ascended to heaven?
A. (Briskly) I believe.
I. Do you believe the bread and wine in the mass performed by the priests to be changed into the body and blood of Christ by divine virtue?
A. Ought I not to believe this?
I. I don’t ask if you ought to believe, but if you do believe.
A. I believe whatever you and other good doctors order me to believe.
I. Those good doctors are the masters of your sect; if I accord with them you believe with me; if not, not.
A I willingly believe with you if you teach what is good to me.
I. You consider it good to you if I teach what your other masters teach. Say, then, do you believe the body of our Lord,lesus Christ to be in the altar?
A. (Promptly) I believe that a body is there, and that all bodies are of our Lord.
I. I ask whether the body there is of the Lord who was born of the Virgin, hung on the cross, arose from the dead, ascended, etc.
A. And you, sir, do you not believe it?
I. I believe it wholly.
A. I believe likewise.
I. You believe that I believe it, which is not what I ask, but whether you believe it.
A. If you wish to interpret all that I say otherwise than simply and plainly, then I don’t know what to say. I am a simple and ignorant man. Pray don’t catch me in my words.
I. If you are simple, answer simply, without evasions.
A. Willingly.
I. Will you then swear that you have never learned anything contrary to the faith which we hold to be true?
A. (Growing pale) If I ought to swear, I will willingly swear.
I. I don’t ask whether you ought, but whether you will swear.
A. If you order me to swear, I will swear.
I. I don’t force you to swear, because as you believe oaths to be unlawful, you will transfer the sin to me who forced you; but if you will swear, I will hear it.
A. Why should I swear if you do not order me to?
I. So that you may remove the suspicion of being a heretic.
A. Sir, I do not know how unless you teach me.
I. If I had to swear, I would raise my hand and spread my fingers and say, “So help me God, I have never learned heresy or believed what is contrary to the true faith.”
Then trembling as if he cannot repeat the form, he will stumble along as though speaking for himself or for another, so that there is not an absolute form of oath and yet he may be thought to have sworn. If the words are there, they are so turned around that he does not swear and yet appears to have sworn. Or he converts the oath into a form of prayer, as “God help me that I am not a heretic or the like”; and when asked whether he had sworn, he will say: “Did you not hear me swear?” [And when further hard pressed he will appeal, saying] “Sir, if I have done amiss in aught, I will willingly bear the penance, only help me to avoid the infamy of which I am accused though malice and without fault of mine.” But a vigorous inquisitor must not allow himself to be worked upon in this way, but proceed firmly till he make these people confess their error, or at least publicly abjure heresy, so that if they are subsequently found to have sworn falsely, he can without further hearing, abandon them to the secular arm”.
Prof. McGoldrick on Catharism:
“Documentary evidence shows that the Cathars viewed marriage and procreation as capital sins for which pardon could be obtained only when one forsook such carnal relationships and received the consolation. Reinerius Saccho reported that all Cathar churches taught ‘that carnal marriage is always a mortal sin, and that the future punishment of adultery and incest will not be greater than that of lawful matrimony, nor would anyone among them be more severely punished.’ The same source indicates that the Cathars considered the eating of meat, cheese, or eggs as deadly sins…
“The Cathar-Albigense Church was organized around a core of clergymen known as the perfecti, and admission to that circle was through the consolamentum. Those who accepted Cathar teaching but were not yet ready to adopt the rigorous asceticism of the ‘perfected ones’ were called credentes—‘believers.’ The latter attended services conducted by the clergy and professed to be seeking perfection for themselves, but they lived by ordinary standards until they were ready for the consolation…
“Cathars considered the consolamentum a ‘spiritual baptism’ and a ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit,’ and they taught that no one could be saved without it… Because of their aversion to water as a material element, the Cathars practiced baptism by laying on of hands by the perfecti while the book of the Gospels was held over the candidates’ head and prayer was offered for him. This sacrament was said to accomplish cleansing from original sin and from all personal transgressions…
“There were, of course, occasions when a person who was consoled on his ‘deathbed’ showed signs of recovering. Would he be able to discharge the duties of one who had been perfected? One way to resolve this dilemma was to subject him to the endura, which was the practice of allowing the sick person to starve to death, thereby assuring him of immediate salvation. Often the endura was accepted by the sick person and so became a voluntary death, a suicide. There are records, however, of the perfecti practically imposing it upon people whom they suspected would lapse from the faith at a later time. Apparently, it was sometimes imposed upon children…
“When the papacy decided to take vigorous measures against the Albigenses, Innocent III sent Dominic Guzman, founder of the Order of the Preachers, to seek their conversion by persuasion. Dominic advised Roman Catholic clerics to avoid ostentatious displays, which might give credence to the criticisms of heretics. He also realized the Cathars had great appeal to the religious sensibilities of women, so he established a religious foundation for females and directed his disciples to work for the education of girls. These endeavors, although accompanied by extensive preaching missions, did not achieve the desired results. The powerful Albigense nobles opposed Dominic and thwarted his efforts. When the papal legate Peter of Castelnau was murdered by nobles who supported the heretics, Innocent III called for a crusade to destroy the French Cathars.” (Baptist Successionism, pp. 63-66)
“While the above description of Albigense beliefs and practices is far from complete, it shows conclusively that the Cathar movement was a major threat which the Catholic authorities had to combat. Nowhere was the suppression of Catharism more difficult than in southern France, where the heretics drew support from various socio-economic levels of society, and where a considerable portion of the nobility allied with them.” (McGoldrick, p. 65)
The Cathars were not CHRISTIANS. The evidence from history is overwhelming.
They said that almost all the Church of Rome was a den of thieves; and that it was the harlot of which we read in the Apocalypse. This is the best evidenced of all Raynaldus’s statements - we have it from a large number of sources, including some churchmen.
They so far annulled the sacraments of the Church, as publicly to teach that the water of holy Baptism was just the same as river water, and that the Host of the most holy body of Christ did not differ from common bread; instilling into the ears of the simple this blasphemy, that the body of Christ, even though it had been as great as the Alps, would have been long ago consumed, and annihilated by those who had eaten of it. Confirmation and Confession, they considered as altogether vain and frivolous. They preached that Holy Matrimony was meretricious, and that none could be saved in it, if they should beget children.
The fact is that anyone who denied the authority of your popes and religion was considered a heretic and condemned...
There are two sides of church history...We see some of both here...One side is likely not telling the truth...I'll side with the Cathars, AnaBaptists, Waldenses, etc. because their testimony is far more credible, scripture wise...
We know what your religion teaches...And we read the accusations of the non Catholics right from your very own post...So we know the non Catholics are telling the truth...They appear to accuse you of nothing that you do not admit as being true...
Your accusations of them OTOH appear to be baseless...
You claim Our Lord Jesus the Christ had no mother. You believe in UFO’s. Your arguments therefore are simply noise. Sorry.
You wrote:
“The fact is that anyone who denied the authority of your popes and religion was considered a heretic and condemned...”
And how does that mitigate the beliefs and practices of the Albigensians? No matter how terrible you think the popes were, the Albigensians were still NOT Christians.
“There are two sides of church history...”
Only two? Logically, if we start off with “sides” then there are many in Church history. What is important is not “sides” but truth and facts.
“We see some of both here...One side is likely not telling the truth...I’ll side with the Cathars, AnaBaptists, Waldenses, etc. because their testimony is far more credible, scripture wise...”
Based on what evidence? All the sources in the Middle Ages that describe Cathar beliefs show them to be unscriptural, and even the Ritual of Lyons is no roadmap because it is not a creed, does not explain their beliefs and does not agree with EVERY OTHER THING KNOWN about the Cathars. The idea that every single thing written about every single heretical group - that puts them in a bad light - is false is ridiculous. But that’s what you would have us believe. Your stance is nonsensical.
“We know what your religion teaches...And we read the accusations of the non Catholics right from your very own post...So we know the non Catholics are telling the truth...”
What? James McGoldrick is NOT Catholic yet he knows that the Cathars were not Christians. You just said you believe (since he’s not Catholic) that he’s telling the truth. That means you believe the Cathars aren’t Christians. See, this is what gets me: Even most Protestant historians - throughout the history of the last 500 years - readily admitted that the Cathars are NOT Christians. But you guys, living in a twilight world of seething hatred for everything Catholic, have to believe what’s up is down, what’s down is up, what’s known is false and what’s ridiculous is actually hidden truth.
“They appear to accuse you of nothing that you do not admit as being true...”
I have no idea of what you’re talking about now.
“Your accusations of them OTOH appear to be baseless...”
I made no accusations. I merely posted the truth that’s been known for more than 7 centuries.
Iscool,
Is narses right? Do you really believe Jesus had no mother? And you believe in UFOs?
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.