Posted on 08/14/2009 9:29:49 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
It has already been indicated that the Paulicians came from Armenia, by the way of Thrace, settled in France and Italy, and traveled through, and made disciples in, nearly all of the countries of Europe. The descent of the Albigenses has been traced by some writers from the Paulicians (Encyclopedia Britannica, I. 454. 9th edition). Recent writers hold that the Albigenses had been in the valleys of France from the earliest ages of Christianity. Prof. Bury says that "it lingered on in Southern France," and was not a "mere Bogomilism, but an ancient local survival." Mr. Conybeare thinks that it lived on from the early times in the Balkan Peninsula, "where it was probably the basis of Bogomilism" (Bury, Ed. Gibbon, History of Rome, VI. 563).
They spread rapidly through Southern France and the little city of Albi, in the district of Albigeois, became the center of the party. From this city they were called Albigenses. In Italy the Albigenses were known by various names, like the Paulicians, such as "Good Men," and others. It is difficult to determine the origin of all of the names; but some of them came from the fact that they were regarded as vulgar, illiterate and low bred; while other names were given from the purity and wholesomeness of their lives. It is remarkable that the inquisitorial examinations of the Albigenses did not tax them with immoralities, but they were condemned for speculations, or rather for virtuous rules of action, which the Roman Catholics accounted heresy. They said a Christian church should consist of good people; a church had no power to frame any constitutions; it was not right to take oaths; it was not lawful to kill mankind; a man ought not to be delivered up to the officers of justice to be converted; the benefits of society belong alike to all members of it; faith without works could not save a man; the church ought not to persecute any, even the wicked; the law of Moses was no rule for Christians; there was no need of priests, especially of wicked ones; the sacraments, and orders, and ceremonies of the church of Rome were futile, expensive, oppressive, and wicked. They baptized by immersion and rejected infant baptism (Jones, The History of the Christian Church, I. 287). They were decidedly anti-clerical.
"Here then," says Dr. Allix, "we have found a body of men in Italy, before the year one thousand and twenty-six, five hundred years before the Reformation, who believed contrary to the opinions of the Church of Rome, and who highly condemned their errors." Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, had complained of such a people eighty years before, and so had others before him, and there is the highest reason to believe they had always existed in Italy (Ibid, I. 288). The Cathari themselves boasted of their remote antiquity (Bonacursus, Vitae haereticorum. Cathorum, ap. D’Archery, Scriptorum Spicilegiam, I. 208).
In, tracing the history and doctrines of the Albigenses it must never be forgotten that on account of persecution they scarcely left a trace of their writings, confessional, apologetical, or polemical; and the representations which Roman Catholic writers, their avowed enemies, have given of them, are.highly exaggerated. The words of a historian who is not in accord with, their principles may here be used. He says:
It is evident, however, that they formed a branch of that broad stream of sectarianism and heresy which rose far away in. Asia from the contact between Christianity and the Oriental religions, and which, by crossing the Balkan Peninsula, reached Western Europe. The first overflow from this source were the Manichaeans, the next the Paulicians, the next the Cathari, who in the tenth and eleventh centuries were very strong in Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. Of the Cathari, the Bogomils, Patoreni, Albigenses, etc. . . were only individual developments (C. Schmidt, Schaff-Hersog, I. 47).
That is to say, these parties were all of the same family, and this connection is rendered all the more forceful on account of the terms of reproach in which this writer clothes his language.
It has already been indicated that the Paulicians were not Manichaeans, and the same thing may probably be said of the Albigenses. The Albigenses were oppressed on account of this sentiment, which accusation was also made against the Waldenses. Care must be taken at this point, and too prompt credence should not be given to the accuser. The Roman Catholic Church sought diligently for excuses to persecute. Even Luther was declared by the Synod of Sens to be a Manichaean. The celebrated Archbishop Ussher says that the charge "of Manichaeanism on the Albigensian sect is evidently false" (Acland, The Glorious Recovery of the Vaudois, lxvii. London, 1857). It would be difficult to understand the Albigenses from this philosophical standpoint. They were not a metaphysical people. Theirs was not a philosophy, but a daily faith and practice, which commended itself to the prosperous territory of Southern France.
They held to the division of believers into two classes—the perfect and the imperfect. This was the common classification of the Paulicians, Waldenses and Anabaptists. The most elaborate accounts are given of the initiation of the perfecti by a single immersion into the body of believers (Beausobre, Historic du Manichaeanism, II. 762-877).
The Waldenses were also found in the city of Albi and they were also called Albigenses because they resided in that city (Martin Schagen, The History of the Waldenses, 110). It was from Italy that the movement extended to Southern France; and the soil was wonderfully well prepared for the seed. The country was the most civilized portion of France, rich, flourishing, and independent; the people gay, intellectual, progressive; the Roman Catholic Church dull, stupid and tyrannical; the clergy distinguished for nothing but superstition, ignorance, arbitrariness, violence and vice. Under such circumstances the idea of a return to the purity and simplicity of the apostolic age could not fail to attract attention. The severe moral demands of the Albigenses made a profound impression, since their example corresponded with their words. They mingled with their tenets a severe zeal for purity of life and were heard with favor by all classes. No wonder that the people deserted the Roman Catholic priests and gathered around the Boni Honiness. In a short time the Albigenses had congregations and schools and charitable institutions of their own. The Roman Catholic Church became an object of derision (Scliaff-Herzog. I. 47).
This state of affairs greatly alarmed and aggravated the pope. In the year 1139 they were condemned by the Lateran Council; by that of Tours in 1163, and mission after mission was sent among them to persuade them to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Henry, in 1180, employed force. Pope Innocent III. published a crusade against them. Says the Historian Hume:
The people from all parts of Europe moved by their superstition and their passion for wars and adventures, flocked to his standard. Simon de Monfort, the general of the crusade, acquired to himself a sovereignty of these provinces. The Count of Toulouse, who protected, or perhaps only tolerated the Albigenses, was stript of his dominions. And these sectaries themselves, though the most inoffensive and innocent of mankind, were exterminated with the circumstances of extreme violence and barbarity (Hume, History of England, II. ch. xi).
In the second crusade the first city captured was that of Braziers, which had some forty thousand inhabitants. When Simon de Monfort, Earl of Leicester, asked the Abbot of Ceteaux, the papal legate, what he was to do with the inhabitants, the legate answered: "Kill them all. God knows His own." In this manner the war was carried on for twenty years. Town after town was taken, pillaged, burnt. Nothing was left but a smoking waste. Religions fanaticism began the war; rapacity and ambition ended it. Peace was concluded in 1229, and the Inquisition finished the deadly work.
The proof is overwhelming that the Albigenses rejected infant baptism. They were condemned on this account by a Council held at Toulouse, A. D. 1119 (Maitland, Facts and Documents Illustrative of the Albigenses, 90. London, 1832), and that of Albi in 1165 (Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of Piedmont, 150). The historians affirm that they rejected infant baptism. Chassanion says: "I cannot deny that the Albigenses, for the greater part, were opposed to infant baptism; the truth is, they did not reject the sacrament as useless, but only as unnecessary to infants" (Chassanion, Historie des Albigeois. Geneva, 1595). Dr. Emil Comba, of the Waldensian Theological College, Florence, Italy, the latest of the Waldensian historians, says that the Albigenses rejected "all the sacraments except baptism, which they reserved for believers" (Comba, History of the Waldenses, 17. London, 1889).
The story is a pathetic one. "We live," says Everwin, of Steinfeld, "a hard and wandering life. We flee from city to city like sheep in the midst of wolves. We suffer persecution like the apostles and martyrs because our life is holy and austere. It is passed amidst prayer, abstinences, and labors, but every-thing is easy for us because we are not of this world" (Schmidt. Hist. et. Doct. de la secte des Cathares, II. 94). Dr. Lea, the eminent authority on the Inquisition, has said that no religion can show a more unbroken roll of victims who unshrinkingly sought death in its most abhorrent form in preference to apostasy than the Cathari.
Peter of Bruys, a well-known Baptist preacher of those times, sought, about the year 1100, a restoration of true religion in Languedoc and Provence, France. He considered that the gospel ought to be literally understood and he demanded Scripture and not tradition from those who attempted to refute him. He was a pupil of the celebrated Abelard. Dollinger thinks he learned his doctrines from the Cathari and presents many reasons for his opinion. Others think that he presupposes the existence of the old evangelical life for several hundred years in Italy and Southern France. "There is much evidence," says Prof. Newman, "of the persistence in Northern Italy and in Southern France, from the early time, of evangelical types of Christianity" (Newman, Recent Researches Concerning Mediaeval Sects, 187).
His principal opponent was Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Clugni, and it is from Peter’s book (Contra Petrobrusianos, Patrologia Let, CLXXXIX. 729) that we must judge of the doctrines of Peter of Bruys.
He held that the church was a spiritual body composed of regenerated persons. "The church of God." says Peter of Bruys, "does not consist of a multitude of stones joined together, but in the unity of believers assembled." He held that persons ought not to be baptized till they come to the use of their reason. Thus be rejected infant baptism referring to Math. 28:19 and ‘Mark 16:16. He denied that "children, before they reach the years of understanding, can be saved by the baptism of Christ [the Roman Catholic statement of his belief], or that another faith could avail those who could not exercise faith since, according to them (the Petrobrusians) not another’s but their own faith saves, according to the Lord’s word. He who shall believe and be baptized shall be saved, but he who shall not believe shall be condemned." "Infant," he continues, "though baptized by you [Roman Catholics], because by reason of age they cannot believe, are not saved [that is by baptism] and hence it is idle and vain at that time to plunge them in water, by which they wash away the filth of the body, and yet cannot cleanse the soul from sin. But we wait for the proper time, and when one can know and believe in him, we do not (as ye accuse us), rebaptize him who can never be said to have been baptized—to have been washed with the baptism by which sins are washed away" [symbolically]. In respect to the Lord’s Supper he not only rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, but he also denied the sacramental character of the rite.
On account of his great popularity he was with difficulty banished from Languedoc. He then appeared in the diocese of Narbonne and Toulouse, where he preached for twenty years with great success. In the year 1126 he was seized by the authorities and burnt at St. Gilles.
He had a great company of followers, who after his death were called Petrobrusians. They held the same views on baptism that he did. Deodwinus, Bishop of Liege, writing to Henry I., of France, says of the followers of Peter of Bruys: "They as far as in them lies overthrow infant baptism" (Wall; The History of Infant Baptism, I. 478).
It will be seen from the extracts given above that Peter of Bruys and his disciples rebaptized, and were, therefore, in the eyes of their opponents, Anabaptists. Jacquest Benigne Bossuet the distinguished Bishop of Meaux and the great Roman Catholic controversialist, 1704, complained of the followers of Calvin that they sought apostolic succession through the Waldenses. He says: "You adopt Henry and Peter of Bruys among your predecessors, and both of them, everybody knows, were Anabaptists." Faber says: "The Petrobrusians were only a sort of Antipedobaptists, who rejected not baptism itself, but who denied simply the utility of infant baptism" (Faber, The Vallenses and Albigenses, 174. London, l838). J. A. Fabricius says: "They were the Anabaptists of that age" (Fabricius, Bibliographia, c. xi. 388).
Henry of Lausanne, A. D., 1116-1148, was a disciple of Peter of Brays, and was so successful in his work of reformation that he left a large number of followers who were called Henricians. He is described as "a man of great dignity of person, a fiery eye, a thundering voice, impetuous speech, mighty in the Scriptures." "Never was there a man known of such strictness of life, so great humanity and bravery," and that "by his speech he could easily provoke even a heart of stone to compunction." He came out of Switzerland to Mans and other cities of France. So great was his success that whole congregations left the churches and joined with him. When he had come, in 1148, to Toulouse, Pope Eugene III. sent Bernard of Clairvaux, the great heresy hunter, to that city to preach against him. Bernard describes the effect of Henry’s preaching, saying that the churches were deserted, "the way of the children is closed, the grace of baptism is refused them, and they are hindered from coming to heaven; although the Saviour with fatherly love calls them, saying, "Suffer little children to come unto Me." Henry was compelled to flee for his life. Within a short time he was arrested in his retreat, brought before the Council of Rheims, committed to a close prison in 1148, and soon afterwards finished his days in it.
Like Peter of Bruys, he rejected infant baptism. Georgius Cassander, who, at the instance of the Duke of Cleves, wrote against the Anabaptists, says of Peter of Bruys and Henry of Lausanne: "They first openly condemned infant baptism, and stiffly asserted that baptism was fit only for the adult; which they both verbally taught, and really practiced in their administration of baptism" (Cassander, Do Baptismo infantium. Coloniaqqe, 1545).
Arnold of Brescia was born in the beginning of the twelfth century and died about A. D. 1148. He was a student of Abelard, in Paris, and returned with lofty notions of reformation in Italy. From one country to another he was driven by persecution. He finally returned to Borne and led a patriotic attempt for the freedom of the country against the pope. He was taken prisoner, hanged, his body burned, and the ashes thrown into the Tiber.
Otto Freising, the contemporary Roman Catholic bishop, remarks: "That he was unsound in his judgment about the sacraments of the altar and infant baptism" (Freising, De Gentis Frid., II. c. 20). So he was condemned by the Lateran Council under Innocent II., A. D., 1139. Dr. Comba, in making a record of his opinions, says: "With the Albigenses, he condemned the above mentioned superstitions, as that also of the salvation of children by the sprinkling of water" (Comba, History of the Waldenses, 16).
Arnold had his followers, for he was very popular in Lombardy. "He founded," so his enemies said during his stay in Rome, "a sect of men which is still called the heresy of the Lombards" (Johannes Saresberensis, Historia Pontificalis. See Breyer, Arnold von Brescia). They had great congregations of laboring men which formed such an important feature of the work of the Waldenses and Anabaptists.
The Arnoldists, like their leader, rejected infant baptism. Of these men, Guillaume Durand, A. D., 1274, says: "The Arnoldists assert that never through baptism in water do men receive the Holy Spirit, nor did the Samaritans receive it, until they received the imposition of hands" (Bull of Pope Lucius III. Hist. Pon. Prestz, 515).
By the year 1184 the Arnoldists were termed Albigenses, a little later they were classed as Waldenses. Deickhoff, one of the German writers on the Waldenses, affirms: "There was a connection between the Waldenses and the followers of Peter of Bruys, Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia, and they finally united in one body about 1130 as they held common views." (Dieckhoff, Die Waldenser im Mittelalter, 167, 168. Gottingen, 1851). This is the general opinion of the authorities. M. Tocco does not hesitate to affirm that "the Poor of Lombardy (the Waldenses) descended in a direct line from the Arnoldists" (Tocco, L’Eresia nel medio Evo. Paris, 1884). Berengarius, who was born at Tours, and died in the adjacent island of St. Cosme, was accused of holding Baptist views. He was a representative of that craving for spiritual independence, and opposition to Roman Catholicism, which came to the surface all through the Middle Ages. In 1140 he became director of the Cathedral schools of Tours, but his departure from Romanism caused his condemnation by many councils until he closed his troubled career in deep solitude. HIS great learning both in the Fathers and in classical literature, together with his profound study of the Scriptures, led him to the conclusion that the doctrine of transubstantiation was false, and that it was necessary for him to distinguish between the symbol and the thing symbolized in the Lord’s Supper. Deodwinus, Bishop of Liege, a contemporary, states that there was a report out of France that the Berengarians "overthrew the baptism of infants." This view is accepted by quite all of the historians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books for further reading and reference:
Fisher, 194, 188, 209, 211, 424.
Schaff, V. Pt. i. 507-515, 483-486.
Gieseler, III. 51-53.
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.