A History of the Baptists, Chapter 5 - The Albigensian, etc. (Ecumenical)

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, even most Protestants and many Baptists (who don’t adhere to the Baptist Successionist theory) know that the medieval heretical groups were not only not Baptists, nor proto-Baptists but also that they were in fact what they were very often accused of being.
The Protestant church historian, James McGoldrick covers this extensively in his book called Baptist Successionism:
http://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Successionism-James-Edward-McGoldrick/dp/0810836815

Here’s an excellent review of the book:

This review - aside from the fact that it is one individual's opinion - is also irrelevant, for the simple fact that Mcgoldrick's entire book is irrelevant.

McGoldrick addresses successionism, which is the specific belief that there is a succession (hence the name) of bishops who can be traced backwards through these medieval groups and all the way down to the apostles. In other words, it's basically a Baptist form of the "apostolic succession" nonsense that Catholics get themselves so worked up about.

It's also quite unnecessary. Apostolic succession - of ANY sort - is nonsense. The Catholics certainly don't have it. Catholicism didn't even emerge in its mature state until around the time that the Roman Empire in the west fell. Apostolic succession is a wholly fanciful and unnecessary heresy invented by Irenaeus in the second century.

That being said - and since I obviously don't believe in Landmarkism or successionsim - the pertinent point in my opinion about his treatment of the Bogomils, Albigenses, etc. is largely that these groups have been lied about extensively by dishonest Catholic apologists, and those in modern times who, like McGoldrick, repeat the nonsense credulously. McGoldrick's arguments about these various medieval groups are nothing new. They're not any stunning flashed of insight. They're the same tired old hackery that Catholics have been strumpeting around for centuries - but they don't become any more true through constant repetition.

Why you think another repetition is going to be convincing, I don't know.

You wrote:

“What a bunch of disingenuous nonsense.”

Is it? Then why don’t you answer this question?: Now, how realistic is that in the 11th-14th centuries?

You wrote this:

“Reinerius, the inquisitor, and persecutor of the Albigenses, says,”they were the most formidable enemies of the church of Rome, because they have a great appearance of godliness; because they live righteously before men, believe rightly of God in all things,...” Miller’s Church History pg 565”

No, actually, Reinerius never wrote that about the Albigensians. Either you’re mistaken or Miller - who clearly was either something of a twit or a fraud - was. Reinerius wrote this ABOUT THE WALDENSIANS!!!:

” because they have a great appearance of piety ; because they live righteously before men, — believe rightly of God in all things, — and hold all the articles of the creed ; yet they hate and revile the church of Rome ; and in their accusations they are easily believed by the people.”

Clearly, your dissembler, Miller, lifted his passage from this text:

Reinerius, a persecutor, acknowledges that the Waldenses were the most formidable enemies of the church of Rome, “because they have a great appearance of piety; because they live righteously before men, — believe rightly of God in all things, — and hold all the articles of the creed; yet they hate and revile the church of Rome; and in their accusations they are easily believed by the people.” (John Fry, A short history of the church of Christ: from the close of the sacred narrative to our own time, 239).

This tells us a couple of things: Miller was a plagiarist, and a bad one. And you didn’t recognize it even though it would be obvious to anyone who ever studied the subject.

“No, not all RCC records are invalid, but they have to be looked at with the understanding that there is an inherent bias.”

And you think anti-Catholics aren’t biased? Seriously, you’re just digging your hole deeper.

“The wild charges against these Christian Churches were the excuse for the slaughter of innocents by a politically driven church.”

Problems:
1) It is known the Albigensians were not Christians.
2) The “excuse” for the crusade was no excuse at all, but a murder of a Catholic legate by an Albigensian.
3) No one was slaughtered by the Church.
4) You have brought no evidence it was “political” nor have you even attempted to define what that means.

I do think, however, that it is hilarious you posted a source that was not only plagiarized, but plagiarized incorrectly by a Protestant anti-Catholic in the same post you accuse Catholics of being biased in their documents. Priceless.

Hilarious...and telling.

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.

That's a rather odd argument. Typically, a group's ritual and liturgy are informed by their creed and beliefs, hence the latter is deducible from the former.

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?

Yes, I've noticed that Catholic heretics do tend to ape the terminology used by biblical Christians, so you are right, heretical groups can use the exact same terminology as orthodox Christians.

However, this brings up a logical flaw in your argument - if the terminology is the same, there is no way to tell that a "heretical" group is heretical without outside information. For instance, we know that the Mormons are heretical, despite their terminology, because we have copious access to both Mormons and their literature and can inquire of them for ourselves (without having to rely on some "authority" to tell us what Mormons supposedly believe).

The same cannot be said for the Cathari and these other groups. They were largely wiped out by Catholic murderers, and their books destroyed by Catholic bibliophobes. The two sources of information we have about them are a few scraps of their works (the attribution of these to the Cathari being of variable likelihood) and the testimonies of their enemies like the Catholic inquisitors - the latter of which isn't exactly a trustworthy source of information.

From their actual writings, we see that the charges made against them are false. They didn't reject the Old Testament - in fact, in the very consolamentum ritual you mentioned in another post, they quote both Isaiah and Ecclesiastes, the former being called a prophet of God and both books cited in exactly the same fashion as the NT books are (which would be very odd if they held to the dualistic view that the God of the Old Testament is an inferior demiurge trying to deceive us, and hence a different being from the God of the New).

Further, in the authentic Cathari works we have, there is not a hint of even a degraded sort of Manichaeanism present. I mean, it's almost laughable to me - people like you run around screeching about Manichaeanism and Gnosticism and whatnot, and yet it seems as if you don't even have a clue what these terms actually mean. Nevertheless, there is no evidence in the actual writings of the Cathari that they rejected the Trinity (in fact, they cite it in just as trinitarian a formula as any Catholic could), nor that they rejected the creation of the earth by God, nor that they disbelieved in the incarnation. These charges are nothing but slanders from their enemies, unsupported by any actual evidence.

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:

Sorry, but no - this isn't a credible source, either. As a Catholic, do you think I should rely upon this guy as a definitive and unimpeachable source for information about Catholicism, a guy who says he "repented of the sin of being Catholic"?

No, I didn't think so.

So why on earth would you expect me to take the biased word of some yahoo who converted from Catharism to escape the inquisition, and who then proceeded to tell a few stories so as to try to get in good with his new team?

Fact of the matter is, conversion stories are typically unreliable as far as garnering any useful information about the religion the individual has converted from. There's always the temptation to, ah, exaggerate so as to make the story sound better and more convincing. This would be doubly so under the implied "persuasion" of an inquisition-style circumstance.

You wrote:

“That being said - and since I obviously don’t believe in Landmarkism or successionsim - the pertinent point in my opinion about his treatment of the Bogomils, Albigenses, etc. is largely that these groups have been lied about extensively by dishonest Catholic apologists,...”

Please document that. Can you? Can you show that they are actually lying?

“...and those in modern times who, like McGoldrick, repeat the nonsense credulously.”

McGoldrick is a professional church historian. The people you’re relying on are little more than quacks and frauds in terms of historical studies. How is what McGoldrick does is nonsense, but you can’t overturn anything he says or show evidence to the contrary?

“McGoldrick’s arguments about these various medieval groups are nothing new. They’re not any stunning flashed of insight.”

With the truth, backed up by centuries of historical knowledge, there rarely is. Why do you assume there would be something “new” or “insight”? Jesus’ story is OLD. When some scholar comes along and claims something “new” or “insightful” about it I already know where that’s going.

“They’re the same tired old hackery that Catholics have been strumpeting around for centuries - but they don’t become any more true through constant repetition.”

Nor do they become any more false. So far you have not yet - in any way - demonstrated that what those Catholics said is anything but true.

“Why you think another repetition is going to be convincing, I don’t know.”

Is repetition working for you?

Seriously, how about some evidence?

I don’t want the moderator to get mad. Maybe you should start a new thread?

Nope, I'm pointing out three facts:

1. the only documents about the Cathari state that they were Gnostics

Untrue. Their own documents refute the charges that they were gnostics. The charges of "dualism", "Manichaeanism", etc. were typical stock-in-trade charges that medieval Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists made against ANYBODY who dissented from these state-religion bodies. The Catholics even made the charge of Manichaeanism against Martin Luther, which shows just how credible the whole argument really is.

These charges against the Cathari and others are about as credible as the old Roman pagan accusations that Christians shared their wives in common, had huge orgies, and drank human blood.

2. Gnostic belief included their version of the Hindu concept of Maya with the world being created by a demiurge, not the real God.

Superficially true, but irrelevant. The Cathari and Paulicians documents themselves say that these groups didn't believe in any demiurge, etc. - and I'll take their own word over that of obviously biased enemies who had a vested interest in inventing "scary" charges to make against "heretics."

3. The article you posted states that the Cathari believed that "the law of Moses was no rule for Christians."

Well, let me ask you something - do YOU think that Christians shouldn't eat pork, catfish, shrimp, or camel? Do YOu think that Christians still need to make sure they wear garments that do not mix fabric types, or that Christians can't plant mixed seed in a field? Do YOU think that Christians still need to offer up sin, trespass, and whole burnt offerings to God on an altar?

If not, then you basically believe that "the law of Moses is no rule for Christians."

Put them togeher. Why was the law of Moses no rule for Christians? Why did they believe that we didn't need to follow the 10 commandments or anything else?

Further, if they really rejected the Decalogue, they would have had a hard time justifying the allusions the NT makes to the Commandments, which they readily admitted in their own writings,

"And know that He has commanded that man shall not commit adultery or murder or lie, that he must not swear any oath, that he shall not seize or rob, nor do to others what he would not have done to himself, that man must forgive whoever wrongs him and love his enemies, pray for his detractors and accusers and bless them; and if anyone strike him on one cheek, turn to him the other also, and if anyone takes away his cloak, to leave him his coat also ; and that he should neither judge nor condemn, and many other commandments which the Lord made for His Church. Also you must hate this world and its works and the things of the world, for Saint John says in his epistle...."

My understanding is that the Paulicians were described as dualists by members of the Byzantine and Orthodox Armenian Churches for several hundred years. Not just the Church of Rome. The Muslims described them as dualists, too. Sounds like McGoldrick’s scholarship is quite good.

No, McGoldrick's scholarship is sadly out of date, and over-reliant upon their enemies. He basically relies upon the same shopworn calumnities that previous scholars have - and the primary reason is that the actual Armenian evidences are inaccesible to most of those who take it upon themselves to write about this subject. Garsoian notes this when she writes,

"The Armenian sources relating to the Paulician heresy consist of a sizeable body of documents covering the entire span of the medieval period. With the exception of Ter Mkrttschian, Conybeare, and contemporary Russian writers concerned with the Paulicians, scholars have given no more than perfunctory attention to these texts. Even the most recent western scholars, although they acknowledge the existence of this material, rely almost exclusively on the traditional Byzantine sources for the formulation of their theories. The discovery of the Armenian sources has created the basic problem of Paulician scholarship because the Armenian evidence has seemed to contradict the Greek sources on the fundamental points of the character of Paulician dogma as well as the origin and history of the sect. The tendency of western scholars, therefore, has been to reject or disregard the Armenian material whenever it could not be brought into agreement with the Greek authorities." (N.A. Garsoian, The Paulician Heresy: A Study of the Origin and Development of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the Byzantine Empire, p. 80)

The "dualistic", etc. charges against the Paulicians basically come from the Greek Orthodox polemical writers - and are thus rightly to be had in suspicion. Contrary to your assertion, these charges are largely non-existent in most of the Armenian Orthodox accounts (who, to be sure, had their own criticisms of the Paulicians as "heretics"). The reason people like McGoldrick repeat these charges is because they basically don't know any better. Nobody outside the Armenianists have bothered to learn Armenian and examine the evidences firsthand (more than just the Key of Truth, too). Also, the bias tends to be that since there is so much Greek evidence, the Armenian is ignored. This is why "conventional" (i.e. non-specialised) scholars like Runciman, McGoldrick, etc. continue to run with these nonsense arguments, while Armenianists reject them.

To confute McGoldrick on the basis of Conybeare’s (the adoptionist) use of the _Key of Truth_ is silly. Yohvannes Vahaguni wrote the _Key of Truth_ manuscript in 1782; any connection between his sect and the original Paulicians (heyday c. 7th-10th centuries) is tenuous at best.

Nice try, but no. Not only Conybeare accepted the KoT as genuine, and indeed dated the text of it to the 8th century (a dating which modern scholars accept), but so do basically all other Armenianists, such as Garsoian, up to our own era. If it's alright with you, I'll take their word for it over yours?

Not to mention the fact that even if there had existed an Armenian Paulician group completely separate from a Byzantine community in regards to the question of dualism, it wouldn’t explain away the dualism of the Byzantine Paulicians.

You need to refresh yourself on their history. The Armenian Paulicians were the original bunch, as far back as we can find records for. To the extent that there were "Byzantine" Paulicians, they were from one of two sources - Armenian Paulicians who were deported to various points in the Balkans and to Constantinople, and those who were converted to Paulicianism by these. The dichotomy you are attempting to construct is a false one.

### 1. Satan was the God of the Old Testament; ###

>>> Sorry, but there’s no credible case that can be made for the Cathari and other groups actually believing that. The testimony of inquisitors isn’t credible, sorry. <<<

Cf. _The Book of the Two Principles_, written in the middle of the 13th century by an anonymous Italian Cathar. Not the work of Bernard Gui or any other inquisitor. You might find the section “On Creation” especially interesting. The deposition of Pierre Maury — a shepherd — is also relevant. Sorry, but the presence of your ignorance is not evidence of disproof.

### 2. Satan was Jesus’ older brother; and ###

>>> Same goes for this - nothing in their writings says this in the least. the charge is mere credulous rubbish. <<<

I’m not sure how rubbish can be credulous, but I do know that this notion is often attributed (by the modern scholars I referred to in a prevous post) to both the Bogomils and the “moderate dualist” faction of the Cathars.

### 3. Salvation comes through knowledge of the Chirst’s message, NOT His sacrificial death and Resurrecton. ###

>>> The Lyon Ritual says, “We have come before God and before you and before the ordinances of the Holy Church that we may receive pardon and penance for all our sins in thought, word and deed from our birth until now and we ask of God mercy and of you that you pray for us to the Holy Father of Mercy that He forgive us.”

Forgiveness of sins is what the Cathari sought - not “knowledge of Christ’s message.” Gnostics of all stripes avoided the use of the term “sin”, period. To gnostics, whether Iranian or Syro-Alexandrian, there was no such thing as sin. “Sin” implied violation of the Demiurge’s law.

The fact alone that the Cathari sought forgiveness of their sins, and spoke of sin quite a bit in their writings, is enough to refute the “gnosticism” charge on its face. <<<

You’re side-stepping my point. It’s hard to claim that the Cathars believed in the redemptive power of Christ’s crucifixion and Ressurection when His death was not a real death and His Resurrection was not a real resurrection. This is because the didn’t believe that Christ had a real flesh and blood body. Cf. the testimony of the Cathar Perfect Pierre Authie.

As for the question of sin, two points. First, the significance of the “Ritual of Lyon” you quote is not clear on the question of sin. Second, I’ve never read that the gnostics were ever noteworthy for being systematic theologians.

Given the Cathar notion that the material world was the “creation” of an evil demiurge, and that our souls were spirits trapped in this evil creation, I’d say that “gnostic” is a fair description.

You wrote:

“That’s a rather odd argument. Typically, a group’s ritual and liturgy are informed by their creed and beliefs, hence the latter is deducible from the former.”

Not necessarily with a heretical group. Again, as I showed with the text from Gui, heretics were often great dissemblers.

“However, this brings up a logical flaw in your argument - if the terminology is the same, there is no way to tell that a “heretical” group is heretical without outside information.”

That is not a flaw in my argument. That is a problem for you, not for me.

“For instance, we know that the Mormons are heretical, despite their terminology, because we have copious access to both Mormons and their literature and can inquire of them for ourselves (without having to rely on some “authority” to tell us what Mormons supposedly believe). The same cannot be said for the Cathari and these other groups.”

Untrue. We have far fewer documents from the Cathars and even about the Cathars than the Mormons, but we still have more than enough to know the Cathars were heretics.

“They were largely wiped out by Catholic murderers, and their books destroyed by Catholic bibliophobes. The two sources of information we have about them are a few scraps of their works (the attribution of these to the Cathari being of variable likelihood) and the testimonies of their enemies like the Catholic inquisitors - the latter of which isn’t exactly a trustworthy source of information.”

Untrue. Historians consider the inquisitors to be very reliable as documentarians. What is sometimes raised as an issue is the set categories the inquisitors commonly used to label the heretical ideas of those they questioned. This, in itself, however, in no way makes the information they collected incorrect or any less heretical. Also, it should not be forgotten that Reinerius was not just an inquisitor but a former Albigensian.

“From their actual writings, we see that the charges made against them are false.”

No, actually we don’t. If you were to look at Mormon writings before polygamy was made public, you would not find a single LDS published document that says they were practicing polygamy. None. Zero. People knew or suspected, however, from the enemies of the LDS - especially former members - that they were practicing polygamy even when Joseph Smith lied about it.

“They didn’t reject the Old Testament - in fact, in the very consolamentum ritual you mentioned in another post, they quote both Isaiah and Ecclesiastes, the former being called a prophet of God and both books cited in exactly the same fashion as the NT books are (which would be very odd if they held to the dualistic view that the God of the Old Testament is an inferior demiurge trying to deceive us, and hence a different being from the God of the New).”

Here you have two problems. 1) Let’s say the information regarding a heretical group not honoring the Old Testament is false. DOes that mean that ALL the info regarding that heretical group is false? No.

2) Isn’t possible, as happens all the time with heretical groups, that one splinter from a larger heretical group abandoned the Old Testament while another splinter group did not? Don’t we have exactly the same phenomena with Mormons? The LDS went on with polygamy for years, while RLDS (called the Community of Christ today) denied it was a teaching of Joseph Smith and they never sanctioned it.

“Further, in the authentic Cathari works we have, there is not a hint of even a degraded sort of Manichaeanism present.”

That would not stop them from being dualists. Not all dualists should be properly referred to as Manichaeans, but that was the category used by inquisitors. What you’re doing is missing the forests for the trees. I have no doubt that some of the records about the heretical groups could very well have some errors in them. But there is no logical reason to assume that everyone was wrong about the Albigensians. That simply defies all evidence and common sense.

What you’re doing is what Mark Gregory Pegg warned about in his book called The Corruption of Angels: The Great Inquisition of 1245-1246: “Occasionally, these fantasies are grafted onto the related, and just as anachronistic, need to see the good men and good women as Protestants before their time.” (p. 17) That tendency was exposed more than a decade ago: Abraham Friesen, “Medieval Heretics or Forerunners of the Reformation: the Protestant Rewriting of the History of Medieval Heresy,” The Devil, Heresy, and Witchcraft in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Burton Russell, (1998), 165-190.

“I mean, it’s almost laughable to me - people like you run around screeching about Manichaeanism and Gnosticism and whatnot, and yet it seems as if you don’t even have a clue what these terms actually mean.”

Not only do I know what those terms mean, but I have not used them before this post. I have referred to the Albigensians as dualists. That’s what they were.

“Nevertheless, there is no evidence in the actual writings of the Cathari that they rejected the Trinity (in fact, they cite it in just as trinitarian a formula as any Catholic could),...”

No. When you look at all the sources there is just way too much of a preponderance of materials that shows they did NOT have an orthodox view of the Trinity. One group went so far as to claim that Christ was born of the intercourse of Satan with one of God’s wives. See Malcolm D. Lambert, The Cathars, page 197.

“...nor that they rejected the creation of the earth by God, nor that they disbelieved in the incarnation. These charges are nothing but slanders from their enemies, unsupported by any actual evidence.”

Sorry, but you have absolutely no evidence for your view. None. The evidence to the contrary is simply too massive.

“Sorry, but no - this isn’t a credible source, either. As a Catholic, do you think I should rely upon this guy as a definitive and unimpeachable source for information about Catholicism, a guy who says he “repented of the sin of being Catholic”?”

I have no idea what you’re asking because you’re not making any sense. Reinerius was an Albigensian at one time. If you have no evidence to overturn what he says, and what all reputable historians say, then you’re stuck. Like I said, it’s like dealing with 9/11 Truthers. All that is known is suddenly a concocted plot. All that was true is suddenly false. An imaginary twilight world of conspiracies, hidden truths, etc. is all you end up with.

“So why on earth would you expect me to take the biased word of some yahoo who converted from Catharism to escape the inquisition,...”

How do you know why he converted? What you’re now doing goes way beyond questioning a source. You’re now assuming - without a shred of evidence - that the man was a liar, fraud and dissembler. And you’re assuming it ONLY because you don’t like what he wrote almost 800 years ago. Like I said, “An imaginary twilight world of conspiracies, hidden truths, etc. is all you end up with.”

“...and who then proceeded to tell a few stories so as to try to get in good with his new team?”

And your conclusion is based on what evidence? He was already an inquisitor. That meant he had already become a Catholic, received the training necessary to become a friar and or priest, and to become an inquisitor (which probably necessitated attendance at university). He had no need to “get in good with his new team” and he had probably been a member of that team for a number of years.

“Fact of the matter is, conversion stories are typically unreliable as far as garnering any useful information about the religion the individual has converted from.”

I never posted anything from a conversion story here. What Reinerius wrote was about the heretics, not his conversion story which he only mentioned in passing.

“There’s always the temptation to, ah, exaggerate so as to make the story sound better and more convincing.”

That might be, but do you have EVIDENCE that Reinerius did that? You can make assertions all day, but do you have any evidence?

“This would be doubly so under the implied “persuasion” of an inquisition-style circumstance.”

Again, how do you know Reinerius - who was an inquisitor - ever feared the inquisition?

Sorry, you’re coming to a lot of conclusions with no evidence. By the way, don’t you think the Liber de doubus principibus lends a great deal of credibility to Reinerius?

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.