Posted on 08/14/2009 9:29:49 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
First I'd like to digress a bit into the methodology of historical investigation. Principally, how weight should be attached to various evidences. Obviously - as most historians would tell you - very little weight is to be attached to hostile sources when you are investigating some person or group of people. Hostile secondary sources are unreliable because they tend to exaggerate or invent faults in the subject they are addressing, and they also tend to be willing to readily believe those things which, whether true or false, appear the most badly for their subject.
Conversely, primary sources such as documents and other records left by the person or group themselves, are much more important and reliable. Neutral secondary sources less so, but still more so that hostile sources.
For instance, if I wanted to investigate Catholicism and obtain a true picture of it, what would be better for me to do - read the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, and perhaps consult a Roman Catholic priest, or go to Ian Paisley's website and see what he has to say about Catholicism?
The problem with your sources, such as McGoldrick, in this discussion is that they are basically relying on evidences which have very little credibility. The reason for this is that many historians, while being historians in general, do not have any particular special knowledge of one particular subject that may be under discussion. Take McGoldrick, for instance. As you correctly noted, he is a "professional church historian." However, he is a historian of Reformation-era Lutheranism, particularly its influence in England and Scotland, as a search of his scholarly output will show. This means that we shouldn't expect him to have more than just a general knowledge about medieval "heretical" groups, which in turn means that he's going to obtain his information about them from standard sources which give the traditional line, but which may in fact be of dubious quality, and in fact it seems pretty apparent that he hasn't accessed any actual primary sources for these groups.
Such is the case with the "traditional" information about the Cathari, etc. As Hilaire Belloc once noted,
"It sounds cynical, but it is perfectly true, that much the largest factor in the historical conception of men is assertion. It is literally true that when men (with the exception of a very small proportion of scholars who are also intelligent) consider the past, the picture on which they dwell is a picture conveyed to them wholly by authority and by unquestioned authority. There was never a time when the original sources of history were more easily to be consulted by the plain man; but whether because of their very number, or because the habit is not yet formed, or because there are traditions of imaginary difficulty surrounding such reading, original sources were perhaps never less familiar to fairly educated opinion than they are today; and therefore no type of book gives more pleasure when one comes across it than those little cheap books, now becoming fairly numerous, in which the original sources, and the original sources alone, are put before the reader....This is the state in which we find the scholarship that simply cites medieval Catholic inquisitors about the Cathari and the Albigenses, as if these sources were absolutely, impeccably unimpeachable. These historians are taking perhaps the worst, least useful type of secondary source material, and giving it precedence over the primary documents of the Cathari themselves. Much the same, as I alluded earlier with another poster, has happened with those scholars who take the word of Greek Orthodox polemicists against the Paulicians, over and against the Paulicians' own primary source document. It's simply bad methodology on the part of these scholars.But apart from the importance of consulting original sources--which is like hearing the very witnesses themselves in court--there is a factor in historical judgment which by some unhappy accident is peculiarly lacking in the professional historian. It is a factor to which no particular name can be attached, though it may be called a department of common sense. But it is a mental power or attitude easily recognizable in those who possess it, and perhaps atrophied by the very atmosphere of the study. It goes with the open air with a general knowledge of men and with that rapid recognition of the way in which things 'fit in' which is necessarily developed by active life."
So, why do I say that these medieval inquisitors and whatnot are lying? Because the testimony they give about the Cathari, etc. is contradicted by what the Cathari had to say about themselves. The Catholic sources are obviously hostile and polemical, while the Cathari source was presumably intended for internal use, and hence, is unlikely to bear the taint even of intentional propaganda to present a "sugar-coated" picture of their rituals and beliefs.
When the Cathari's Catholic adversaries say that the Cathari rejected the Old Testament, but the Cathari themselves quote both Isaiah and Ecclesiastes just as they would James or I Corinthians, that means their adversaries are lying (or, to be charitable, simply ignorant). When their adversaries say that the Cathari were lascivious sodomites (a charge you've repeated as well), while their own document promotes sexual abstinence among the clergy (as does, of course, Roman Catholicism itself) and enjoins the Cathari to "reject all fleshly desire and all uncleanness and to do the will of God by doing good", then again, dishonesty or ignorance seems to be in view. When their opponents say that they rejected the Trinity, and made Christ to be an angel or other lower being, but the Cathari themselves speak of being in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Church, the body of Christ, is the temple of the Living God, and proceed to speak continually of the Father, Son, and Spirit together as if they were one Being, then again, dishnoesty or ignorance appears likely. When their adversaries accuse them of being gnostics and being "saved by knowledge", while the Cathari themselves never mention "knowledge" as a means to salvation, while continually speaking about being saved from their sin and wickedness (moral, not intellectual terms), then again, dishonesty or ignorance has presented itself.
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, I discussed above. But tell me, who exactly do you think are the "people I'm relying on"? You mean the primary sources from the Cathari themselves, which I've been consistently referencing or alluding to? I guess they were just quacks and frauds who didn't know what they themselves believed.
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.
But that's just it - what you and McGoldrick repeat is not truth. It's just the religious version of a gossip column.
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.
Well, yes I have. You've just chosen to ignore it because you place more value on tradition than on fact or reason.
I don’t want the moderator to get mad. Maybe you should start a new thread?
Why do you need a new thread? So you can get away with being churlish in a way that the admin wouldn't let you on this thread? I fail to see how that's going to help your already failing case.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)
The question of whether the Albigenses were heretics or not aside, the Catholic religion ought to be ashamed of itself for this thing you have mentioned. The fact that they thought they were doing a "spiritual" work using the arm of the secular state to murder thousands shows the false nature of Catholicism, and it's satanic origins and motivations. The spirit that motivates things like inquisitions and crusades is not the Holy Spirit, that's for sure.
You wrote:
“First I’d like to digress a bit into the methodology of historical investigation.”
Will you eventually answer the questions I asked?
“Conversely, primary sources such as documents and other records left by the person or group themselves, are much more important and reliable. Neutral secondary sources less so, but still more so that hostile sources.”
Your discourse on methodology is lacking to say the least. For one thing, you do not understand what a primary source is. A primary source is not just a document produced by the heretical group in question. It is a document produced by someone immediately connected to the time period or issue involved. Thus, Reinerius Saccho, who was once an Albigensian and later an inquisitor is in fact a primary source of information about events and even beliefs about the Albigensians.
“For instance, if I wanted to investigate Catholicism and obtain a true picture of it, what would be better for me to do - read the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, and perhaps consult a Roman Catholic priest, or go to Ian Paisley’s website and see what he has to say about Catholicism?”
Ian Paisely knows little to nothing about the Catholic faith, nor was he ever Catholic. Reinerius, however, was once an Albigensian, and an inquisitor and knows both faiths from the inside. Also, Reinerous is often backed up by other sources contemporary to him. Paisely has only an echo chamber of like minded fringe bigots. Reinerius was very much part of the mainstream of society.
“The problem with your sources, such as McGoldrick, in this discussion is that they are basically relying on evidences which have very little credibility.”
No. You say they don’t have credibility. Historians say otherwise.
“The reason for this is that many historians, while being historians in general, do not have any particular special knowledge of one particular subject that may be under discussion. Take McGoldrick, for instance. As you correctly noted, he is a “professional church historian.” However, he is a historian of Reformation-era Lutheranism, particularly its influence in England and Scotland, as a search of his scholarly output will show. This means that we shouldn’t expect him to have more than just a general knowledge about medieval “heretical” groups, which in turn means that he’s going to obtain his information about them from standard sources which give the traditional line, but which may in fact be of dubious quality, and in fact it seems pretty apparent that he hasn’t accessed any actual primary sources for these groups.”
Again, no. McGoldrick is a professional. His expertise may not have started with medieval heretical groups but he is equipped with the necessary tools to master the field as his book shows. Also, I am even better equipped than he is in regard to studying medieval heretical groups and I know the value of his work. You are doing what I mentioned before. You are simply dismissing all that is known and you still have not produced a shred of evidence that that is a good or reasonable course of action.
“Such is the case with the “traditional” information about the Cathari, etc. As Hilaire Belloc once noted,”
Did you ever read Belloc’s chapter on the Albigensians? Apparently not.
And about assertions: you’re making plenty of them, but not showing evidence of anything you claim.
“This is the state in which we find the scholarship that simply cites medieval Catholic inquisitors about the Cathari and the Albigenses, as if these sources were absolutely, impeccably unimpeachable.”
I cited Lambert earlier. He does not believe the sources - from anyone - are perfect. Again, you make an assertion in direct contradiction to what is actually known.
“These historians are taking perhaps the worst, least useful type of secondary source material, and giving it precedence over the primary documents of the Cathari themselves.”
No. 1) They are all PRIMARY SOURCES. 2) Modern historians follow the Annals School approach to history (do you know what that is?) and use all relevant sources and disciplines. 3) What you’re doing is setting up a false alternative: only Cathar documents are worthy of study; all others are never to be trusted.
“So, why do I say that these medieval inquisitors and whatnot are lying? Because the testimony they give about the Cathari, etc. is contradicted by what the Cathari had to say about themselves.”
No, actually it isn’t. Ever read any of the inquisition trials when court testimony from Albigensians was written down word-for-word? Yeah, they were heretics. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty_and_staff/course_detail.jsp?id=4268
“The Catholic sources are obviously hostile and polemical, while the Cathari source was presumably intended for internal use, and hence, is unlikely to bear the taint even of intentional propaganda to present a “sugar-coated” picture of their rituals and beliefs.”
Completely false. Your understanding of records is way out of line with reality. Again, you’re simply dismissing what goes against the Albigensians. We know they were heretics.
“When the Cathari’s Catholic adversaries say that the Cathari rejected the Old Testament, but the Cathari themselves quote both Isaiah and Ecclesiastes just as they would James or I Corinthians, that means their adversaries are lying (or, to be charitable, simply ignorant).”
Again, no. We know that the Albigensian groups differed in their beliefs and practices. To dismiss all that is known about the Albigensians because someone doesn’t want them to look bad is unreasonable. Besides, you’re wrong in any case, because as Reinerius wrote:
“Also, that the Devil was author of the whole of the Old Testament, except these books — namely, Jonah, the Psalms, the hooks of Solomon, of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve Prophets; of which some were written in heaven, namely, those which were written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which they believe to be the heavenly.”
Presto! Your complaint is dealt with just like that. See how easy history can be when you actually read the history books? :)
“When their adversaries say that the Cathari were lascivious sodomites (a charge you’ve repeated as well), while their own document promotes sexual abstinence among the clergy (as does, of course, Roman Catholicism itself) and enjoins the Cathari to “reject all fleshly desire and all uncleanness and to do the will of God by doing good”, then again, dishonesty or ignorance seems to be in view.”
The Bishop of Lodeve questioned Albigensians about matrimony. This is what happened: “ V. He asked them what they thought of matrimony; and if a man, and a woman, who were so joined together, could he saved ? They would not answer, except this only — namely, that man, and woman, were united to avoid luxury, and fornication, as St. Paul has said in his Epistle.”
Ringing endorsement, huh?
The sentence against Peter Auterius, an Albigensian, read “The sacrament of matrimony you also condemn, and say that it is always sinful; that it cannot exist without sin, and you altogether deny that it was instituted by a good God.” The inquisitors got that infomration from....Peter Auterius! The same idea came out of the trial of Peter Raymundus.
You see, we actually know enough about the Albigensians that we know they eventually began to embrace marriage and encourage it within their ranks (probably because they were worried about their declining numbers). See Rene Nelli’s book, La vie quotidienne des Cathares du Languedoc au XIIIe siecle (1969). Duvernoy, a French historian, who studied the Albigensians intensively, even related that they compiled a list of New Testament quotes to use against marriage. They obviously had varying views over time and from place to place.
“When their opponents say that they rejected the Trinity, and made Christ to be an angel or other lower being, but the Cathari themselves speak of being in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Church, the body of Christ, is the temple of the Living God, and proceed to speak continually of the Father, Son, and Spirit together as if they were one Being, then again, dishnoesty or ignorance appears likely.”
Nope. Albigensian deception is much more likely. In 1326 a Cather claimed that the Trinity were made up of earth, wind and water. Does that sound orthodox to you? (Heinrich Fichtenau, Denise A. Kaiser, Heretics and Scholars in the High Middle Ages, 1000-1200; page 197).
“When their adversaries accuse them of being gnostics and being “saved by knowledge”, while the Cathari themselves never mention “knowledge” as a means to salvation, while continually speaking about being saved from their sin and wickedness (moral, not intellectual terms), then again, dishonesty or ignorance has presented itself.”
No. Once again you are trusting the men who were actually dishonest. Take for instance the Cathar bishop and his deputy who were question in Toulouse in 1178. Soon afterward one was living off a new stipend in the local cathedral as a canon. The other became a canon at a parish. They clearly had to pretend to be Catholics to get those positions. The Cathars were simply deceptive people. And about salvation, the Cathars believed you had to be a Cathar and receive the consolamentum to be saved.
“McGoldrick, I discussed above. But tell me, who exactly do you think are the “people I’m relying on”?”
People who create imaginary histories. You are NOT relying on primary source documents. You will claim to be, but you are only choosing a few at best - just the ones that suit you. You dismiss all others.
“You mean the primary sources from the Cathari themselves, which I’ve been consistently referencing or alluding to? I guess they were just quacks and frauds who didn’t know what they themselves believed.”
No, they were heretics, dissemblers, murderers and sodomites.
“But that’s just it - what you and McGoldrick repeat is not truth.”
Yeah, actually it is. That’s why I say what you’re doing is much like being a 9/11 Truther. No, it wasn’t 19 Arab Muslims with box cutters. It was Mossad, or Bush, or whoever. That’s what you’re doing. No, you’re saying, it wasn’t the Cathars who were heretics, it was everyone in society (except a few other heretics). Sorry, that is not only unreasonable, it simply isn’t shown in the facts.
“It’s just the religious version of a gossip column.”
No. It’s just the truth - and so far you’ve shown no evidence to the contrary.
“Well, yes I have. You’ve just chosen to ignore it because you place more value on tradition than on fact or reason.”
No, I am the one relying entirely on facts and reason. You are being like the 9/11 Truthers again.
“Why do you need a new thread? So you can get away with being churlish in a way that the admin wouldn’t let you on this thread?”
I wasn’t the only one written to. Interesting that you single me out. Once again we see how you dismiss facts when they don’t suit you.
“I fail to see how that’s going to help your already failing case.”
My case was won by me long ago. You have utterly failed to present any proof that overturns what I posted.
You wrote:
“The question of whether the Albigenses were heretics or not aside, the Catholic religion ought to be ashamed of itself for this thing you have mentioned.”
No. The Church had a responsibility to defend the souls of the faithful and innocent. The Albigensians, on the orther hand, were destroying them.
“The fact that they thought they were doing a “spiritual” work using the arm of the secular state to murder thousands shows the false nature of Catholicism, and it’s satanic origins and motivations.”
No, your misrepresentation of what happened isn’t helping. These people were not murdered. And even if they were, it would not show the Catholic faith to be false.
“The spirit that motivates things like inquisitions and crusades is not the Holy Spirit, that’s for sure.”
So Satan motivated Moses to go through the camp with the Levites? You might want to read Exodus 32 again.
I appreciate you diligence.
(Agnes was burned along with Raymond.) This was the first person on the list...
Heretics??? This woman refuse to swear to an oath although she claimed to believe every Catholic dogma dictated...Problem is, Jesus says to swear an oath to no one...On earth or in heaven...
And your religion murdered this Christian woman because she refused to swear to an oath...
The only heretics in that account are the Roman Catholics who murdered this woman...
And this is your evidence of the Waldensens being heretics, and worthy of murder at that??? That's disgusting...
You wrote:
“Heretics??? This woman refuse to swear to an oath although she claimed to believe every Catholic dogma dictated...Problem is, Jesus says to swear an oath to no one...On earth or in heaven...
No, actually Jesus did not say that. Protestants usually get this right: http://www.ccel.org/contrib//exec_outlines/matt/mt5_33.htm
“And your religion murdered this Christian woman because she refused to swear to an oath...”
No one murdered her. She was executed by the secular government, the universally recognized lawful authority for violations of the law. A historian once claimed that in England at one time (200 years ago?) attempted suicide was a death penalty crime. Sounds stupid to me, but that was the law at that time. Laws were harsh.
Also, please note that she was lying in her testimony. First she claimed she learned swearing oaths was sinful only a short time ago, then she admitted she believed that for 20 years. Her story changed from one interrogation to the next. She was dissembling. She was also wrong: There are several instances in the Old Testament when God Himself swore an oath (Hebrews 3:11; 4:3). God swore an oath after Abraham nearly sacrificed his son Isaac (Gen.22:16-17; Ex.6:8; 45:23; Deut.4:31; 7:8; Luke 1:73). God swore an oath to David (2 Sam.7:12,13; Psalm 89:3-4; 132:11; Acts 2:30). God swore an oath to Jesus (Psalm 110:4). Jesus swore under oath (Matthew 26:63-65).
“The only heretics in that account are the Roman Catholics who murdered this woman...”
Except “Roman Catholics” appear no where in the account and no one was murdered.
“And this is your evidence of the Waldensens being heretics, and worthy of murder at that???”
She wasn’t murdered. She was executed by the duly appointed and universally recognized secular authority after being found guilty of violating the law.
“That’s disgusting...”
In real terms was it less or more disgusting that what happened in Exodus 32:27-28?
>>> The question of whether the Albigenses were heretics or not aside... <<<
LOL!
It seems pretty clear that the only ones accusing them of being heretics were the ones who killed them. Depending on these same people to accurately record who these "heretics" really were doesn't make a lot of sense.
The actions of the aristocrat Raymond gives a little insight. He refused to execute the initial command of Rome to persecute "heresy". Raymond responded "We have been brought up with these people, we have relations among them, we know that their life is honest; how can we persecute those whom we respect as the most peaceable and loyal of our people?"
If these were such a terrible people he would know he lived among them.
You wrote:
“It seems pretty clear that the only ones accusing them of being heretics were the ones who killed them.”
Who else was there?
“Depending on these same people to accurately record who these “heretics” really were doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
Sure it does. We do that in our society all the time. Who do we rely on for information in criminal cases? Most especially the court records and the official investigative files.
“The actions of the aristocrat Raymond gives a little insight. He refused to execute the initial command of Rome to persecute “heresy”. Raymond responded “We have been brought up with these people, we have relations among them, we know that their life is honest; how can we persecute those whom we respect as the most peaceable and loyal of our people?”
And yet his father was WANTED the Albigensians suppressed. Why should I value the words of Raymond VI over Raymond V?
“If these were such a terrible people he would know he lived among them.”
He did know. He knew they murdered innocent people too. He joined in the fight against the Albigensians in 1209. I guess your hero is now a bit tarnished for fighting and killing the people he claimed were so loyal to him? Yeah, I never liked or respected Raymond VI much either. The difference is you just discovered he was a dissembler and selfish, and I always knew.
And I, Rainaud Jabbaud, cleric of Toulouse, sworn to the service of the Inquisition, have faithfully corrected this deposition against the original on the order of my lord the bishop above-named. (Agnes was burned along with Raymond.)
Sorry, but your secular authority was an agent of your religion...Your religion tried Agnes and found her guilty under the rules of your religious inquisition and she was killed under the sentencing guidelines of your religion...
She wasn’t murdered. She was executed by the duly appointed and universally recognized secular authority after being found guilty of violating the law.
The Notary and the sargeant who signed the official death sentence were appointed by your religion...
There was no secular authority...It was your religion that murdered this woman under the religious laws of your religion's 'inquisition'...
>>> Who else was there? <<<
According to Gabriel Audisio, the Waldensians (the schimatic Poor of Lyons) preached against the Cathar heresy for decades — even long AFTER Vaudes had been excommunicated and the Church’s persecution of the Poor had begun. See his _The Waldensian Dissent_, pp.13-14, 33.
Granted, Poe White Trash. I knew the heretics preached against one another (so much for the idea that they were all lovey-dovey crypto-Baptists). I just didn’t think mentioning that to those here would make a difference.
Still, thanks for posting that. You are absolutely right.
There is the record of how these people lived in peace. It was only when the RC churches were empty and their priests discredited that the pressure was put on Raymond by Innocent to persecute them. They had lived in peace for centuries. They had no history of expansionism other than evangelizing.
The claims of them holding to wild beliefs were a justification for barbaric behaviour by savages like Dominic not a truth.
You wrote:
“Sorry, but your secular authority was an agent of your religion...”
No, the secular authorities were believers - not only in the faith, but in public order. They were the ones who embraced the idea of the death penalty for obstinate heretics long before the Church authorities.
“Your religion tried Agnes and found her guilty under the rules of your religious inquisition and she was killed under the sentencing guidelines of your religion...”
No. She was found guilty and then executed under the rules of the state.
“The Notary and the sargeant who signed the official death sentence were appointed by your religion...”
She still wasn’t murdered.
“There was no secular authority...”
Sure there was. How do you explain the secular law codes if there was no secular authority?
“It was your religion that murdered this woman under the religious laws of your religion’s ‘inquisition’...”
No. She was not only NOT murdered, but she was murdered under any religious law either.
You wrote:
“There is the record of how these people lived in peace. It was only when the RC churches were empty and their priests discredited that the pressure was put on Raymond by Innocent to persecute them.”
No. Again, remember, it was the previous Raymond, Raymond V, who wanted to use force and the pope resisted (that was in 1179 or so). Innocent became pope only in 1198. He called for a crusade ONLY when Peter de Castlenau was murdered.
“They had lived in peace for centuries.”
No. They caused trouble wherever went. And there was violence attached to their rise long their murder of Peter de Castlenau in 1208. I guess you never read about the riots and attacks launched by Albigensians in 1202 when their favorite didn’t win election to the see of Toulouse, right?
And the idea that Innocent was just as cruel man to all non-Catholics, as some would falsely claim, is completely untrue. Pope Innocent III, on Sept. 15, 1199, wrote about the Jews:
“Let no Christian by violence compel them [the Jews] to come dissentient or unwilling to baptism. Further let no Christian venture maliciously to harm their persons without a judgement of the Civil Power, or carry off their property, or change the good customs which they have had hitherto in that district which they inhabit.”
Note that Innocent not only recognizes the civil authority of the CIVIL POWER, but also demands Christians leave Jews alone when it comes to choosing baptism.
“They had no history of expansionism other than evangelizing.”
Again, you ignore their violence.
“The claims of them holding to wild beliefs were a justification for barbaric behaviour by savages like Dominic not a truth.”
Nope. They really held “wild” beliefs and they also were sometimes violent.
Cincinnatus and Co.’s brand of “heads I win, tails you lose” historiography would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
I doubt that anything you could post would make a difference to these guys.
For example, this is from the Cathar _Book of Two Principles_ Part IV [9]:
“...if it be fully understood that the essences of things that have neither beginning nor end by reason of their eternity, sempiternity, or antiquity (just as, for example, it is evident to anyone is true in the case of the good God), it has, then, been clearly demonstrated in the foregoing that sin, penalties, desolations, error, fire, punishment, chains, and the devil have neither beginning nor end. They are the names either of the chief principle of evil or of his effects. They are evidences of one evil cause, eternal or everlasting or ancient, because if the effect has been eternal or everlasting, it necessarily follows that the cause was the same. THERE IS then, WITHOUT A DOUBT, A PRINCIPLE OF EVIL from which this eternity or sempiternity and antiquity are exclusively and essentially derived.” [emphasis mine]
Part IV [10]:
“That there is, in addition to the faithful Creator to whom they that suffer ‘commended their souls in good deeds,’ ANOTHER GOD AND LORD WHO IS A CREATOR AND MAKER, I propose to prove clearly from the Scriptures, chiefly from the Old Testament, in accord with the trust which our opponents place in it....
Now it must be kept in mind that no one can point to the temporal and visible existence of THE EVIL GOD in this world, nor, indeed, to that of THE GOOD GOD. But a cause is known by its effects. From this, it should be understood that no one can prove him to be an evil god or a creator, except by the fact of his evil works or his fickle words. But I say that HE WHO CREATED AND MADE THE VISIBLE THINGS OF THIS WORLD IS NOT the true Creator. This I intend to prove by the fact of HIS EVIL WORKS and HIS FICKLE WORDS, assuming to be true what our opponents most openly affirm, that the works and words which are recorded in the OLD TESTAMENT were actually produced, visibly and materially, in this world.” [emphasis mine]
This sounds an awful lot like the “bonesa” (good) and “malesa” (evil) gods of Pierre Maury, don’t you think? Also, please note the thinly veiled contempt with which the author refers to the Old Testament which he ASSUMES to be true to better address his opponents.
Actually, what you're arguing IS still the testimony of the Cathari's enemies.
See, the "Book of the Two Principles" to which you refer is reputed to have been written by one John of Lugio, near Bergamo (not anonymous, as you assert), who was an "extreme Cathar" in northern Italy and the founder of a smallish group known as "Albanenses". He is said to have prepared it as a reply against more "moderate" Cathar groups that he had been in contact with.
However, you're attempt to use this work as genuine, primary source evidence of Cathar belief is not tenable. As has been pointed out by others (e.g. Christine Thouzellier, Livre des deux principes, p. 33), we do not actually possess the original treatise by John. Instead, we have a summation of the work, prepared by *drum roll please* Catholic polemicists who disputed with him - with all the attendant problems concerning their reliability that have been discussed previously.
Now, the other problem with your argument is that, even if we were to be correct in credulously and gullibly believing everything that these polemicists and inquisitors had to say about John's treatise, there's still no reason to think that John's arguments are representative of any group of "Cathars" other than his own particular little group of Albanenses, for several reasons:
1) It is admitted, even by Catholic sources, that John was an "extreme" Cathar and that his arguments were originally intended to be used against other, more moderate "Cathar" groups. This suggests that these other groups did not hold to the dualism, strange ideas about creation, etc. that John makes a point to use against them in his arguments.
2) The term "Cathar" is general, and was often used as an umbrella term by the dominant Catholics in France/Italy/Switzerland to describe any dissenting group in this era. There's no reason to assume - though many do, for some odd reason - that the Cathari in Northern Italy who followed John of Lugio were even all that similar to other Cathari in Northern Italy who didn't follow him, much less that they were similar to Cathari in Languedoc. And let us keep in mind that, the discussion to date, as directed by John Christian's referencing in the original post, has largely been dealing with the Cathari in Languedoc, often called Albigenses or bon hommes.
3) This point is further reinforced by the fact that the authentic Ritual of Lyons (for which we DO have abundant primary source evidence) is completely unlike John of Lugio's treatise (or at least it's summarisation....) in spirit and charactre. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how anyone reading the Apparelhamentum or the Traditio could honestly come to the conclusion that they represent the same train of thought as John's dualism does. There's no gnosticism represented in the actual Ritual.
Sorry, but your appeal fails.
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.
That's great, but meaningless. People uncritically using the testimonies of Catholic apologists and inquisitors can feel free to attribute whatever they like to whomever they wish, but that doesn't make it correct.
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.
Not sidestepping, just using my brain instead of mindlessly relying upon "tradition." As with pretty much every other piece of evidence you've tried to adduce, there's no reason to accept the hostile testimony of Catholics writing down the supposed testimony of "heretics" as legitimate.
What IS legitimate, however, is looking at what the Cathari had to say in their own writings. They speak of sin. They don't speak of knowledge. There's no evidence from the Ritual that they rejected either Christ's body or Christ's resurrection.
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.
They repeatedly ask for forgiveness of their sins, confessing them in their confession, and acknowledging that their sin offends both God and fellow believers. If you can't see the significance of sin in this, then it's merely because you're trying not to see it.
Second, I’ve never read that the gnostics were ever noteworthy for being systematic theologians.
Well, since the Cathari weren't gnostics, the point is irrelevant. However, I will say all the same that if you've never seen anything indicating this, then this shows just how narrow your reading on the subject has been. Several gnostic groups were actually quite noteworthy for the intricacy and complexity of their speculative systems, not the least of which would have been the Valentinians and the Manichaeans.
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.
Other than pointing us to hostile and polemical Catholic summarisation of John of Lugio's work, you adduced no evidence to suggest that the Cathari were "gnostics." So far as we can tell, the charge exists in your mind, but nowhere else.
Yes, actually.
Don't be surprised by this, either. In the field of Islamic studies, essentially the exact same battle is being fought - the battle between those who rely upon secondary or tertiary, often polemical, hostile, or apologetic literature vs. the "reductionists" who choose to give the greatest weight to primary source documentation. I side with the reductionists when it comes to studying the history of Islam, the collection of the Qur'an, and the development of Islamic theology via sunnat and sirat, and so also do I take the side of reductionism in this debate, as well.
Well, that’s a difference that makes no difference!
Actually, in light of your specific question, it makes quite a bit of difference, semantically.
Perhaps you should write those who are still living and explain to them that they are in error. I’m sure that none of them (especially Bernard Hamilton) are aware of the Armenian sources. /sarc
Yes, perhaps I should.
Lemerle and Hamilton are simply repeaters of traditional arguments. Well and good, as far as that goes, but not particularly convincing.
Why, specifically, do you think I'm relying too much upon Garsoian's argument?
Once again, the description of the Paulicians as “dualists” comes from not just Greek Orthodox sources but also from those within the Orthodox Armenian church and from Islam. Read Lemerle. Read Hamilton. Remember that there were many Paulicians outside of Armenia.
The Islamic evidence is inconclusive, simply for the fact that it remains to be conclusively shown that Masud'i was actually referring to the group we'd call the "Paulicians." As for the Armenian Orthodox evidence, it is divided, and much of it does NOT, actually, suggest that the Paulicians were dualists.
I find Conybeare’s dating unreliable, to say the least. Bernard Hamilton rejects the dating, as does Runciman; I’ll take their word about it over yours and your mostly-anonymous Armenianists.
That's fine, I'm sure you do. Others don't find it unreliable. The arguments adduced against it - such as the occasional appearance of archaic Armenian in ecclesial documents even into the 19th century - do not really prove anything. An entire treatise in an archaic form of Armenian is several orders of magnitude different from the occasional archaic word or phrase.
Sounds to me like you’ve swallowed Garsoian’s thesis hook, line and sinker. That’s a mighty slight reed upon which to place your claims about the Paulicians. From what I’ve read, your historical reconstruction of the history of the Paulicians seems quite fanciful.
Refresh us again, what exactly is is that you think is my "historical reconstruction" of the Paulicians? IIRC, the only history I've mentioned is that they lived in Armenia in the 8th-9th centuries, and that some of them were transported to the Balkans and to Constantinople proper.
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.