Let's see if I have this right. Bernard Gui, who as an inquisitor and polemicist had good reason to cast the Cathars and other "heretics" in as negative of a light as possible, is nevertheless entirely trustworthy when it comes to his inquisitorial record and polemical writings about said "heretics."
At the same time, a document produced by a group of Cathari - whose purpose was that it be used within their own group - must be nothing but dissimulation. Since, after all, the Cathari would obviously want to deceive their own catechumens about what the group believes.
Now, these "heretics" lie at every opportunity they can get. Except that their testimony is completely, absolutely, unimpeachably trustworthy when they are questioned by the inquisitors and tell them about all kinds of perfid heresies.
And there is no possibility that the same inquisitors would ever even consider "fudging" the record just a bit to justify their own existence, if for no other reason.
Sure. And I've got a rainbow-coloured unicorn that I ride to work everyday, too.
As Conybeare remarked about the sometime honesty of "orthodox" polemicists,
"In their confutation of heretics the orthodox fathers were none too scrupulous of the truth. They all carried in their bag two weights, a heavier and a lighter, and in their dealings with so-called heretics used the latter."
With that, I leave you to your fun. I've donated enough of my time today to you.
"Heresies of the High Middle Ages" by Wakefield and Evans along with "A History of the Baptists" by John T. Christian both look like something I should read.
You wrote:
“Let’s see if I have this right. Bernard Gui, who as an inquisitor and polemicist had good reason to cast the Cathars and other “heretics” in as negative of a light as possible, is nevertheless entirely trustworthy when it comes to his inquisitorial record and polemical writings about said “heretics.” “
No. 1) Gui didn’t have to cast the heretics in a bad light. They were already universally accepted as heretics except by their fellow heretics.
“At the same time, a document produced by a group of Cathari - whose purpose was that it be used within their own group -...”
How do you know? If you can question every Catholic writer on every possible syllable they wrote, can you please show me any evidence you have that the Cathar rituals are genuine and really express the same beliefs as Christians hold them?
They answer will logically have to be no. But I thought I’d at least ask.
“...must be nothing but dissimulation.”
No. I said it could be. I also said that the Albigensians - just like Mormons - might have used the same terminology with drastically different connotations.
“Since, after all, the Cathari would obviously want to deceive their own catechumens about what the group believes.”
No. But then again you claim the same for ALL Catholic writers opposed to the Albigensians - including converts. You essentially claim they are all lying. All of them. The inquisitors were all lying according to you as well. You can’t seem to show any evidence of that, but you keep implying it.
“Now, these “heretics” lie at every opportunity they can get. Except that their testimony is completely, absolutely, unimpeachably trustworthy when they are questioned by the inquisitors and tell them about all kinds of perfid heresies.”
The inquisitors knew what they were doing. They often had evidence from other witnesses already gathered before they questioned a person. You have to ask yourself why these people would lie when it meant that they could suffer for it. Men will lie to avoid suffering (like perhaps producing false rituals or couching them in terms that sound orthodox). What they will not do is lie in such a way that they can only get into more trouble.
“And there is no possibility that the same inquisitors would ever even consider “fudging” the record just a bit to justify their own existence, if for no other reason.”
Well, let’s look at that idea. Take the records of the Bishop of Pamiers, Jacques Fournier. He conducted heresy trials in his diocese for seven years altogether. The trials did not run continuously of course. He left behind one of the most lengthy and detailed sets of records. Only a very small portion has been published in English.
Now, Jacques Fournier may have had inquistorial trials conducted over seven years, but the actual number of trial days was less than 400. He questioned almost 600 people. As a presiding bishop, he need to do exactly NOTHING to “justify” the trials. When he believed he has discovered the last Cathar, he stopped having trials.
“Sure. And I’ve got a rainbow-coloured unicorn that I ride to work everyday, too.”
Unicorn owner or not, you could know more if you simply read some books on the subject rather than scoff at what you’ve apparently never studied.
“As Conybeare remarked about the sometime honesty of “orthodox” polemicists,”
Anything Conybeare said on such a topic is unintentionally funny since he could have been argued to have been on both sides of the Jesus Myth controversy. I wonder if he ever regretted his membership in the Rationalist Press Association?
“With that, I leave you to your fun. I’ve donated enough of my time today to you.”
I understand. Soon I’ll be on the road - no not on a unicorn - and unable to post much. That’s several days away, but I have a lot of work to do in the meantime.