Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Our New Albigensian Age
Crisis Magazine ^ | September 17, 2013 | Stephen M. Krason

Posted on 09/17/2013 5:42:00 AM PDT by NYer

Ruins of Holyrood Chapel (1824) by Louis Daguerre

In an old (1950) monograph entitled The Truth about the Inquisition, Dr. John A. O’Brien, a Notre Dame history professor of the time, provides a brief but interesting exposé of the Albigensian heresy. Few people recall that that almost maniacal rebellion against Catholic teaching and, for that matter, commonsensical and civilized living was the trigger for the much-misunderstood Inquisition. O’Brien’s discussion makes one think of many aspects of our current civilizational crisis, even though the comparison could not have been so evident in 1950.

The Albigensians, or Catharists, were neo-Manicheans, regarding material creation as an evil and viewing all of existence as a conflict between evil matter and good spirit—but O’Brien says it was much more. Like all Gnostics, of which Manicheanism was a branch, they believed themselves to be the only “pure” ones and the only ones to have the truth. They were certainly a forerunner of Protestantism and even more specifically of the most ardent of contemporary fundamentalists, with their complete rejection of the Real Presence, transubstantiation, the Eucharist, and the Mass, and their belief that the pope was the Antichrist. Their teaching and practice, however, had enormous implications for marriage, sexual morality, and social and political life.

The parallels to the present are almost uncanny. While hatred for the Church is nothing new, the visceral character of the Albigensians’ hatred bears a resemblance to the ugliest side of the Reformation and today’s assaults on religion. For example, O’Brien tells us how the Albigensians were known for indiscriminately chopping down crosses and stamping on them. In America today, we see the relentless efforts by rabid, uncompromising church-state separationist groups to remove all religious symbols from public places and the heightened vandalism of crosses and other Christian monuments.

The sexual libertinism, views about marriage, and feminism of our time resemble the Albigensian heresy. While the Albigensians considered sex an “inherent evil,” it seems as if it was not so much sex per se that they rejected but the proper context for it. They utterly rejected marriage, mostly because it meant bringing children into the world. Pregnancy for them was diabolical. Their confusion about sexual matters made them believe that marriage was worse than fornication and adultery. In our time, people don’t quite make this claim, but marriage has become irrelevant as the condition for engaging in sexual activity and no judgment is made about the morality of almost any sexual practices. For many, particularly in lower socioeconomic status groups, marriage almost seems obsolete; children are routinely born out-of-wedlock. Others, particularly among the affluent, enter marriage—or what is called that—but have no intention of bearing children. While people may not proclaim pregnancy as evil, they act is if it is in our contracepting age. As O’Brien says, for the Albigensians even perversion was preferable to marriage. In our time, we witness the celebration of sexual perversion as a good thing—as “LGBT pride.” While the Albigensians wanted to abolish marriage, we have transformed it into something that they would have lauded: an association devoid of procreative intent or even, in the case of same-sex “marriage,” capability. As far as traditional, true marriage is concerned, we increasingly give it no special support or even recognition as uniquely important for society. We say that people are free to choose what “version” of it they prefer—and be officially “affirmed” in their choice.

So the Albigensians, who so rejected sex as part of their disdain for the material world and supposedly in the interest of spiritual purity, actually opened the door to sexual debauchery and the corruption of both body and soul. This was typical of Manicheans historically. Some would become extreme ascetics, and others utter hedonists.

Contemporary feminism has a ring of the Albigensian. Instead of equality in marriage, it effectively placed women in a dominant position. As O’Brien explains, since pregnancy was despised married women who were converted to Albigensianism unilaterally abrogated their husbands’ marital rights and consigned them to “an enforced celibacy.” It was considered “sinful and degrading” to even touch a woman (even if innocently and in a pure way). This almost rings of the extremes to which sexual harassment has gone in our day. It makes one think of the anti-male ethos in the statements of some of today’s feminists. The female dominance was further seen in that a religious punishment of fasting for inter-gender touching could only be imposed on a man, even if the woman did the touching.

Today, abortion seems to have become a positive good for ardent feminists and their fellow-travelers. It’s much like the Albigensians, for whom O’Brien says “abortion was highly to be commended.”

The Albigensians anticipated today’s assault on human life in other areas, as well. Believing that the seriously ill would gain eternal bliss if they did not recover their health, they encouraged them to commit suicide. In fact, they practiced assisted suicide. The assisted suicide advocates of today are different only in that their methods are (usually) more technologically sophisticated. The Albigensians either suffocated or starved the person. Today’s practice in medical facilities of hastening death by withholding nutrition and hydration was what they did—except it took place in the person’s home. Like today, the person was supposedly given a choice: they gave him a choice of these two methods of death, today people sign living wills. Either way, the supposed choice is no real choice. In both eras, there is a coercive backstop. The Albigensian leaders forbade the sick person’s family from feeding him, or would forcibly remove him from his home if they weren’t “reliable.” In our day, family members may make a choice for death even if the patient didn’t want it or, increasingly, the medical authorities do it even when it’s against the patient’s or the family’s wishes.

The present era, prodded along by the likes of Peter Singer, pushes more and more toward post-partum infanticide. Even on this, the Albigensians were a precursor. They insisted upon—even enforced—among their followers the starvation of very sick children. To make sure their parents didn’t lose their nerve, the sect leaders frequently visited their homes to monitor them. So, the Albigensians also anticipated our era’s undermining of parental rights.

While human life was in the crosshairs, animal life was sacrosanct. The Albigensians would never take an animal’s life. This was because they believed in something like reincarnation, so a dead person’s soul might be within an animal. They were a harbinger of today’s animal rights thinking. Indeed, their view had its roots in Eastern thought, whose influence in the turbulent 1960s may also have helped fuel our animal rights movement.

The Albigensians unconditionally rejected capital punishment; like current liberalism, it seemed to be the only life issue that troubled them. In fact, they held that the state had no authority to administer justice or punish crime at all. Thus, they undercut one of the most basic rationales for political life, and made unthinkable anything like a rule of law. While this does not seem to conform to our current reality of big, increasingly overbearing government, it does reflect the underlying notion about politics since Thomas Hobbes that the state is not natural to man. That government is an artificial construct to be twisted, used, or expanded in whichever way has underlain most modern political ideologies and its consequence is strikingly evident today as constitutional principles are left behind and executive fiat is substituted for duly enacted law. The Albigensians, in effect, didn’t think that government was completely necessary or at least legitimate. That sounds like Rousseau and Marx later on—two thinkers whose views, in one form or another, resound through the contemporary world. I recall Catholic political scientist Peter V. Sampo once saying that governments inspired by a neo-Gnostic idea—like Communist regimes and increasingly today’s Western arch-secular states—tend to be formless, less prone to limitation and open to unlimited expansion.

The Albigensians even condoned stealing, so long as it was done to the “right” person (that is, not one of their own sect). This makes me think of eminent social scientist Kenneth Clark’s justifying interracial muggings by minorities a few decades ago as an act of “social protest,” and how some today do not want to hold members of certain “favored” groups to the same moral standards as others.

Today’s secularist elite—so dominant in Western politics, culture, and opinion-making—are dualists, like the Albigensians. Even though the Albigensians rejected the material and they reject the spiritual, the consequences are strikingly similar. Also, like the Albigensians, they think they are all-knowing—and the implications for Western culture, as any serious observer realizes, are similarly grave.



TOPICS: Catholic; History; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: heresy; inquisition

1 posted on 09/17/2013 5:42:00 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 09/17/2013 5:42:26 AM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Good article. There is nothing new under the sun after all, I guess.

Still, the Pope said something yesterday that I thought was true: there has been some fundamental shift that has occurred in society, and it is impossible to return to what we once had. That is, the entire modern vision of what it means to be human has undergone a profound change, sort of an official adoption of Gnosticism with its complete rejection of physical reality, that makes it impossible for Christians to communicate.

Look at the most elementary of biological facts: men are men and women are women, and no amount of claiming that you are not really what your body is will change that. Yet our society asserts that physical reality means nothing. Since Christianity is based on physical reality (the Incarnation), we Christians find ourselves now living in a completely alien environment where we are speaking and thinking in a suddenly foreign language.


3 posted on 09/17/2013 5:56:36 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
They insisted upon—even enforced—among their followers the starvation of very sick children...

While human life was in the crosshairs, animal life was sacrosanct. The Albigensians would never take an animal’s life. This was because they believed in something like reincarnation, so a dead person’s soul might be within an animal.

It never occurred to them that they might be "reincarnated" as a sick child? Or that an alive person's soul resided in a sick child?

4 posted on 09/17/2013 5:57:19 AM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Generally a good article.

However, it should be remembered that almost everything we know about the Albigensians was written by their enemies, at a time when rhetoric against one’s enemies (or the enemies of God) was often unrestrained by anything resembling respect for truth.

Check out what the same people at this time said about the Jews, and somewhat later said about Protestants. (And what Protestants said about them, and about the Jews for that matter.)

Not defending those of Albi, just pointing out that the bare truth about them may have been embroidered somewhat.


5 posted on 09/17/2013 6:06:25 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Well, there's nothing new under the sun, and there are only two philosophies: God's and Satan's.

Anything not of God is of Satan, and contradictions don't matter to him.

6 posted on 09/17/2013 6:07:35 AM PDT by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
It was a barbaric time. So many were subjected to "the rack".


7 posted on 09/17/2013 6:08:53 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

They ignore the teaching of Ecclesiastes.


8 posted on 09/17/2013 6:09:59 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

They ignore the teaching of Ecclesiastes.


And Song of Songs. And the verse about “shall your wife’s breasts satisfy you always.”


9 posted on 09/17/2013 6:10:49 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: livius
till, the Pope said something yesterday that I thought was true: there has been some fundamental shift that has occurred in society, and it is impossible to return to what we once had. That is, the entire modern vision of what it means to be human has undergone a profound change, sort of an official adoption of Gnosticism with its complete rejection of physical reality, that makes it impossible for Christians to communicate.

I have posted this before and apologize for the repeat but, each time I read such statements, there is a flashback to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Pro Eligendo homily delivered to the College of Cardinals before they entered the conclave that resulted in his selection as pope.

How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true.

Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.
FULL TEXT

This homily was delivered in April 2005. Like Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, one can regard Ratzinger's homily as quasi prophetic. Insofar as Pope Francis stating that a fundamental shift has occurred in history, we know from history that it repeats itself. Perhaps not in our lifetime, it is conceivable that some future generation may one day experience the conservative values we experienced in post WWII America.

10 posted on 09/17/2013 6:17:30 AM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Probably the “society” the modern Gnostics are building will implode at some point; it’s based on unsustainable ideas and no foundation whatsoever.


11 posted on 09/17/2013 6:24:10 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Very thought-provoking article. The Evil One is adept at recycling his most effective lies.

Pray that people return to God....SOON!


12 posted on 09/17/2013 6:27:31 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’ve had evangelical protestant friends point to the Albigensians as the “underground remnant” of true Christianity in opposition to the Catholic church of their day.

(This allows protestants to offer a timeline going back before the Reformation.)

Anyway when I explain what the Albigensians really believed, they either concede the point (and implicitly acknowledge that their pastor was misleading them about the Albigensians) or accuse me of lying for the church.


13 posted on 09/17/2013 6:35:17 AM PDT by jtal (Runnin' a World in Need with White Folks' Greed - since 1492)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Some details that are often missed when discussing the Spanish Inquisition, were first, that the laity in Spain were utterly horrified by not just the heterodoxy, or even heresy, but the rise of debauched and perverted paganism, often using the church itself for its purposes.

Second was that the existing Spanish royal inquisition was not only ineffective in dealing with this, but in some ways sponsoring it. This is why the desperate petition to Rome for a real Inquisition, carried out under the auspices of what is now the Holy Office.

While Christendom in Europe swept away paganism, in many cases, it did not destroy it, just drove it and its practices underground. In many parts of Europe, even today, pagan practices have been integrated into the local practice of Christianity.

With the rise of official atheism in France, spreading outward through Europe, eroding national churches already in decline, it is no surprise that pagan beliefs are again returning to the fore.

Likewise, heterodoxy and outright heresy, in some cases arising from within the church itself.


14 posted on 09/17/2013 6:39:34 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (The best War on Terror News is at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; livius; WayneS; Sherman Logan; chesley; cuban leaf
from the article: " Few people recall that that almost maniacal rebellion against Catholic teaching and, for that matter, commonsensical and civilized living was the trigger for the much-misunderstood Inquisition."

Speaking of "maniacal":

In another report:

But at least there were no gas chambers, or crematoria, so it's all cool, right?


15 posted on 09/17/2013 6:54:46 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita
The Evil One is adept at recycling his most effective lies.

What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun.
Even the thing of which we say, "See, this is new!" has already existed in the ages that preceded us.
There is no remembrance of the men of old; nor of those to come will there be any remembrance among those who come after them.

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11

16 posted on 09/17/2013 6:58:02 AM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Catholic and Spanish Inquisition Myths Busted
17 posted on 09/17/2013 7:01:59 AM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
But at least there were no gas chambers, or crematoria, so it's all cool, right?

No. I don't recall saying that. I don't recall defending the Inquisition, or Crusades, at all.

18 posted on 09/17/2013 7:08:05 AM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jtal

Very interesting first hand experience. I bet some of those conversations are quite animated.


19 posted on 09/17/2013 7:13:04 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jtal
jtal: "This allows protestants to offer a timeline going back before the Reformation."

Attempts to reform corruption and suffocating power in the Roman Catholic Church began with false starts and failures long before Martin Luther's 95 Theses in 1517.
Names like Jan Hus (†1415) and Girolamo Savonarola (†1498) come to immediately mind.

But the core essence of Protestantism is devotion to what the Bible actually says, as opposed to what some bishops somewhere claimed it sort-of means.
So where-ever you can see such devotion before Luther, there you might say are pre-Protestants.
But you really can't have serious Protestants until you have a lot of Bibles available, and many people able to read them, and that didn't really begin until Gutenberg's Bibles, circa 1450.

So Cathars-Albigensians could not be considered pre-Protestants, except in their "maniacal" feelings about fundamental corruption and wickedness in the Roman Catholic Church of their day.

20 posted on 09/17/2013 7:33:08 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer
They were certainly a forerunner of Protestantism and even more specifically of the most ardent of contemporary fundamentalists, with their complete rejection of the Real Presence, transubstantiation, the Eucharist, and the Mass, and their belief that the pope was the Antichrist.

This was their only 'crime'...I have no doubt (along with many historians) the charges against these Christians was fabricated by the Catholic religion to keep Catholics from seeking out the Albigensians...

The crimes of ALL heretics to the Catholic religion are posted in the first paragraph here...

The Albigensians are equated by the Catholic religion as being the forerunners of Protestantism as well as immorality, sexual perversion and all the ills of the world...The nasty Protestants...

If I had lived back then, I proudly would have been an Albigensian...

21 posted on 09/17/2013 7:57:12 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
WayneS: "No. I don't recall saying that.
I don't recall defending the Inquisition, or Crusades, at all."

FRiend, this thread begins by positing a "maniacal rebellion against Catholic teaching..." by Albigensians-Cathars.

My question is: who was more "maniacal", those who resisted corruption and suffocating power from Rome, or those who murdered circa a million men, women and children for their unorthodox religious beliefs?

22 posted on 09/17/2013 7:59:10 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Correction:
But the core essence of Protestantism is devotion to what the Bible actually says Protestant theologians claim it sort-of means, as opposed to what some bishops somewhere claimed it sort-of means.

Millions of Catholics have studied the Bible and recognized the truth of Catholicism in it but Protestants never seem to grant Catholics the freedom of interpretation of the Bible that they claim for themselves.

23 posted on 09/17/2013 8:02:43 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
Petrosius: "Millions of Catholics have studied the Bible and recognized the truth of Catholicism in it but Protestants never seem to grant Catholics the freedom of interpretation of the Bible that they claim for themselves."

I will certainly agree with you that during the 16th and 17th centuries there were religious wars between Protestants and Catholics which took the lives of millions.
And I don't think I could make a case that one side or the other was more or less guilty of starting and perpetuating those wars.

But it is also absolutely true that those wars ended 300+ years ago, and since 1788 the entire realm of Christendom has eventually come to accept our Founding Fathers' ideas about freedom of religion along with separation of church and state.
Yes, Protestants & Catholics do still occasionally fight on opposite sides (Northern Ireland comes to mind), but always in the context of some nationalist or ethnic sectarianism.

Point is: despite our sad histories, serious Catholics and Protestants (along with orthodox Jews) are nearly always on the same sides of modern issues.
We are at least allies, and should be FRiends, and those old debates over theology, liturgy or philosophy really don't need to leave the hallowed halls of academia.
Out in the real world, they don't matter.

Of course all Churches still compete for congregations, but really, is it possible that even one in a hundred new converts joins a particular church only because they agree with its teachings on the transubstantiation of the Eucharist?
No way!

Bottom line: today any church is absolutely free to interpret and teach the Bible howsoever it wishes, within limits of reasonableness of course -- i.e., no suicide bombers.

But this particular thread is about a 13th century heresy that was exterminated at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church with innocents murdered estimated up to one million.
Now elements of the old heresy have seemingly returned, in a modern secular form, and again threaten Christianity.

I'm only saying, if they win the battle this time, let us only hope and pray they are not as brutal towards us as the Catholic Church was to them, 800 years ago...

24 posted on 09/17/2013 9:06:34 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

hey Bro...

you said “that didn’t really begin until Gutenberg’s Bibles, circa 1450.”

however, you left out that Gutenberg was Catholic and printed ...horrors...Catholic Bibles.

Lurking’


25 posted on 09/17/2013 10:21:38 AM PDT by LurkingSince'98 (Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NYer

bttt


26 posted on 09/17/2013 11:17:46 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Mystery isn't something that is gradually evaporating. It grows along with knowledge. - F. O'Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
LurkingSince'98: "you left out that Gutenberg was Catholic and printed ...horrors...Catholic Bibles."

Circa 1450 there were no such things as "Protestants".
There was no Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Henry VIII or Scottish Presbyterians.
In 1450, most of those were still twinkles in their grandfathers' eyes. ;-)

In 1450 Luther's Bible translation was still nearly a century away, and the English King James Bible still 150 years in the future.

And Gutenberg's Bibles were in Latin, so it still took highly educated people to read them.
Nevertheless, it was a start: Gutenberg printed hundreds of Bibles, and other printers soon produced thousands more, essentially flooding the market for anyone who had the ability and desire to read them.

And many, many people did, and it opened their eyes, and they began to ask questions, embarrassing questions, questions the Roman Church could not always answer to their satisfaction.
And so, slowly, slowly, with fits and false starts, the Protestant spirit was born and eventually captured the imaginations of millions.

The rest, as they say, is history...

27 posted on 09/17/2013 12:04:57 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; NYer
The crimes of ALL heretics to the Catholic religion are posted in the first paragraph here...

This entire wailing diatribe (the OP) is such a load of horse poop. Just the Romans spouting their company line for the purpose of self justification. Because if they truly looked at what they had done, and that in the name of Messiah, the 'holiness' and 'infallibility' of their organization, not to mention the history they cling to, would crumble into dust.

The OP states they thought sex was awful - yet they had large families, and their general population was huge - Big enough to threaten the authority of the Roman church. It is altogether obvious that they were reproducing at a furious rate.

The OP states they forbade marriage - yet history shows them being normal family units, with husband, wife, and children. - They simply were not married according to the Roman church, because they didn't see the purpose in standing before a Roman priest.

The OP then goes on to proclaim that they practiced any and all sorts of sexual perversion outside of a legal marriage - Or at least equates them to a modern equivalent - Yet the record shows them to be a very upright, somewhat prudish people, well respected by their neighbors, in much the same way as Amish/Mennonite/Hutterites are thought of today... different but good.

And lastly, the immediate allusions to their being maniacal - yet their Romanist neighbors often fought and DIED in defense of them, most notably at Benziers - Against... AGAINST their own religious leaders.

There is no question but that this 'history' is papist propaganda. And the more one looks, the more one will see exactly the same thing, all the way along the sordid history of the Roman church.

28 posted on 09/17/2013 1:13:27 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Agreed. Although a good bit of this version of history is distorted in the service of anti-Catholicism, just as that of the article is to be pro-Catholic.

We don’t really know what the Albigensians taught or believed, since about all we have of them is what their enemies, who exterminated them, said they taught and believed.

Their attitudes towards marriage and sex, for instance, might make a good deal more sense if we had their explanations as to why they believed as they did. Every religion looks like lunacy to outsiders, especially without an explanation of this type. Then most (not all) at least have an internal logic.

It is, however, indisputable that truly appalling atrocities were committed in crushing the Albigensians, and that the Catholic faith imposed on Europe by force did little to prevent awful tragedies and crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Retz


29 posted on 09/17/2013 2:24:38 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The common punishment for city’s which resisted sieges was to put much or all of the population to the sword. Sad, but true. The punishment was considered a way to stop endless warfare. Cities would be too afraid to all resist and drag out what would have been short wars - wars were only conducted for a matter of weeks usually because bad weather and the harvest season made the campaign season so short.

Also, there is no actual contemporary evidence that anyone said: “Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.”

The Albigensians were a bizarre, murderous, perverted sect. I can’t say it was bad that the crusaders wiped many of them out. The remnants were reconciled or went underground to be routed out and either reconciled by the inquisition or executed by the state.


30 posted on 09/17/2013 3:35:02 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

“And lastly, the immediate allusions to their being maniacal - yet their Romanist neighbors often fought and DIED in defense of them, most notably at Benziers - Against... AGAINST their own religious leaders.”

1) I think you mean Bezier and not Benziers.

2) The Bishop of Beziers, Renaud II de Montpeyroux, tried to stop the siege. He negotiated with the crusaders. He then prepared a list of a couple of hundred known heretics. Most of the townspeople refused to hand them over to the crusaders. Renaud II left with a handful of faithful Catholics - who clearly knew what awaited them if they stayed in the city. They and Renaud made the wise choice. They neither sided with heretics nor stayed to die with them in a siege they were all-but-guaranteed to lose. After the siege and massacre (which probably wasn’t as extensive as some think), they moved back into the city and resumed their lives with the new residents who quickly moved into the city and set up shop.


31 posted on 09/17/2013 3:57:46 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; roamer_1
vladimir998: "The common punishment for city’s which resisted sieges was to put much or all of the population to the sword."

And yet, even in that long-ago age, nearly all wars were fought without the numbers of mass-murders reported against Cathars-Albigensians.
And of course, my point here is that if we are to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us", then a Church which has committed exterminating mass murders against heretics, must fervently hope and pray it will not itself suffer the same fate it meted out.

vladimir998: "Also, there is no actual contemporary evidence that anyone said: 'Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.' "

And yet, the crusader army was under command, both spiritually and militarily, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux, who reported to Pope Innocent III:

vladimir998: "The Albigensians were a bizarre, murderous, perverted sect.
I can’t say it was bad that the crusaders wiped many of them out."

And yet, all the objective evidence we have tells us just the opposite -- see roamer_1 post #28 above.
Objectively, it was the Roman Church of that time which was the "bizarre, murderous, perverted sect."

32 posted on 09/17/2013 5:28:09 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

“And yet, even in that long-ago age, nearly all wars were fought without the numbers of mass-murders reported against Cathars-Albigensians.”

If there were major sieges, and mass takeovers of cities there actually were many massacres. This would continue in Europe until at least the 17th century.

“And of course, my point here is that if we are to “do unto others as we would have them do unto us”, then a Church which has must fervently hope and pray it will not itself suffer the same fate it meted out.”

The Church never “committed exterminating mass murders against heretics”. Bezier was besieged by men, not the Church. Even if a bishop was leading troops, any crimes he committed are entirely his own.

“And yet, the crusader army was under command, both spiritually and militarily, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux, who reported to Pope Innocent III”

I don’t know what that is supposed to mean since the city was taken after the defenders made a rather stupid sortie and the crusaders pursued the defenders right back into the city and took it by storm. There’s no one in command when a complete rout takes place. Also, it doesn’t matter who Arnaud-Amaury reported to. He was responsible for his actions and no one else.

“And yet, all the objective evidence we have tells us just the opposite — see roamer_1 post #28 above.”

No, actually all the known evidence shows that the Albigensians were perverts (they eschewed marriage and encouraged unnatural practices), practiced ritual murder (called “endure”) and had stupid, illogical, anti-Christian beliefs such as believing physical creation was evil.


33 posted on 09/17/2013 5:48:12 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Sherman Logan; roamer_1
vladimir998: "If there were major sieges, and mass takeovers of cities there actually were many massacres. This would continue in Europe until at least the 17th century."

Arguably, these exterminations only happened when different religions fought each other -- the 17th century 30 Years War being a prime example.
In "normal" warfare, when say, rivals for the throne of a certain duchy fought battles, they typically did not destroy the very duchy they were fighting for.

When William the B*stard conquered England in 1066, his next major act was not to exterminate the Brits, but rather to count them, so he could tax them -- the Doomsday book.

vladimir998: "The Church never 'committed exterminating mass murders against heretics'.
Bezier was besieged by men, not the Church.
Even if a bishop was leading troops, any crimes he committed are entirely his own."

No, no, no, no.... FRiend.
Your church doesn't get off the hook that easy, not any more.
When your church commits crimes, it must pay the price.
In the case of pedophile priests, sure, they go to jail, and the Church also pays millions (or is it billions?) of dollars in restitutions.

Today, justice will be done, and the Church will pay for its crimes.
So, how long is the international statute of limitations on mass exterminations -- a century? a millennium?
A day of reckoning is coming, and you must fervently pray that your church's past victims will be kinder to you than it was to them, FRiend.

vladimir998: "it doesn’t matter who Arnaud-Amaury reported to. He was responsible for his actions and no one else."

You know, even our President, the O-man, has made world-wide apology tours, where he bows down to foreign rulers and begs peoples' forgiveness for America's alleged past sins.
Sure, it's disgusting, but supposedly therapeutic.

And recent Popes have also made numerous apologies, of which this is a partial list.

Personally, I think that's a great beginning, and one reason John Paul II deserves beatification and canonization.
So there's no need your you, vladimir998, to defend what a Pope has already apologized for.

Of course, whether some Pope ever apologized to the Cathar-Albigensians, I couldn't say.
But as I read the historical record, one is due, and it's never too late to confess, repent and seek forgiveness.

You could even start right here, right now vlad...

;-)

vladimir998: "all the known evidence shows that the Albigensians were perverts (they eschewed marriage and encouraged unnatural practices), practiced ritual murder (called “endure”) and had stupid, illogical, anti-Christian beliefs such as believing physical creation was evil."

In post #28 above, roamer_1 responds to your Church propaganda with facts and reasons, severely limited by the fact that nothing from Albigensians themselves survived.

I was especially impressed by this:

Those are my ancestors, we were persecuted by both sides, we don't think so highly of any of you people, with your puffed up arrogance.
Of course, we want to forgive you, since that's what our religion requires.
But first, you have to ask, FRiend...

34 posted on 09/18/2013 2:49:02 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; BroJoeK
A day of reckoning is coming, and you must fervently pray that your church's past victims will be kinder to you than it was to them, FRiend.

Are you channeling Al Sharpton and changing the word White to Church?

35 posted on 09/18/2013 3:07:43 AM PDT by Hacksaw (I haven't taken the 30 silvers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
But at least there were no gas chambers, or crematoria, so it's all cool, right?

If you want a good book on the Inquisition and and antidote to the Catholic propaganda, read:

The Friar of Carcassonne: Revolt Against the Inquisition in the Last Days of the Cathars

The inquisition was like a 14th century stasi, where people routinely made false accusations against rivals in order to eliminate them or take their property.

When the peasantry revolted and started assassinating the inquisitors, the dead clerics were declared "saints"

36 posted on 09/18/2013 3:58:38 AM PDT by ClaytonP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer; infool7; Heart-Rest; HoosierDammit; red irish; fastrock; NorthernCrunchyCon; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

37 posted on 09/18/2013 5:16:53 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
No, FRiend. Just hoping to break through that armor plated arrogance which protects certain posters from the Truth.
Perhaps you can forgive a bit of polemical hyperbole?
38 posted on 09/18/2013 5:25:29 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

You wrote:

“Arguably, these exterminations only happened when different religions fought each other”

Then no massacre happened in Bezier since the population contained a number of Christians as well as heretics. You’re not helping yourself.

“In “normal” warfare, when say, rivals for the throne of a certain duchy fought battles, they typically did not destroy the very duchy they were fighting for.”

Massacring a city would not destroy a “duchy”. It didn’t even destroy Bezier. The city was up and running in no time.

“When William the B*stard conquered England in 1066, his next major act was not to exterminate the Brits, but rather to count them, so he could tax them — the Doomsday book.”

No. The first thing he did of any note was launch the series of vicious campaigns called “The Harrowing of the North” from 1069 to 1070. The contemporary death toll was given as 100,000. William essentially depopulated the North with a scorched earth policy. The Doomsday Book was compiled two decades later and clearly shows the North had still not recovered. William’s policy was to wipe out the population, genocide. He so reduced people to starvation that the survivors started eating each other.

You knew nothing about that, right?

“Your church doesn’t get off the hook that easy, not any more.”

The Church isn’t getting off “easy” because it was never on the hook in the first place. The bishop is entirely responsible for his own actions just like you are.

“When your church commits crimes, it must pay the price.”

The Church didn’t commit any crime and will never pay any price for Bezier.

“In the case of pedophile priests, sure, they go to jail, and the Church also pays millions (or is it billions?) of dollars in restitutions.”

None of which has anything to do with Bezier. In Bezier it was the Albigensians who were committing sodomy.

“Today, justice will be done, and the Church will pay for its crimes.”

The Church committed no crimes.

“So, how long is the international statute of limitations on mass exterminations — a century? a millennium?”

Irrelevant. The Church wouldn’t be charged because the Church didn’t kill anyone.

“A day of reckoning is coming, and you must fervently pray that your church’s past victims will be kinder to you than it was to them, FRiend.”

Nope. The Day of Judgment is coming and the Church has nothing to fear at all. Some men on the other hand do.

“And recent Popes have also made numerous apologies, of which this is a partial list.”

I know the list and knew of the apologies most likely long before you did. I also know they are essentially meaningless. 1) The people harmed get no apology - they are centuries long dead, 2) all the apologies make it clear that people were responsible, not the Church in any culpable sense.

“Personally, I think that’s a great beginning, and one reason John Paul II deserves beatification and canonization.
So there’s no need your you, vladimir998, to defend what a Pope has already apologized for.”

Actually I’m doing what he did. He never apologized for the Church - and neither am I - for the Church did nothing wrong. John Paul II apologized for the actions of men. The liberal press - and stupid anti-Catholics on the internet of course - always say John Paul II apologized for the Church as if he was saying the Church did something wrong. But he always made it clear that it was men who were at fault, not the Church. Pope Benedict did the same thing: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, when discussing the Inquisition wrote: “Even men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel,”. Notice, he said “men of the church”, not the Church.

It helps to actually know what you’re talking about.

“Of course, whether some Pope ever apologized to the Cathar-Albigensians, I couldn’t say.
But as I read the historical record, one is due, and it’s never too late to confess, repent and seek forgiveness.”

An apology for the actions of those men on that day would be just fine, but no confession or repentance is needed or valid - since no living man was involved - and no forgiveness can be sought or is needed today since no living man today was involved or culpable.

“You could even start right here, right now vlad...”

Nope. I see no reason to apologize for something I didn’t do, that no one I have ever met was involved with, and that happened 800 years ago.


39 posted on 09/18/2013 5:48:06 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

“When William the B*stard conquered England in 1066, his next major act was not to exterminate the Brits, but rather to count them, so he could tax them — the Doomsday book.”

By the way, I realize you probably know little about history so your mistakes are understandable, but I thought I should remind you that there were no “Brits” in England in 1066. The people were Anglo-Saxons. There were the Welsh - but in Wales. There were the Breton - but in Brittany. If you’re going to talk about a country, I suggest you actually learn (if you don’t know already) who actually lived there and when.


40 posted on 09/18/2013 6:01:31 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; roamer_1
vladimir998 to romer_1, post #31: "1) I think you mean Bezier and not Benziers."

No, the correct spelling is "Beziers".

vladimir998 to BJK: "Then no massacre happened in Bezier since the population contained a number of Christians as well as heretics.
You’re not helping yourself."

In fact, according to the Crusaders' Pope-appointed commander & Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux Arnaud Amalric, in his after-action report to Pope notso-Innocent III:

Nobody -- not Catholics, their priests or Cathars -- was spared.

vladimir998: "Massacring a city would not destroy a “duchy”.
It didn’t even destroy Bezier.
The city was up and running in no time."

In fact, Beziers was utterly destroyed and its population murdered.
Yes, restorations began just a few years later, but were not completed for another 200 years.

vladimir998: "The first thing he did of any note was launch the series of vicious campaigns called “The Harrowing of the North” from 1069 to 1070.
The contemporary death toll was given as 100,000.
William essentially depopulated the North with a scorched earth policy."

In fact, The Harrowing of the North is left out of most history books, however, I classify it as part of William's conquest of Britain.
And it does not even compare to the Albigensian Crusade:

  1. "In the end, the Albigensian Crusade is estimated to have killed 1 million people, not only Cathars but a significant portion of the general population of southern France."

  2. A contemporary report: "To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty.
    He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes.
    More than 100,000 people perished of hunger."

The Brits were not methodically exterminated, but died of hunger.
Many thousands more fled the British Isles to avoid a similar fate.

vladimir998: "The Church didn’t commit any crime and will never pay any price for Bezier."

I accept your claim that the Church is spiritually innocent of any crimes committed by its officials, including a Pope.
But legally any church is just as responsible as any other legal entity (i.e., corporations) for official actions of their employees.

In this particular case, the Pope officially ordered the assault, and appointed its leader, so the Church is legally responsible for the results.
Of course, 800 years later, nobody is going to collect... or will they?

vladimir998: "The Church wouldn’t be charged because the Church didn’t kill anyone."

In fact, as with any other legal entity, the Church is legally responsible for official crimes of its officials.
So I'll ask again: what is the legal statute of limitations on mass exterminations?

vladimir998: "The Day of Judgment is coming and the Church has nothing to fear at all.
Some men on the other hand do."

I was speaking metaphorically, of course, since the purpose of this particular thread is to warn us about the return of the Albigensian Heresy, this time in secular form.
I was simply warning people that the Church better hope a restored Albigensian Sect is not as brutal to the Church as it was to them.
But the point seems lost on you, right?

vladimir998: "all the apologies make it clear that people were responsible, not the Church in any culpable sense."

Spiritually, perhaps.
Legally, your distinction between Church and its officials is irrelevant.
Were a case to be brought in court, the Church itself, just as with pedophile priests, would pay the price.

vladimir998: "An apology for the actions of those men on that day would be just fine, but no confession or repentance is needed or valid..."

A sincere apology is also a confession and repentance for the Truth.
In my humble opinion, that's all that's really needed at this point.

41 posted on 09/18/2013 1:02:50 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

“Nobody — not Catholics, their priests or Cathars — was spared.”

Of course that isn’t true. As the Jewish Encyclopedia notes: “On July 22, 1209, Béziers was stormed and the inhabitants massacred. Two hundred Jews lost their lives in this massacre, and a large number were driven into captivity.”

If Jews weer driven into captivity, then they were spared massacre. If Jews, who had no connection whatsoever to the combatants, were spared, then others must have been as well.

As I already noted. The town never stopped functioning. Thus, there was a population that was spared plus new inhabitants.


42 posted on 09/18/2013 1:25:35 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
vladimir998: "I should remind you that there were no “Brits” in England in 1066.
The people were Anglo-Saxons.
There were the Welsh - but in Wales.
There were the Breton - but in Brittany"

I'm certain, since you are an expert on all things historical, that you already know: the name "British Isles" dates back to Ancient Greece, circa 500 BC, was used by the Roman conquers, and western civilization in general throughout history.

Yes, the word "Britons" referred to original inhabitants, who later got pushed aside by Anglo-Saxons and others.
But even by 1066, the original British still lived in Wales, Cornwall & Scotland.

In summary: since 300 BC the name is "British Isles", and the people there called "Britons" by outsiders, regardless of what they may have called themselves.

43 posted on 09/18/2013 1:30:10 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
vladimir998: "If Jews weer driven into captivity, then they were spared massacre.
If Jews, who had no connection whatsoever to the combatants, were spared, then others must have been as well."

First, remember: the normal population of Beziers at that time was circa 5,000 so we have to imagine that 15,000 people escaped from the countryside to the Beziers fortress for protection.

And remember: the official report from the Pope's appointed combatant commander, Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric says:

So, FRiend, now you have to ask yourself: if a few escaped, then why would the good Abbot lie and exaggerate the numbers murdered to his Pope notso Innocent III?

vladimir998: "As I already noted. The town never stopped functioning.
Thus, there was a population that was spared plus new inhabitants."

Remember, the 20,000 reported to the Pope as exterminated by Abbot Arnaud Amalric were a mere drop in a sea of blood from the estimated one million total killed in that Albigensian Crusade.
Whether those populations recovered quickly, or over many years is irrelevant to the fact that colossal crimes were committed by officials of, and in the name of, the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome.

44 posted on 09/18/2013 2:02:40 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

“In fact, Beziers was utterly destroyed and its population murdered.”

Actually no. The city was not destroyed and some of the population was spared.

“Yes, restorations began just a few years later, but were not completed for another200 years.”

Actually the city never stopped functioning and recovered quite well in a relatively short amount of time. Already by the early 14th century (just 100 years after the massacre) the population was estimated to be 14,000 (see The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change by Hendrik Spruyt, page 87)

“In fact, The Harrowing of the North is left out of most history books, however, I classify it as part of William’s conquest of Britain.”

Doesn’t matter what you classify it as. It just matters what it was: 1) before the Doomsday Book, 2) a slaughter of people (gee, would someone slaughter his tax paying citizens?).

“And it does not even compare to the Albigensian Crusade”

Actually it does. For one thing, the Albigensian was an actual war with two warring sides. The Harrowing of the North was not. The crusade took a number of years. The Harrowing really took one or two only. Also, the number 1,000,000 generally is not taken seriously by historians. Remember the population in France in 1200 was about 12,000,000. The chance that one out 12 people were killed in Southern France is very unlikely.

“The Brits were not methodically exterminated, but died of hunger.”

Actually not a single Brit was killed. There were no Brits. Plenty of Anglo-Saxons died, however.

“Many thousands more fled the British Isles to avoid a similar fate.”

Actually, no. Very few people left the British isles. Where would they go when it was the Normans attacking them?

“I accept your claim that the Church is spiritually innocent of any crimes committed by its officials, including a Pope.”

It’s not a claim. It’s a fact.

“But legally any church is just as responsible as any other legal entity (i.e., corporations) for official actions of their employees.”

No. That could only be viewed as true in a nation with laws like our own in today’s world. No such understanding of law existed at that time.

“In this particular case, the Pope officially ordered the assault, and appointed its leader, so the Church is legally responsible for the results.”

No. There was no such understanding of law in that way at the time. At that time it was more understood this way: You asked for this by your actions and crime. You got it. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Also, there was simply no framework of law to try the Church since it was not a person, but the Body of Christ and respected as such in law.

“Of course, 800 years later, nobody is going to collect... or will they?”

Nope.

“In fact, as with any other legal entity, the Church is legally responsible for official crimes of its officials.”
Actually, no. There was no “official crime” in the first place since what was done was not ordered by the Church, did not necessarily contravene existing law.

“So I’ll ask again: what is the legal statute of limitations on mass exterminations?”

Your question makes no sense – no matter how often you ask it. Since all involved are dead it wouldn’t matter if there was a statute of limitations in any case.

“I was speaking metaphorically,”

I wasn’t.

“… of course, since the purpose of this particular thread is to warn us about the return of the Albigensian Heresy, this time in secular form.”

So, because a thread speaks about Albigensians in secular form you speak metaphorically? If it were about humpback whales in the Pacific would you speak anagogically?

“I was simply warning people that the Church better hope a restored Albigensian Sect is not as brutal to the Church as it was to them.”

What would it matter? No Albigensians today could be any more harsh than the communists and jihadists of the last century. We’re not afraid of martyrdom.

“But the point seems lost on you, right?”

I don’t think you made a point at all. Your “points” are pointless.

“Spiritually, perhaps.”

Okay.

“Legally, your distinction between Church and its officials is irrelevant.”

So is applying 21st century understandings of law to something that happened in 1209.

“Were a case to be brought in court, the Church itself, just as with pedophile priests, would pay the price.”

Nope. Not a bit. There are no plaintiffs and can’t be.

“A sincere apology is also a confession and repentance for the Truth.”

For John Paul II maybe. But he never apologized for the Church for he knew no such apology was necessary. The Church did nothing wrong.

“In my humble opinion, that’s all that’s really needed at this point.”

You probably won’t get it. And it will be meaningless if you do.


45 posted on 09/18/2013 3:00:47 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
1) I think you mean Bezier and not Benziers.

To be correct, 'Beziers'.

2) The Bishop of Beziers, Renaud II de Montpeyroux, tried to stop the siege. He negotiated with the crusaders. He then prepared a list of a couple of hundred known heretics. Most of the townspeople refused to hand them over to the crusaders.

IOW, they got what they deserved? Most of the town stayed and fought the pope's army along with their so called 'heretic' neighbors... and my point was that they (Cathars) were counted as friends by their neighbors, who at the point of their lives refused to give them up. So much for the 'maniacal heretics' envisioned by the author of the OP. One might wonder who the townspeople would consider the 'maniacal heretics'... But then we will never know, as they all chose to die alongside the Cathars.

Renaud II left with a handful of faithful Catholics - who clearly knew what awaited them if they stayed in the city. They and Renaud made the wise choice. They neither sided with heretics nor stayed to die with them in a siege they were all-but-guaranteed to lose.

Faithful romanists, and supposedly wise, but men of God died within the walls.

After the siege and massacre (which probably wasn’t as extensive as some think)[...]

Riiiight... I hear y'all got the Spanish Inquisition pared down to the deaths of a drunk, a prostitute, and a small burro - Ain't historical revisionism great ?

they moved back into the city and resumed their lives with the new residents who quickly moved into the city and set up shop.

No they didn't, the town was all but razed.

46 posted on 09/18/2013 9:58:54 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; BroJoeK
Also, there is no actual contemporary evidence that anyone said: “Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.”

Caesarius of Heisterbach (ca. 1180 – ca. 1240) attributed the quote "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" (roughly. 'Kill them, God knows His own') to Arnaud.

That is exactly contemporary.

47 posted on 09/18/2013 10:10:56 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

“IOW, they got what they deserved?”

In the view of the people at the time, yes.

“Most of the town stayed and fought the pope’s army along with their so called ‘heretic’ neighbors...”

There was no pope’s army. All the troops were French, raised by Frenchman, and led by Frenchman. And none of that changes the fact that the view of the day was that those in Beziers got what they had coming.

“and my point was that they (Cathars) were counted as friends by their neighbors, who at the point of their lives refused to give them up.”

Which is still irrelevant.

“So much for the ‘maniacal heretics’ envisioned by the author of the OP.”

No, the two are not mutually exclusive. The people of Beziers simply had no reason to agree to anything put forward to them by northern Frenchmen. The Cathars were destructive in their activities, but that doesn’t mean the people of Beziers would hand them over to outsiders.

“One might wonder who the townspeople would consider the ‘maniacal heretics’... But then we will never know, as they all chose to die alongside the Cathars.”

None of them chose to die. They chose to fight. What happened to them in the end was not their choice.

“Faithful romanists, and supposedly wise, but men of God died within the walls.”

Those who left were faithful and wise. Those who stayed inside were faithful to their friends and town, and died for their choice.

“Riiiight... I hear y’all got the Spanish Inquisition pared down to the deaths of a drunk, a prostitute, and a small burro - Ain’t historical revisionism great ?”

The records of the inquisition - which are accurate while the ravings of anti-Catholics are not - tell us that the number of people condemned after an inquisition trial was relatively small over quite a few years. That’s just a fact. If facts bother you, then history is not going to be enjoyable to you.

“No they didn’t, the town was all but razed.”

No, a portion of the town - the towns symbols really - were burned. Much of the town was still standing and serviceable. That’s one of the reasons why the city’s population so quickly rebounded.


48 posted on 09/19/2013 5:38:13 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

“That is exactly contemporary.”

No. Caesarius wrote the Dialogus Miraculorum years later. The earliest dating is that he wrote it from 1219-1223. He was not on the scene and could not have any first hand knowledge of anything said at Beziers. I am not sure if anyone actually knows when he completed the book. You might want to read William Purkis’ very recent article, ‘Crusading and Crusade Memory in Caesarius of Heisterbach’s Dialogus miraculorum’, Journal of Medieval History, Volume 39, Issue 1, 2013, pp 100-127.

Also, there’s an old article - which I do not have access to - which showed the reasons why article’s author believed the bishop could never have said it. See Tamizey de Larroque, “Rev. des quest. hist.” 1866, 1, 168-91.


49 posted on 09/19/2013 6:01:21 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson