Posted on 09/17/2013 5:42:00 AM PDT by NYer
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...
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?
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...
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’
bttt
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...
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.
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
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.
“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.
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."
“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.
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...
Are you channeling Al Sharpton and changing the word White to Church?
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"
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.
“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.
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.