S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Contarini
Guest
There were no “invading aggressors” in view at IV Lateran. It had nothing to do with Islam. It was primarily talking about the Albigenses, people living in their own lands under their own rulers who had been terrorized by invading Catholic armies because they held heretical beliefs and because their rulers refused to try to coerce them to abandon those beliefs.Im seeing removal from office, excommunication and being handed over to the court system for priests and laymen, expulsion from the land for the invading aggressors.
You are, in fact, being flippant with history.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Of course you can repent. But not if the community entrusted with the standards that call you to repentance has altered those standards so that they no longer exist. You can’t then recreate them from your nostalgic imagination triggered by ancient texts whose context has been lost.Thanks but…kindly disagree to a point. Look at the letters to the seven churches in Revelations. There is such a thing as stepping in the river twice, especially if you got out or went down the wrong tributary, and need to get back into the proper flow of things. There is such a thing as "repenting’’, getting back on track, on many issues.
And that’s how we get an endless plethora of reform movements, each claiming that this time they really will get back to the New Testament and unite all true believers.Things amongst us can be qualified and quantified, as is for each generation. In some ways nothing is new, and in some ways He and we don’t change thru the ages. There is continuity of some things. This can be applied to doctrine and to practice. Of course i agree to some relativity to culture and times, but certainly we can attain to the many of the absolutes of our forefathers. And let each judge for themselves as to how they stack up.
It never happens. Never.
At what point do you recognize that you’re being sold the Brooklyn Bridge?
Also, this is all very vague. Just to take one specific example: sola fide is pretty clearly a sixteenth-century theory shaped by late scholasticism, Renaissance humanism, and a highly legalistic society’s concern with being in right standing with the proper authorities. It doesn’t “get back to” the first century at all.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t know how you get that conclusion. With all due respect, you don’t seem to know much about the actual context.Okay then. Different direction. You can tell quite plainly from the surrounding text that the issue is Islamic invasion and defense of Catholic countries.
Quite the reverse was the case. An invasion had taken place, but it was an invasion by Catholics of southern France, where the Albigensian heresy was tolerated.
Catholic apologists have sometimes claimed that the Albigensians were so vicious and violent and anti-social that the crusade was justified, but this doesn’t seem well-founded to me at all. The only actual act of violence I know of that precipitated the crusade was the murder of a Church emissary who was preaching against heresy and trying to get the rulers to suppress it. Hardly the kind of horrific violence against peaceful Catholics that you imagine. In response, Catholics did unleash horrific violence, which indeed swept up Catholics as well as heretics. Thousands of people, Catholics and heretics alike, were massacred at Beziers in 1209, although the claim that the papal legate had ordered the indiscriminate massacre (a claim made a few decades later by a sympathetic Catholic chronicler who thought the massacre was justified) isn’t borne out by the legate’s own letter to the Pope, which describes the massacre as spontaneous. Still, that’s the horrific violence that had been taking place. IV Lateran can be viewed favorably in this context in the sense that it’s trying to substitute a more orderly process of “exterminating heresy” for indiscriminate warfare.
The word “exterminate” is there because the Latin says “extermino.” However, “extermino” does have the root meaning of “to drive out” (I should have known this, but actually didn’t realize it until recently when debating this same issue in another thread). But it could refer to killing, as the passage from Aquinas shows. I would still tend to translate it as “get rid of,” which is properly ambiguous. The goal is that there shouldn’t be any heretics remaining in Christian lands. But in fact, historically, we know that this was generally done by killing and not by expelling them. If you can give me an example of heretics being peacefully expelled (we are talking about baptized heretics and not Jews or Muslims here) in the thirteenth century, please do so. In contrast, we have lots of examples of their being killed. IV Lateran tells Christians to hand these folks over to the civil authorities. And the standard punishment inflicted by those authorities was death by burning. So even though “extermino” doesn’t have to mean killing, in context I still think it does mean that here. At least, even if the command could have been fulfilled without killing, we know that it wasn’t and we know that the Fathers of Lateran IV wouldn’t have expected it to be.
Edwin
A
Adamski
Guest
I started the thread months ago and you are completely off topicI’m sorry; was it me you intended to quote? Because we were discussing murdering heretics and how it relates to Peter and Ananais. What’s your point? Or are you making a new one?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
The purposes of the council were clearly set forth by Innocent himself : "to eradicate vices and to plant virtues, to correct faults and to reform morals, to remove heresies and to strengthen faith, to settle discords and to establish peace, to get rid of oppression and to foster liberty, to induce princes and Christian people to come to the aid and succour of the holy Land… ".I don’t know how you get that conclusion. With all due respect, you don’t seem to know much about the actual context.
Quite the reverse was the case. An invasion had taken place, but it was an invasion by Catholics of southern France, where the Albigensian heresy was tolerated.
Edwin
and Article 47
With the approval of this sacred council, we forbid anyone to promulgate a sentence of excommunication on anyone, unless an adequate warning has been given beforehand in the presence of suitable persons, who can if necessary testify to the warning. If anyone dares to do the contrary, even if the sentence of excommunication is just, let him know that he is forbidden to enter a church for one month and he is to be punished with another penalty if this seems expedient. Let him carefully avoid proceeding to excommunicate anyone without manifest and reasonable cause. If he does so proceed and, on being humbly requested, does not take care to revoke the process without imposing punishment, then the injured person may lodge a complaint of unjust excommunication with a superior judge. The latter shall then send the person back to the judge who excommunicated him, if this can be done without the danger of a delay, with orders that he is to be absolved within a suitable period of time. If the danger of delay cannot be avoided, the task of absolving him shall be carried out by the superior judge, either in person or through someone else, as seems expedient, after he has obtained adequate guarantees. Whenever it is established that the judge pronounced an unjust excommunication, he shall be condemned to make compensation for damages to the one excommunicated, and be nonetheless punished in another way at the discretion of the superior judge if the nature of the fault calls for it, since it is not a trivial fault to inflict so great a punishment on an innocent person — unless by chance he erred for reasons that are credible — especially if the person is of praiseworthy repute. But if nothing reasonable is proved against the sentence of excommunication by the one making the complaint, then the complainant shall be condemned in punishment, for the unreasonable trouble caused by his complaint, to make compensation or in some other way according to the discretion of the superior judge, unless by chance his error was based on something that is credible and so excuses him; and he shall moreover be compelled upon a pledge to make satisfaction in the matter for which he was justly excommunicated, or else he shall be subject again to the former sentence which is to be inviolably observed until full satisfaction has been made. If the judge, however, recognizes his error and is prepared to revoke the sentence, but the person on whom it was passed appeals, for fear that the judge might revoke it without making satisfaction, then the appeal shall not be admitted unless the error is such that it may deserve to be questioned. Then the judge, after he has given sufficient security that he will appear in court before the person to whom the appeal had been made or one delegated by him, shall absolve the excommunicated person and thus shall not be subject to the prescribed punishment. Let the judge altogether beware, if he wishes to avoid strict canonical punishment, lest out of a perverse intention to harm someone he pretends to have made an error.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Flippant means to lack respect. A willingness to make good motive evil. While I do know the Albigensian episode I had thought it was later than this council. So I was drawing instead on Article 71 and the obvious position of self-defense. With regard to the Albigensian there is the question of Arnaud de Verniolles by Bishop Jacques Fournier.There were no “invading aggressors” in view at IV Lateran. It had nothing to do with Islam. It was primarily talking about the Albigenses, people living in their own lands under their own rulers who had been terrorized by invading Catholic armies because they held heretical beliefs and because their rulers refused to try to coerce them to abandon those beliefs.
You are, in fact, being flippant with history.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Glass houses and stones. By that logic secular authorities would be justified in burning alive all Catholic priests.Flippant means to lack respect. A willingness to make good motive evil. While I do know the Albigensian episode I had thought it was later than this council. So I was drawing instead on Article 71 and the obvious position of self-defense. With regard to the Albigensian there is the question of Arnaud de Verniolles by Bishop Jacques Fournier.
Clarification for people not familiar with this story (indeed, I had to look up the name, although I had a guess as to what Darryl might be talking about):
Arnaud de Verniolles believed that he had caught a disease from a prostitute as judgment from God, and thus decided to sleep with boys instead. Darryl is suggesting (as many Catholic apologists have suggested) that this was a systemic practice of the Cathars, thus justifying their repression. Hence my parallel with Catholic priests. The fact that one Cathar (or indeed several Cathars) did this does not prove that Cathars as a whole did it or that it was taught as a legitimate practice.
The Cathars were commonly accused of promoting non-procreative sexual practices because they thought that procreation was evil. However, as far as I know there is no evidence that they did this. And again, hence the parallel with the priest scandals. Imagine a future world in which the Catholic Church had been wiped out and its teachings were only available in fragmentary form and in reports of the trials in which the last Catholics were martyred. Imagine what such a future society would believe of Catholicism.
Accusing people of sexual misbehavior in order to justify killing them is an old trick.
Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
The military portion of the campaign against the Albigensian heretics had been ongoing for around 7-8 years when the Council was convened, and ran on for around 14 years more. Canon 3 was tailored to deal with the Cathar heretics and the authorities who tolerated or supported them. Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, most prominently.Flippant means to lack respect. A willingness to make good motive evil. While I do know the Albigensian episode I had thought it was later than this council. So I was drawing instead on Article 71 and the obvious position of self-defense. With regard to the Albigensian there is the question of Arnaud de Verniolles by Bishop Jacques Fournier.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
The dualistic roots of the Cathars/Albigensians in the Bogomil movement in eastern Europe led to the old French term bougre as an epithet for them. And the term came down to us as “bugger”. A trait attributed to all such dualist heretics.Glass houses and stones. By that logic secular authorities would be justified in burning alive all Catholic priests.
Clarification for people not familiar with this story (indeed, I had to look up the name, although I had a guess as to what Darryl might be talking about):
Arnaud de Verniolles believed that he had caught a disease from a prostitute as judgment from God, and thus decided to sleep with boys instead. Darryl is suggesting (as many Catholic apologists have suggested) that this was a systemic practice of the Cathars, thus justifying their repression. Hence my parallel with Catholic priests. The fact that one Cathar (or indeed several Cathars) did this does not prove that Cathars as a whole did it or that it was taught as a legitimate practice.
The Cathars were commonly accused of promoting non-procreative sexual practices because they thought that procreation was evil. However, as far as I know there is no evidence that they did this. And again, hence the parallel with the priest scandals. Imagine a future world in which the Catholic Church had been wiped out and its teachings were only available in fragmentary form and in reports of the trials in which the last Catholics were martyred. Imagine what such a future society would believe of Catholicism.
Accusing people of sexual misbehavior in order to justify killing them is an old trick.
Edwin
GKC
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Contextually I can only see Canon 3 dealing with ALL heretics. Not just one specific. It was 40 years until Constantinople churches got converted into mosques (with some renovations). I do not think this impending situation would be excluded from the self-defense nature of the Council.The military portion of the campaign against the Albigensian heretics had been ongoing for around 7-8 years when the Council was convened, and ran on for around 14 years more. Canon 3 was tailored to deal with the Cathar heretics and the authorities who tolerated or supported them. Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, most prominently.
GKC
Where did the Cathars get their property from?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
I am merely pointing out that the heresy probably included an aspect of morality, that I have no right to judge enactments (I only pointed out a case but your response is reactory). That the situation was far more complex than we know. I am not interested in this us vs them mentality.Glass houses and stones. By that logic secular authorities would be justified in burning alive all Catholic priests.
Clarification for people not familiar with this story (indeed, I had to look up the name, although I had a guess as to what Darryl might be talking about):
Arnaud de Verniolles believed that he had caught a disease from a prostitute as judgment from God, and thus decided to sleep with boys instead. Darryl is suggesting (as many Catholic apologists have suggested) that this was a systemic practice of the Cathars, thus justifying their repression. Hence my parallel with Catholic priests. The fact that one Cathar (or indeed several Cathars) did this does not prove that Cathars as a whole did it or that it was taught as a legitimate practice.
The Cathars were commonly accused of promoting non-procreative sexual practices because they thought that procreation was evil. However, as far as I know there is no evidence that they did this. And again, hence the parallel with the priest scandals. Imagine a future world in which the Catholic Church had been wiped out and its teachings were only available in fragmentary form and in reports of the trials in which the last Catholics were martyred. Imagine what such a future society would believe of Catholicism.
Accusing people of sexual misbehavior in order to justify killing them is an old trick.
Edwin
But one thing I take exception to is the policy that Catholic was a rampant killing machine, and anyone opposed to them were innocent (if you excuse the direction). It wasn’t like that the underlying motivation of the Catholic Church in this Council was self defense as the overview states.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, it was well over 200 years. . . . At the time of IV Lateran, in fact, Constantinople was in Catholic hands, after the Crusaders had sacked it, plundered, raped nuns, etc. (To be fair, they were excommunicated when they did it and further condemned for doing it. But the Pope still took the occasion to “heal the schism.” Not a bad guy, Innocent III, in my opinion, but definitely someone who put on the Ring.)Contextually I can only see Canon 3 dealing with ALL heretics. Not just one specific. It was 40 years until Constantinople churches got converted into mosques (with some renovations). I do not think this impending situation would be excluded from the self-defense nature of the Council.
The “self-defense” was defense against the horrifying possibility that people might be running around with an alternative vision of Christianity. You need to deal with this reality instead of continually trying to deny it.
Probably inherited it, etc. The same normal places normal people get their property from.Where did the Cathars get their property from?
They were, you know, people. Just people with a different theology. And for that the Church considered them unfit to live.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure what this “us vs them mentality” is of which you seem to be accusing me. You seem to be suggesting that the Cathars must have done something worthy of being killed. I see no evidence that they did.I am merely pointing out that the heresy probably included an aspect of morality, that I have no right to judge enactments (I only pointed out a case but your response is reactory). That the situation was far more complex than we know. I am not interested in this us vs them mentality.
I agree that the situation was complex, but I have no reason to assume that all the complexities, if known, would justify the Church’s actions.
That’s a straw man (in the context of this thread–I know that many people do talk that way and I acknowledge that you’re responding to those unfair attacks).But one thing I take exception to is the policy that Catholic was a rampant killing machine, and anyone opposed to them were innocent (if you excuse the direction).
Defense of a religious monopoly against the terrifying possibility that there might be several ways of being Christian in the same territory, yes.It wasn’t like that the underlying motivation of the Catholic Church in this Council was self defense as the overview states.
And that was wrong. They ought not to have been so afraid of giving people freedom. They put on the Ring, and we are living in the world that resulted from that terrible choice–a world where people don’t trust the Church and associate it with violence. Yes, people exaggerate and slander the Church. I know that. In fact, that’s why I’m so suspicious of what medieval Catholics said about the Cathars–I assume that they were probably just as unfair to the Cathars as people are to Catholics in our society. But you need to stop assuming that anyone who brings up the violent history of the Church is just doing so out of prejudice. This is a reality that has to be confronted honestly, without whitewash.
Note that this thread began as an attack on Protestantism for supposedly ignoring or denying history.
Perhaps a more fruitful direction to take the thread would be a comparison of how Catholics and Protestants deal with the difficulties posed by history. Protestants, especially the free-church ones, have an easy out: “we weren’t there and those people weren’t real Christians anyway.” (This argument is used by far more Protestants than the relatively small minority who think that all Catholics are “not real Christians.” Many evangelical Protestants are happy to acknowledge “good” Catholics of the Middle Ages to be real Christians, but they still assume that the people who did the violent stuff weren’t.) I came to the conclusion that that’s a dishonest and destructive path. And, of course, if “we” aren’t responsible for what the medieval Church did, it’s because “we” have renounced all continuity with the historic Church. (Some radical Protestants try to get round this by claiming continuity through heretical groups, sometimes even the Cathars, in defiance of everything we know about the Cathars.) I think it’s better to embrace all of church history as something that belongs to me, even though that means in some sense accepting collective responsibility for the many evil deeds of institutional Christianity. The modern trend is to scoff at “organized religion” and exalt individual spirituality. So Catholics have a tough row to hoe, and I understand why it’s tempting to deny or play down the bad stuff (especially since the bad stuff is often distorted and exaggerated and it’s hard to be sure when one is whitewashing and when one is just correcting the record!). But in the long run Catholics have the stronger case precisely because they have a long history, warts and all.
And practically speaking, I’m pretty confident that the Church would know better, if it were in that position again (though perhaps I’m naive). I have no such confidence about conservative Protestants. Because they refuse to acknowledge the Church’s dark history as theirs, they have no collective memory to warn them. Fundamentalists in particular really seem to think that Catholics persecuted because they “weren’t really Christians” and that “real Christians” wouldn’t do it. So they are blind to their own intolerance and violence.
Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
It certainly did express the attitude to be adopted toward heretics generally, but contextually, it was aimed directly at the heretics and their supporters in the* Languedoc*, in what Fr. Philip Hughes (THE CHURCH IN CRISIS) called the long bloody war of the Albigensian Crusade) then ongoing. They were also mentioned,specifically, in Lateran III, roughly 30 years previously.Contextually I can only see Canon 3 dealing with ALL heretics. Not just one specific. It was 40 years until Constantinople churches got converted into mosques (with some renovations). I do not think this impending situation would be excluded from the self-defense nature of the Council.
Where did the Cathars get their property from?
The Albigensians, the form of Cathars concerned, got their property from precisely where all others in what became that area of France did. They were locals who were converts to the heresy. Not invaders.
Recommended: O’Shea/THE PERFECT HERESY: THE REVOLUTIONARY LIFE AND DEATH OF THE MEDIEVAL CATHARS, Sumption/THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE, Strayer/THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADES.
GKC
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
:bowdown2:I’m not sure what this “us vs them mentality” is of which you seem to be accusing me. You seem to be suggesting that the Cathars must have done something worthy of being killed. I see no evidence that they did.
I agree that the situation was complex, but I have no reason to assume that all the complexities, if known, would justify the Church’s actions.
That’s a straw man (in the context of this thread–I know that many people do talk that way and I acknowledge that you’re responding to those unfair attacks).
Defense of a religious monopoly against the terrifying possibility that there might be several ways of being Christian in the same territory, yes.
And that was wrong. They ought not to have been so afraid of giving people freedom. They put on the Ring, and we are living in the world that resulted from that terrible choice–a world where people don’t trust the Church and associate it with violence. Yes, people exaggerate and slander the Church. I know that. In fact, that’s why I’m so suspicious of what medieval Catholics said about the Cathars–I assume that they were probably just as unfair to the Cathars as people are to Catholics in our society. But you need to stop assuming that anyone who brings up the violent history of the Church is just doing so out of prejudice. This is a reality that has to be confronted honestly, without whitewash.
Note that this thread began as an attack on Protestantism for supposedly ignoring or denying history.
Perhaps a more fruitful direction to take the thread would be a comparison of how Catholics and Protestants deal with the difficulties posed by history. Protestants, especially the free-church ones, have an easy out: “we weren’t there and those people weren’t real Christians anyway.” (This argument is used by far more Protestants than the relatively small minority who think that all Catholics are “not real Christians.” Many evangelical Protestants are happy to acknowledge “good” Catholics of the Middle Ages to be real Christians, but they still assume that the people who did the violent stuff weren’t.) I came to the conclusion that that’s a dishonest and destructive path. And, of course, if “we” aren’t responsible for what the medieval Church did, it’s because “we” have renounced all continuity with the historic Church. (Some radical Protestants try to get round this by claiming continuity through heretical groups, sometimes even the Cathars, in defiance of everything we know about the Cathars.) I think it’s better to embrace all of church history as something that belongs to me, even though that means in some sense accepting collective responsibility for the many evil deeds of institutional Christianity. The modern trend is to scoff at “organized religion” and exalt individual spirituality. So Catholics have a tough row to hoe, and I understand why it’s tempting to deny or play down the bad stuff (especially since the bad stuff is often distorted and exaggerated and it’s hard to be sure when one is whitewashing and when one is just correcting the record!). But in the long run Catholics have the stronger case precisely because they have a long history, warts and all.
And practically speaking, I’m pretty confident that the Church would know better, if it were in that position again (though perhaps I’m naive). I have no such confidence about conservative Protestants. Because they refuse to acknowledge the Church’s dark history as theirs, they have no collective memory to warn them. Fundamentalists in particular really seem to think that Catholics persecuted because they “weren’t really Christians” and that “real Christians” wouldn’t do it. So they are blind to their own intolerance and violence.
Edwin
D
Darryl_B
Guest
I think you are grossly misunderstanding what I am saying, the council made specific claims, claims which need to be regarded in their own right. Then there were the Cathars (who were actually trivial historically to that period of unrest except in the mind of the protestant) then the history of Crusading built into French Knights, Toulouse being the origin of the leader of the First Crusade, French Crusading doing the enacting against the Cathars, Spain liberated from Islam, the same heresy in Italy as the Cathars not so burned and barely on the radar of history (dealt with don’t know), a recent sacking of Rome, a Mongol invasion, sacking Constantinople prior to the Council (yes wrong, by hired help and condemned), and finally people usurping yes usurping Christianity when they were nothing like it (denying the Trinity incarnation etc), all the while underneath St Francis and the Dominicans, slightly later Aquinas, because the background was ripe.I agree that the situation was complex, but I have no reason to assume that all the complexities, if known, would justify the Church’s actions.
(And I mixed up 1261 with 1453).
But today we sit back and invade Iraq. Think nothing of it because we all agree on the context. We look back over the last century and say it was just. And then judge history in our own little filter oblivious to 98% of the facts, when the only complex decision we make is which tie do I wear with this shirt.
All the while ignoring the fact that our own forefathers were there.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
I disagree with the Languedoc comment because the same heresy was in Italy itself under a different name. That other group would also be regarded as heretics, and the expectation would be to enact Canon 3 against them too. An invader is someone who takes possession of something that does not belong to them. That includes souls. No? According to some, Cathar would not have property (cause they cared for no such thing), specially not the elaborate labour intensive castles they possessed in their defense.It certainly did express the attitude to be adopted toward heretics generally, but contextually, it was aimed directly at the heretics and their supporters in the* Languedoc*, in what Fr. Philip Hughes (THE CHURCH IN CRISIS) called the long bloody war of the Albigensian Crusade) then ongoing. They were also mentioned,specifically, in Lateran III, roughly 30 years previously.
The Albigensians, the form of Cathars concerned, got their property from precisely where all others in what became that area of France did. They were locals who were converts to the heresy. Not invaders.
Recommended: O’Shea/THE PERFECT HERESY: THE REVOLUTIONARY LIFE AND DEATH OF THE MEDIEVAL CATHARS, Sumption/THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE, Strayer/THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADES.
GKC
S
siamus2k13
Guest
youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpIHi: I think that somehow you have misunderstood between what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals and discipline. The CC itself did not kill anyone but sent them to secular or civil authorities. Now there was the Spainish Inquisition that was started by the king and queen of Spain in 1492 and continued on for several centuries. They were after all converts Jews and Muslems and anyone who someone did not like for what ever reason. So what I am saying is that it was discipline not doctrine which is different.
protestants were just as bad from all of the history I have read and during that time period there was much in the way of religious intolerance between Protestants and Catholic’s as well as those who were non-Christian. So one can’t put it on all of the CC. there is enough to go around.
G
GKC
Guest
Cathars were in a lot of places. So were the authorities that supported them. The Albigensian Crusade was so named because the Church found them particularly concentrated in the town of Albi. In the Languedoc-Toulouse region…I disagree with the Languedoc comment because the same heresy was in Italy itself under a different name. That other group would also be regarded as heretics, and the expectation would be to enact Canon 3 against them too. An invader is someone who takes possession of something that does not belong to them. That includes souls. No? According to some, Cathar would not have property (cause they cared for no such thing), specially not the elaborate labour intensive castles they possessed in their defense.
I do suggest some in-depth reading.
GKC
- Status
- Not open for further replies.