D
D_M
Guest
I would say it looks interesting
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.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Military action was taken against the Albigensians after the Dominicans were sent to preach to them because they murdered the Dominican preachers (St. Peter of Verona aka Peter Martyr and Bl. Peter of Casteleau are two examples). While the Protestants were often as violent, they had something the Albigensians didn’t–the backing of temporal princes. Innocent actually lamented the excesses of Crusaders calling them “dogs” and not Christian.Pope Innocent III lived during the era and was pope at a time when the church was trying to suppress this movement. This is also the time of St Francis of Assisi and St Dominic, the latter of whom founded the Dominicans to combat this very heresy. Itinerant preachers failed to fully defeat the heresy, although certainly many souls were won by the efforts of holy preachers like St Dominic, and so Pope Innocent III, I think maybe ca. 1209 (?) called for a crusade against the Albigensians. The mainly French noblemen with some Spanish magnates, who were sometimes accompanied by papal legates, as well marched into the territory and conquered it, killing thousands of people in actions that would today probably land these men to face a war crimes tribunal in the Hague.
Today I think the Albigensians would simply just be considered another branch of christianity… the difference between what happened to them and the protestant reformation was that the protestants were not crushed by warfare, but these folks were.
It was just diffenent dress (and it applied to Muslims as well). This was part of a decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, over which he presided. It was already the custom in many places anyway and was preferred by all parties involved. The point was to prevent confusion and the possibility of a man marrying a woman he thought was a different religion than what she really was.Pope Innocent III I think is also one of the popes that wrote a constitution for the status of the jews, and I think he may have required them to wear yellow badges.
D
D_M
Guest
The Albigensians had the backing of temporal princes too, but those princes failed to defend their territory adequately… I am tempted to think actually in the reformation that Karl von Hapsburg (Holy Roman Emperor Charles V), the French, Poland, and other catholic nations in the vicinity, had the troops numbers and the political power to destroy the reformation in its early days likethe albigensians had been vanquished if they really wanted to and organized themselves to do so…this may be a controversial statement, but I think the success of the later reformation depended to some degree upon catholic tolerance toward it- the French even allied with the Lutherans against Charles for a period during 1530s, and I think the catholic kingdoms were more concerned about things like the balance of power and how it would be affected by such a land grab than they were in actually vanquishing the heretics, and Charles also found that campaigns against the Turks or the French or campaigns to expand or defend his temporal domain to have occupied his attention for most of his rule, it is true that the protestants actually were left militarily unchallenged for most of the reformation…although it is also true as you say that the political support the Albigensians received was not nearly as much as the later protestants
Innocent also not only derided their excesses but the French and Spanish princes used the war as a pretext of expanding their political control into Languedoc and Provence, which Innocent certainly had not condoned.
It is like the story of Saul’s disobedience in the campaign against Amalek when he took spoil that was not permitted him:
1 Samuel 18-23 And the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go, utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed. Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? why did you swoop on the spoil, and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?" And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornnes is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.”
I liken it to the supposed disobedience of the French and Spanish princes we are talking about here…
Pope Innocent had two documents on the jews that I am aware of, as well as what from the fourth lateran council which talked of both jews and Muslims as you made reference.
the constitution can be found at this link: fordham.edu/halsall/source/in3-constjews.html
This is what came from the fourth lateran council:
CANON 67
Summary. Jews should be compelled to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings e churches, which the Christians supplied before their properties fell into of the Jews.
Text. The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them. We command the princes not to be hostile to the Christians on this account, but rather to strive to hinder the Jews from practicing such excesses. Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.
CANON 68
Summary. Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public.
Text: In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.
Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.
This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.
CANON 69
Summary. Jews are not to be given public offices. Anyone instrumental in doing this is to be punished. A Jewish official is to be denied all intercourse with Christians.
Text. Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo (589) wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. But if anyone should commit such an office to them, let him, after previous warning, be restrained by such punishment as seems proper by the provincial synod which we command to be celebrated every year. The official, however, shall be denied the commercial and other intercourse of the Christians, till in the judgment of the bishop all that he acquired from the Christians from the time he assumed office be restored for the needs of the Christian poor, and the office that he irreverently assumed let him lose with shame. The same we extend also to pagans. [Mansi, IX, 995; Hefele-Leclercq, III, 7.27. This canon 14 of Toledo was frequently renewed.]
CANON 70
Summary. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite.
Text. Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: “Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways” (Ecclus. 2:14), and “a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen” (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one’s steps after it is known.
I looked up the badge and it seems to have been something that came after Innocent had died… there is also some report that Innocent III wrote some document in 1205 that talked about the jews being guilty of Christ’s crucifixion… although I can’t seem to find it and I question its existence.
Innocent also not only derided their excesses but the French and Spanish princes used the war as a pretext of expanding their political control into Languedoc and Provence, which Innocent certainly had not condoned.
It is like the story of Saul’s disobedience in the campaign against Amalek when he took spoil that was not permitted him:
1 Samuel 18-23 And the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go, utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed. Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? why did you swoop on the spoil, and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?" And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornnes is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.”
I liken it to the supposed disobedience of the French and Spanish princes we are talking about here…
Pope Innocent had two documents on the jews that I am aware of, as well as what from the fourth lateran council which talked of both jews and Muslims as you made reference.
the constitution can be found at this link: fordham.edu/halsall/source/in3-constjews.html
This is what came from the fourth lateran council:
CANON 67
Summary. Jews should be compelled to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings e churches, which the Christians supplied before their properties fell into of the Jews.
Text. The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them. We command the princes not to be hostile to the Christians on this account, but rather to strive to hinder the Jews from practicing such excesses. Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.
CANON 68
Summary. Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public.
Text: In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.
Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.
This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.
CANON 69
Summary. Jews are not to be given public offices. Anyone instrumental in doing this is to be punished. A Jewish official is to be denied all intercourse with Christians.
Text. Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo (589) wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. But if anyone should commit such an office to them, let him, after previous warning, be restrained by such punishment as seems proper by the provincial synod which we command to be celebrated every year. The official, however, shall be denied the commercial and other intercourse of the Christians, till in the judgment of the bishop all that he acquired from the Christians from the time he assumed office be restored for the needs of the Christian poor, and the office that he irreverently assumed let him lose with shame. The same we extend also to pagans. [Mansi, IX, 995; Hefele-Leclercq, III, 7.27. This canon 14 of Toledo was frequently renewed.]
CANON 70
Summary. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite.
Text. Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: “Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways” (Ecclus. 2:14), and “a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen” (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one’s steps after it is known.
I looked up the badge and it seems to have been something that came after Innocent had died… there is also some report that Innocent III wrote some document in 1205 that talked about the jews being guilty of Christ’s crucifixion… although I can’t seem to find it and I question its existence.
W
William_II
Guest
Is anyone else partial to Pope Innocent III?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.