Some history

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hisalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The next question is how the religion got to Bulgaria. The answer is that it probably spread from the Eastern Part of the Byzantine Empire to the Western Part. It may have originated in a form of Manichaen belief, itself a melange of Persian Zoroastrianism and early Christian Gnostic dualism. Early Christianity possessed three main strands: the Jewish one (led by James, Jesus’ brother), the Pauline one (created by Paul himself and now represented by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches), and the Gnostic one (at least some of whom followed St John, the disciple). It is well within the bounds of possibility that Catharism represented this early tradition. Certainly the Cathars favoured the John Gospel over all other scripture.

Many clues in Cathar belief and practice point to extremely early origins (they often retained early Christian beliefs and practices that other strands of Christianity abandoned). Medieval chroniclers seems to have been aware of the antiquity of Cathar belief. As Walter Mapp writing around 1182 says:

Everywhere among Christians they have lain hidden since the time of the Lord’s Passion, spraying in error.

cathar.info/1204_origins.htm
 
In fairness, let us see what the exact same website that you use as your source has to say about the Cathars…

Catharism was a name given to a Christian religious sect with dualistic and **gnostic elements **that **appeared in the Languedoc region of France in the 11th century **and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries. Catharism had its roots in the Paulician movement in Armenia and the Bogomils of Bulgaria with whom the Paulicians merged. The influences spread to western Europe through the Bosnian church, as Bosnia was the outermost stronghold for Bogomilism at the time. They also became influenced by dualist and, perhaps, Manichaean beliefs.
 
joshua_b said:
In fairness, let us see what the exact same website that you use as your source has to say about the Cathars…

Catharism was a name given to a Christian religious sect with dualistic and **gnostic elements **that **appeared in the Languedoc region of France in the 11th century **and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries. Catharism had its roots in the Paulician movement in Armenia and the Bogomils of Bulgaria with whom the Paulicians merged. The influences spread to western Europe through the Bosnian church, as Bosnia was the outermost stronghold for Bogomilism at the time. They also became influenced by dualist and, perhaps, Manichaean beliefs.
Click to expand...
We have no original source documents on what the Cathars believed.
 
I’m sorry, but I fail to see the point. Respectfully, what are you getting at in this thread?
 
I for one am not disturbed. The Catholic Church has had 2000 years for its human members to try to destroy it, yet God seems to refuse to allow it to happen for some reason…

I am having this very discussion on another thread as we speak, and I will issue the same challenge on this thread.

Can you name for me any Christian faith tradition that has existed more than a half-hour that has not been tainted or scandalized by the actions of it members?
 
Hisalone said:
We have no original source documents on what the Cathars believed.
Click to expand...
Without specifics, I’m not certain as to about what I should be concerned.
As for original source documents, cannot the same be said about the Bible? Do we possess the original source documents?
 
Hisalone said:
We have no original source documents on what the Cathars believed.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely accurate. We have primary source documents about Catharism and you might want to look at Emmanuel Le Roy Lauderie “Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error” and John H. Arnold “Inquisition and Power: Catharism and the Confessing Subject in Medieval Languedoc.” Both are secular historians and Arnold’s book has a very good introduction to why Cathar sources are so tricky to nail down.

In any event, as a previous poster has stated, I’m not sure what your getting at. The southern French crusades are hardly “disturbing” given the social and cultural context of the medieval period. To be a heretic was not a private issue or a personal choice, it meant being a traitor and a contaigon. Further, Catholicism had tried preaching against the Cathars (one wonders, if what they taught is unknown or benign, why would the pope bother to send missionaries into southern France?) until they killed his legate (Peter of Castelnau I think) which enraged the pope and thus…crusade. One also has to add in the desire or nothern French families to augment their wealth by appropriating lands taken from Cathars or their aristocratic supporters.

In any event, lots of scholarly ink has been spilled on the Cathars.
 
I am not understanding why someone who would start a thread that is the epitome of slanderous, falsely accusatory and irrationally prejudicial would be allowed to do it.
 
statimsciens said:
This is not entirely accurate. We have primary source documents about Catharism and you might want to look at Emmanuel Le Roy Lauderie “Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error” and John H. Arnold “Inquisition and Power: Catharism and the Confessing Subject in Medieval Languedoc.” Both are secular historians and Arnold’s book has a very good introduction to why Cathar sources are so tricky to nail down.

In any event, as a previous poster has stated, I’m not sure what your getting at. The southern French crusades are hardly “disturbing” given the social and cultural context of the medieval period. To be a heretic was not a private issue or a personal choice, it meant being a traitor and a contaigon. Further, Catholicism had tried preaching against the Cathars (one wonders, if what they taught is unknown or benign, why would the pope bother to send missionaries into southern France?) until they killed his legate (Peter of Castelnau I think) which enraged the pope and thus…crusade. One also has to add in the desire or nothern French families to augment their wealth by appropriating lands taken from Cathars or their aristocratic supporters.

In any event, lots of scholarly ink has been spilled on the Cathars.
Click to expand...
Much has been written about them, however I have yet to see any original source documentation about what they truely believed.
 
Angels_Unaware said:
I am not understanding why someone who would start a thread that is the epitome of slanderous, falsely accusatory and irrationally prejudicial would be allowed to do it.
Click to expand...
Get off your high horse.
The RCC has slandered the Cathars for centuries.
 
Hisalone said:
Get off your high horse.
The RCC has slandered the Cathars for centuries.
Click to expand...
For a temperate discussion on the subject, see Ronald Knox’ book: Enthusiasm.

Knox is candid about the “hostile sources” of information about them and therefore careful to moderate his statements.
 
Hisalone said:
Get off your high horse.
The RCC has slandered the Cathars for centuries.
Click to expand...
Where are the Cathers at so I can apologize for this? After all if their religion was truth then it certainly would have survived the persecution of the *Evil Empire *that is the Catholic Church.

God bless
 
Hisalone said:
Much has been written about them, however I have yet to see any original source documentation about what they truely believed.
Click to expand...
Are you saying this is so because no one *can * write about them, or you are simply guessing because you have not read anything about them. As I said, the scholarly (secular, non-Catholic, based on primary sources and public archival material) writing is rather substantial, you only need to look at Arnold’s bibliography.

In any event, if you have never seen a primary source document by Cathars on Cathars, then why are you so confident that what Catholicism says about them (and I am not really sure what “Catholicism” is in this case-I rather doubt most Catholics have an interest in medieval heresies) is slander? That seem tautalogical to me, but I could be wrong.
 
I’m curious-the thread title promised me ‘some history’. I have yet to see anything that approaches history, only unfounded accusations and nasty bigotry masquerading as ‘information’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top