Originally posted by Bosse de NagePapal Infallibility, as I mentioned earlier, applies only to proclamations of the Pope on matters of faith and doctrine when made under certain circumstances. So, even a wretched sinner is "protected" by the charism of infallibility if he is exercising a specific function as Pope.
It seems paradoxical that the same person can be capable of "infallibility" as well as murder, but perhaps life is inherently paradoxical (I wonder was that last bit nonsense).
It is paradoxical, in a sense, but then again, we've all heard of people who can't tie their shoe-laces, but are capable of solving third-order differential equations in their heads, haven't we?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI guess, strictly speaking, the property of infallibility is being attributed to the Holy Ghost and not to Pope. Correct?
Papal Infallibility, as I mentioned earlier, applies only to proclamations of the Pope on matters of faith and doctrine when made under certain circumstances. So, even a wretched sinner is "protected" by the charism of infallibility if he is exercising a specific function as Pope.
It is paradoxical, in a sense, but then again, we've all heard of ...[text shortened]... aces, but are capable of solving third-order differential equations in their heads, haven't we?
Originally posted by lucifershammerGlad you mentioned the Albigensians. How did that go...let's see...a particular belief system spread among the people of (mainly) southern France...this religion was akin to Manicheism and definitely contradicted the teaching of the Church...however the Albigensians did not revolt against any State--rather, when attempts to persuade them to abandon their beliefs failed, the Pope launched a crusade...
In the history of Church till the 15th century or so, the rise of heresies was almost always accompanied by armed rebellion against the State and civil war (e.g. with Nestorianism in the 5th-6th cent. AD and with Albigensianism in the 12th-13th cent. AD).
"The crusaders attacked all the towns where the heresy was strong. An example of the senseless slaughter that took place can be taken from the storming of the city of Beziers. The papal appointee Arnald Almaric, Abbot of Cliteaux, was asked during the siege how he planned to distinguish the believers from the heretics in the city. His answer was spine-chilling: "Kill all, God will know his own." "
The Inquisition was formed when the crusade was over (after some twenty years of slaughter).
"In 1233, Pope Gregory IX (c1148-1241) established the Inquisition or, more formally, The Congregation of the Holy Office. Its aim was simple, to seek out and eradicate the Albigensian heretics. Gregory entrusted the Inquisition to the Dominican monks. As an ecclesiastical court, with a "secular arm" for administering the death penalty, the Inquisition wielded immense power. Accusations can be made anonymously, which made the task of the defence all the more difficult. If a person accused of heresy refused to confess, he will be tried before an Inquisitor, who will generally be assisted by some members of the clergy and the lay community. The ultimate penalty was burning at the stake. Other penalties included imprisonment and confiscation of property". (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/inquisition.html)
Just a bit of history. Fascinating stuff, eh?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe interesting thing about history is that it is rarely so black and white:
Glad you mentioned the Albigensians. How did that go...let's see...a particular belief system spread among the people of (mainly) southern France...this religion was akin to Manicheism and definitely contradicted the teaching of the Church...however the Albigensians did not revolt against any State--rather, when attempts to persuade them to abandon th ...[text shortened]... /www.geocities.com/paulntobin/inquisition.html)
Just a bit of history. Fascinating stuff, eh?
The contact of Christianity with the Oriental mind and Oriental religions had produced several sects (Gnostics, Manichæans, Paulicians, Bogomilae) whose doctrines were akin to the tenets of the Albigenses. But the historical connection between the new heretics and their predecessors cannot be clearly traced. In France, where they were probably introduced by a woman from Italy, the Neo-Manichæan doctrines were secretly diffused for several years before they appeared, almost simultaneously, near Toulouse and at the Synod of Orléans (1022). Those who proposed them were even made to suffer the extreme penalty of death. The Council of Arras (1025), Charroux, Dep. of Vienne (c. 1028), and of Reims (1049) had to deal with the heresy. At that of Beauvais (1114) the case of Neo-Manichæans in the Diocese of Soissons was brought up, but was referred to the council shortly to be held in the latter city. Petrobrusianism now familiarized the South with some of the tenets of the Albigenses. Its condemnation by the Council of Toulouse (1119) did not prevent the evil from spreading. Pope Eugene III (1145-53) sent a legate, Cardinal Alberic of Ostia, to Languedoc (1145), and St. Bernard seconded the legate's efforts. But their preaching produced no lasting effect. The Council of Reims (1148) excommunicated the protectors "of the heretics of Gascony and Provence." That of Tours (1163) decreed that the Albigenses should be imprisoned and their property confiscated. A religious disputation was held (1165) at Lombez, with the usual unsatisfactory result of such conferences. Two years later, the Albigenses held a general council at Toulouse, their chief centre of activity. The Cardinal-Legate Peter made another attempt at peaceful settlement (1178), but he was received with derision. The Third General Council of the Lateran (1179) renewed the previous severe measures and issued a summons to use force against the heretics, who were plundering and devastating Albi, Toulouse, and the vicinity. At the death (1194) of the Catholic Count of Toulouse, Raymond V, his succession fell to Raymond VI (1194-1222) who favoured the heresy. With the accession of Innocent III (1198) the work of conversion and repression was taken up vigorously. In 1205-6 three events augured well for the success of the efforts made in that direction. Raymond VI, in face of the threatening military operations urged by Innocent against him, promised under oath to banish the dissidents from his dominions. The monk Fulco of Marseilles, formerly a troubadour, now became Archbishop of Toulouse (1205-31). Two Spaniards, Diego, Bishop of Osma and his companion, Dominic Guzman (St. Dominic), returning from Rome, visited the papal legates at Montpellier. By their advice, the excessive outward splendour of Catholic preachers, which offended the heretics, was replaced by apostolical austerity. Religious disputations were renewed. St. Dominic, perceiving the great advantages derived by his opponents from the cooperation of women, founded (1206) at Pouille near Carcassonne a religious congregation for women, whose object was the education of the poorer girls of the nobility. Not long after this he laid the foundation of the Dominican Order. Innocent III, in view of the immense spread of the heresy, which infected over 1000 cities or towns, called (1207) upon the King of France, as Suzerain of the County of Toulouse, to use force. He renewed his appeal on receiving news of the assassination of his legate, Peter of Castelnau, a Cistercian monk (1208), which judging by appearances, he attributed to Raymond VI. Numerous barons of northern France, Germany, and Belgium joined the crusade, and papal legates were put at the head of the expedition, Arnold, Abbot of Citeaux, and two bishops. Raymond VI, still under the ban of excommunication pronounced against him by Peter of Castelnau, now offered to submit, was reconciled with the Church, and took the field against his former friends. Roger, Viscount of Béziers, was first attacked, and his principal fortresses, Béziers and Carcassonne, were taken (1209). The monstrous words: "Slay all; God will know His own," alleged to have been uttered at the capture of Béziers, by the papal legate, were never pronounced (Tamizey de Larroque, "Rev. des quest. hist." 1866, I, 168-91). Simon of Monfort, Earl of Leicester, was given control of the conquered territory and became the military leader of the crusade. At the Council of Avignon (1209) Raymond VI was again excommunicated for not fulfilling the conditions of ecclesiastical reconciliation. He went in person to Rome, and the Pope ordered an investigation. After fruitless attempts in the Council of Arles (1211) at an agreement between the papal legates and the Count of Toulouse, the latter left the council and prepared to resist. He was declared an enemy of the Church and his possessions were forfeited to whoever would conquer them. Lavaur, Dep. of Tarn, fell in 1211, amid dreadful carnage, into the hands of the crusaders. The latter, exasperated by the reported massacre of 6,000 of their followers, spared neither age nor sex. The crusade now degenerated into a war of conquest, and Innocent III, in spite of his efforts, was powerless to bring the undertaking back to its original purpose. Peter of Aragon, Raymond's brother-in-law, interposed to obtain his forgiveness, but without success. He then took up arms to defend him. The troops of Peter and of Simon of Montfort met at Muret (1213). Peter was defeated and killed. The allies of the fallen king were now so weakened that they offered to submit. The Pope sent as his representative the Cardinal-Deacon Peter of Santa Maria in Aquiro, who carried out only part of his instructions, receiving indeed Raymond, the inhabitants of Toulouse, and others back into the Church, but furthering at the same time Simon's plans of conquest. This commander continued the war and was appointed by the Council of Montpellier (1215) lord over all the acquired territory. The Pope, informed that it was the only effectual means of crushing the heresy, approved the choice. At the death of Simon (1218), his son Amalric inherited his rights and continued the war with but little success. The territory was ultimately ceded almost entirely by both Amalric and Raymond VII to the King of France, while the Council of Toulouse (1229) entrusted the Inquisition, which soon passed into the hands of the Dominicans (1233), with the repression of Albigensianism. The heresy disappeared about the end of the fourteenth century.†
---
† http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerDude, that's pulled straight from a Catholic site. As good as asking Osama Bin Laden for an objective view of 911. What's more, your article also states that after attempts to convince the Cathars to give up their beliefs failed, the Pope did not hesitate to reach for the sword.
The stuff I pulled off the web is corroborated by Michel Roquebert, the eminent French Cathar scholar. I recommend Histoire des Cathares (Perrin, 2004) for an excellent investigation of the subject.
The Albigensian crusade, like the original crusade, was a sponsored land-grab as much as anything else. Among other things, it contributed immensely to the authority of the French crown (the lands confiscated from Cathar nobles was given to nobles loyal to France; the Cathar nobles were feudally more aligned with the crown of Barcelona). People in Beziers still talk about the torching of their town...it's little wonder that the area became strongly Protestant a few centuries later.
What's your view of the Inquisition?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI've highlighted a few phrases...excuse the mess...of course the notion that the Cathars might have a right to their beliefs was nowhere countenanced...well those were the Middle Ages...except even Saracens tolerated other adherents of other religions within their borders...
"In France, where they were probably introduced by a woman from Italy, the Neo-Manichæan doctrines were secretly diffused for several years before they appeared, almost simultaneously, near Toulouse and at the Synod of Orléans (1022). Those who proposed them were even made to suffer the extreme penalty of death...Its condemnation by the Council of Toulouse (1119) did not prevent the evil from spreading (objective language!). Pope Eugene III (1145-53) sent a legate, Cardinal Alberic of Ostia, to Languedoc (1145), and St. Bernard seconded the legate's efforts. But their preaching produced no lasting effect. The Council of Reims (1148) excommunicated the protectors "of the heretics of Gascony and Provence." That of Tours (1163) decreed that the Albigenses should be imprisoned and their property confiscated...The monstrous words: "Slay all; God will know His own," alleged to have been uttered at the capture of Béziers, by the papal legate, were never pronounced (Tamizey de Larroque, "Rev. des quest. hist." 1866, I, 168-91).YET THE PEOPLE OF BEZIERS WERE MASSACRED NONETHELESS! Lavaur, Dep. of Tarn, fell in 1211, amid dreadful carnage, into the hands of the crusaders. The latter, exasperated by the [/b]reported[/b] massacre of 6,000 of their followers, spared neither age nor sex. ...The Pope, informed that it was the only effectual means of crushing the heresy, approved the choice..."
(Did you know that the troubadour culture--which created the notion of Romantic love & underlies the Western lyric tradition--was rooted in Cathar territory?)
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDude, that's pulled straight from a Catholic site. As good as asking Osama Bin Laden for an objective view of 911.
Dude, that's pulled straight from a Catholic site. As good as asking Osama Bin Laden for an objective view of 911. What's more, your article also states that after attempts to convince the Cathars to give up their beliefs failed, the Pope did not hesitate to reach for the sword.
The stuff I pulled off the web is corroborated by Michel Roquebert, t ...[text shortened]... area became strongly Protestant a few centuries later.
What's your view of the Inquisition?
Why would you think that an article from a site whose 'central thesis' is to show that Christianity has "brought more harm than good to the world"† is going to be more objective than a Catholic article?
Also, do you think the Cath. En. article has falsified or misrepresented facts about the events? If so, which?
The stuff I pulled off the web is corroborated by Michel Roquebert, the eminent French Cathar scholar.
I haven't read Roquebert and, unless his book has an English translation, I don't see how I will. Nevertheless, there is evidently some disagreement within the historian community on some of Roquebert's theses‡.
The Albigensian crusade, like the original crusade, was a sponsored land-grab as much as anything else.
Agreed.
What's your view of the Inquisition?
That I understand and agree with the principle behind the formation of the Office. That I disagree completely with the powers bestowed on it in secular terms. That I reject the interrogatory and judicial techniques used. That I understand these techniques were common (and in some cases, even milder) than those used by State authorities. That it is grossly misunderstood in the common mind. That the casualty figures and tales of cruelty of it in popular culture are easily exaggerated.
---
† http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html .
I don't have the necessary background in history to refute most of his articles, but I do know that none of the three cases he puts forward as "proof of papal fallibility" ( http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/infallible.html#6 )
meets the criteria specified for an ex cathedra infallible statement.
‡ http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:kYgvS1ZZpfUJ:www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/barber2.htm+Michel+Roquebert&hl=en&lr=lang_en .
Historians Pierre Belperron and Yves Dossat seem to disagree on some aspects. Also, from the medieval account of Peter of Les Vaux-de-Cernay, the cruelties of the crusaders were matched by the Albigenses (even if one discounts the "they did it first" bit). Hardly the "non-violent" creed of Paul Tobin's article.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageexcept even Saracens tolerated other adherents of other religions within their borders...
I've highlighted a few phrases...excuse the mess...of course the notion that the Cathars might have a right to their beliefs was nowhere countenanced...well those were the Middle Ages...except even Saracens tolerated other adherents of other religions within their borders...
"In France, where they were probably introduced by a woman from Italy, ...[text shortened]... otion of Romantic love & underlies the Western lyric tradition--was rooted in Cathar territory?)
The Saracens, perhaps. But not, apparently, the Turks (which is what started the Crusades in the first place):
In the year 637 the armies of Islam lead by the Caliph Omar conquered the city of Jerusalem, the center of the Christian world and a magnet for Christian pilgrims. The city's Muslim masters exhibited a certain level of religious tolerance. No new churches were to be built and crosses could not be publicly displayed outside church buildings, but the pilgrims were allowed to continue their treks to the holiest shrines of Christendom (the pilgrims were charged a toll for access). The situation remained stable for over 400 years. Then, in the latter part of the 11th century, the Turks swarmed westward out of Central Asia overrunning all that lay in their path. Jerusalem fell to them in 1076. The atmosphere of tolerance practiced by the followers of Omar was replaced by vicious attacks on the Christian pilgrims and on their sacred shrines in the Holy City. Reports of robberies, beatings, killings, degradation of holy sites and the kidnapping for ransom of the city's patriarch made their way back to Europe. To the Europeans the Holy Land was now in the smothering grip of the Infidel and something must be done. †
---
† http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI intimated that my stuff was "pulled from the Web". That's why I balanced it with a reference to a reputable historian.
Belperron wrote his work in 1942. "In 1998 Pierre Martel's sarcastic comment was that "we do not advise anyone who wishes to know about Catharism to read Belperron; but if they wish to understand how l'ideologie petainiste functioned, his contribution seems to us fundamental."" Belperron was a follower of Marshal Petain, the French collaborator.
Mediaval historians are notoriously partisan. Think of Geraldus de Cambrensis, who would have you think that the Irish deserved to be invaded because they were such savage thugs.
With regard to the chronicler you mention, "How did the chroniclers and poets who describe these incidents view them within the mores of their own time? The very fact that Peter of Les Vaux-de-Cernay felt it necessary to follow his account of the mutilation of the garrison at Bram with a peroration on Montfort's qualities is indicative, since he clearly did not think that this was "normal" behaviour, despite his blinkered support for "the count."
Your reading of the article you cite seems disingenuous.
Nor can you discount the "they did it first" bit. To give just one example, the Khmer Rouge would not have existed had "it" not been done to "them". Not to mention the Taliban.
I agree with your views on the Inquisition.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm afraid that site is rubbish. I don't have time to go into it but it's big on spin and short on facts. For a start, it doesn't mention that Jerusalem was occupied by the Fatimids,not the Turks, when the Crusaders arrived to capture it. But those are details...
[b]except even Saracens tolerated other adherents of other religions within their borders...
The Saracens, perhaps. But not, apparently, the Turks (which is what started the Crusades in the first place):
In the year 637 the armies of Islam lead by the Caliph Omar conquered the city of Jerusalem, the center of the Christian world and a mag ...[text shortened]... idel and something must be done. †
---
† http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm[/b]
What was the cause of the first Crusade?
The Byzantine Empire was sick; the Turks wiped out its army at Manzikert in 1076 and were encroaching on its territory all the time.
"In March of 1095 Alexius I sent envoys to the Council of Piacenza to ask Urban for aid against the Turks. The emperor's request met with a favourable response from Urban, who hoped to heal the Great Schism of 40 years prior and re-unite the Church under papal supremacy as "chief bishop and prelate over the whole world" (as he referred to himself at Clermont,, by helping the Eastern churches in their time of need." (wikipedia)
And so on, the Wikipedia article is pretty good.
So the first Crusade had a little more complexity to it than that article you cited suggests.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBosse: "Dude, that's pulled straight from a Catholic site. As good as asking Osama Bin Laden for an objective view of 911. What's more, your article also states that after attempts to convince the Cathars to give up their beliefs failed, the Pope did not hesitate to reach for the sword.
Dude, that's pulled straight from a Catholic site. As good as asking Osama Bin Laden for an objective view of 911. What's more, your article also states that after attempts to convince the Cathars to give up their beliefs failed, the Pope did not hesitate to reach for the sword.
The stuff I pulled off the web is corroborated by Michel Roquebert, t ...[text shortened]... area became strongly Protestant a few centuries later.
What's your view of the Inquisition?
The stuff I pulled off the web is corroborated by Michel Roquebert, the eminent French Cathar scholar. I recommend Histoire des Cathares (Perrin, 2004) for an excellent investigation of the subject. "
If we apply your criteria of what constitutes an accepted degree of "objectivity" in choosing our sources, then we have to dismiss your source as well, because it is written by a Cathar scholar.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHe's not a Cathar; Cathars haven't existed since the 14th century. He is an historian focusing on the Cathars.
If we apply your criteria of what constitutes an accepted degree of "objectivity" in choosing our sources, then we have to dismiss your source as well, because it is written by a Cathar scholar.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI intimated that my stuff was "pulled from the Web". That's why I balanced it with a reference to a reputable historian.
I intimated that my stuff was "pulled from the Web". That's why I balanced it with a reference to a reputable historian.
Belperron wrote his work in 1942. "In 1998 Pierre Martel's sarcastic comment was that "we do not advise anyone who wishes to know about Catharism to read Belperron; but if they wish to understand how l'ideologie petainiste ...[text shortened]... een done to "them". Not to mention the Taliban.
I agree with your views on the Inquisition.
I do not have access to Roquebert's book or research but, if you do, could you let me know what his views were on:
- the "Kill them all" statement
- the "set quia adversarii sui hoc inceperant" statement of Peter of Les Vaux-de-Cernay?
I see no reason yet to change my original thesis - "In the history of Church till the 15th century or so, the rise of heresies was almost always accompanied by armed rebellion against the State and civil war".
Your reading of the article you cite seems disingenuous.
How so?