Originally posted by lucifershammerDespite the fact that even the source you quoted says that a) envoys were sent to persuade the Cathars to recant and b) when that failed the Pope called a Crusade? There was no "rebellion".
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".
Some Wikipedia for you (type in "Cathars"😉:
"The first French Cathars appeared in Limousin between 1012 and 1020. Several were discovered and put to death at Toulouse in 1022. The synods of Charroux (Vienne) (1028) and Toulouse (1056) condemned the growing sect. Preachers were summoned to the districts of the Agenais and the Toulousain to combat the Cathar doctrine in the 1100s. The Cathars, however, gained ground in the south thanks to the protection given by William, Duke of Aquitaine, and a significant proportion of the southern nobility. The people were impressed by the bons hommes, and the anti-sacerdotal preaching of Peter of Bruys and Henry of Lausanne in Périgord."
"In 1147, Pope Eugene III sent a legate to the affected district in order to arrest the progress of the Cathars. The few isolated successes of Bernard of Clairvaux could not obscure the poor results of this mission, and clearly shows the power of the sect in the south of France at that period. The missions of Cardinal Peter (of St. Chrysogonus) to Toulouse and the Toulousain in 1178, and of Henry, cardinal-bishop of Albano, in 1180–1181, obtained merely momentary successes. Henry of Albano's armed expedition, where he took the stronghold at Lavaur, did not extinguish the movement.
The persistent decisions of the councils against the Cathars at this period — in particular, those of the Council of Tours (1163) and of the Third Council of the Lateran (1179) — had scarcely more effect. By the time Pope Innocent III came to power in 1198, he had resolved to suppress the Cathari.
At first he tried pacific conversion, and sent a number of legates into the affected regions. They had to contend not only with the Cathars, the nobles who protected them, and the people who venerated them, but also with the bishops of the district, who rejected the extraordinary authority which the Pope had conferred upon his legates. In 1204 Innocent III suspended the authority of the bishops in the south of France. Papal legate Peter of Castelnau, known for excommunicating the noblemen who protected the Cathars, excommunicated the Count of Toulouse as an abettor of heresy in 1207. Peter was then murdered near Saint Gilles Abbey in 1208 on his way back to Rome, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "probably at the connivance of Raymond VI, count of Toulouse". As soon as he heard of the murder, the Pope ordered his legates to preach the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars.
This war threw the whole of the nobility of the north of France against that of the south, possibly instigated by a papal decree stating that all land owned by Cathars could be confiscated at will. As the area was full of Cathar sympathisers, this made the entire area a target for northern nobles looking to gain new lands. It is thus hardly surprising that the barons of the north flocked south to do battle for the Church.
In one famous incident in 1209, most of Béziers was slaughtered by the Catholic forces headed by the Papal legate. Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, was asked how to distinguish between the Catholic and Cathars, and allegedly answered, "Kill them all, God will know his own". The Catholic Encyclopedia denies these words were ever spoken.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI did read the Wikipedia article, but thanks for the link anyway.
Despite the fact that even the source you quoted says that a) envoys were sent to persuade the Cathars to recant and b) when that failed the Pope called a Crusade? There was no "rebellion".
Some Wikipedia for you (type in "Cathars"😉:
"The first French Cathars appeared in Limousin between 1012 and 1020. Several were discovered and put to deat ...[text shortened]... hem all, God will know his own". The Catholic Encyclopedia denies these words were ever spoken.
Despite the fact that even the source you quoted says that a) envoys were sent to persuade the Cathars to recant and b) when that failed the Pope called a Crusade? There was no "rebellion".
Actually, the Cath. En. article I cited makes it clear that the heretics were plundering and destroying cities in the South well before the Crusade was called. It also says that Pope Innocent III did not call the Crusade until over 1000 towns were affected - I can only guess how.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBosse: "Michel Roquebert, the eminent French Cathar scholar"
He's not a Cathar; Cathars haven't existed since the 14th century. He is an historian focusing on the Cathars.
Your formulation caused some confusion on my part. It could be that he was an advocate of Catharian ideas, but he is apparently not. That's why I asked.
But the question remains why he is a better and more objective source than any other. I think the ideas and the presentation and interpretation of the facts must be decisive in determining whether he or anyone else is objective or biased.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have no dispute with accepting, at least partially, Roquebert's views on the history of the period as he is a recognised scholar in the field.
Bosse: "Michel Roquebert, the eminent French Cathar scholar"
Your formulation caused some confusion on my part. It could be that he was an advocate of Catharian ideas, but he is apparently not. That's why I asked. Wha
But the question remains why he is a better and more objective source than any other. I think the ideas and the presentation and inter ...[text shortened]... n of the facts must be decisive in determining whether he or anyone else is objective or biased.
My problems were with the Paul Tobin article.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeFor that I suggest you read the book and make your own assessment. I can assure you that he doesn't have an anti-Catholic axe to grind and the blood-and-guts side of things is not foregrounded (for that you should visit "le pays cathar" in Languedoc, lots of grisly horror shows for the tourists).
But the question remains why he is a better and more objective source than any other. I think the ideas and the presentation and interpretation of the facts must be decisive in determining whether he or anyone else is objective or biased.
Histoire des Cathares
Michel Roquebert
Perrin, 2002.
Edit: the URL that LH posted as a footnote is pretty good.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAny English-language books on the period you would recommend?
For that I suggest you read the book and make your own assessment. I can assure you that he doesn't have an anti-Catholic axe to grind and the blood-and-guts side of things is not foregrounded (for that you should visit "le pays cathar" in Languedoc, lots of grisly horror shows for the tourists).
Histoire des Cathares
Michel Roquebert
Perrin, 2002.
Edit: the URL that LH posted as a footnote is pretty good.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI haven't read any, but this looks like it might be good:
Any English-language books on the period you would recommend?
http://dannyreviews.com/h/Cathars.html
Even from that review you can get a sense of how widespread Catharism was (IMO the obvious reason for it to be dispensed with).