Originally posted by lucifershammer By the time of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the war against the Albigensians (and their protectors) was in full flow. So, not unsurprisingly, there were many secular authorities who were less than zealous etc.
I'm sure you're weary of this topic, LH. Then again, you seem to have set yourself the task of defending the indefensible.
Originally posted by no1marauder The Church in the canon threatens the incitement of revolution if secular authorities do not "exterminate" heretics. It would seem the Church was a far greater threat to secular authorities than heretics.
No it doesn't - read the canon again. Nowhere does it say that the ruler should be overthrown.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage I'm sure you're weary of this topic, LH. Then again, you seem to have set yourself the task of defending the indefensible.
Quick counter-question: What was the position of the Albigenses/Catharists on marriage? On oaths (which were the primary means of binding oral contracts at the time)?
What is the logical impact of these positions on any society?
Originally posted by lucifershammer No it doesn't - read the canon again. Nowhere does it say that the ruler should be overthrown.
PLEEEEEEZE!
If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.
What does "offer the territory to be ruled" mean? What do you think it meant in the feudal system when "the ruler's vassals [are] absolved from their allegiance"? If the chief ruler permits the massacre he's OK, but suppose he doesn't want the good Catholics to go around slaughtering his other subjects?? Please actually read the damn thing.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Quick counter-question: What was the position of the Albigenses/Catharists on marriage? On oaths (which were the primary means of binding oral contracts at the time)?
What is the logical impact of these positions on any society?
First, consider the very low ratio of Cathars (note the correct spelling) to laymen in the Cathar regions. One reason the religion strongly appealed to ordinary people was that it removed the threat of hellfire and allowed people to mind their own business. Recall, too, that the Cathars had translated the Bible into Provencal--the first vernacular translation that I know of--and immediately started drawing certain conclusions about the Church. Further, remember that the Cathars were left alone for about a hundred years before the Crusade--and amazingly enough, far from falling apart, their culture thrived. Provencal was the language of the troubadours.
This society was torn apart by the first ever intra-European crusade sanctioned by a Pope who, it seems, could not countenance any threat to the Church's spiritual authority.
To justify the Pope's decision to declare a Crusade is tantamount to saying that the people of Languedoc were invaded, dispossessed and slaughtered for their own good. The Inquisition was just the cherry on the cake.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Quick counter-question: What was the position of the Albigenses/Catharists on marriage? On oaths (which were the primary means of binding oral contracts at the time)?
What is the logical impact of these positions on any society?
Whatever they might be, it doesn't justify the mass murder of tens of thousands of people in cold blood in a war and pogrom initiated by the so-called "Vicar of Christ".
Originally posted by lucifershammer "In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching [b]regarding matters of faith and morals."*
The canon you cited is a dis ...[text shortened]... . Disciplinary canons cannot be infallible.
Do you know of a list of all the historical canons and whatever other documents pertaining
to faith and/or morals that are considered infallible?
I recall that you said the canons of these various councils, but I don't want to have to sift
through ones that are disciplinary and, thus, irrelevant to my study.
Do you know of a list of all the historical canons and whatever other documents pertaining
to faith and/or morals that are considered infallible?
I recall that you said the canons of these various councils, but I don't want to have to sift
through ones that are disciplinary and, thus, irrelevant to my study.
Nemesio
Ones that are now embarrassing were fallible and are no longer in effect. Ones that are in the present doctrine of the RCC came right from the direction of The Holy Ghost and are infallible.
There are a few people here who are too eager to accuse and condemn the Roman-Catholic Church. You can't blame them though because they are in that business and allways will be. They are conveniently forgetting the, sometimes very complicated and difficult, historical context of the events and developments in which the facts have to be placed and which, hopefully, helps to determine the conclusions in an honest and well-balanced investigation. Their aim however is to construct an accusation that can be of usage in their present political battle against the Roman-Catholic Church. If one accusation cannot be maintained they simply hop to the next.
The slogan is "first construct the politically desirable accusation and then find and select the facts, preferably taken out of its context, to back it up."
To fight this kind of political mob-rule, which was and is only interested in the truth if it serves its political purposes was exactly the reason why the Inquisition was installed at the time.
My claim was and is that the initial creation of the Inquisition was an improvement in the judicial situation compared to the judicial practises at the time. Thàt, gentlemen, is all.
Originally posted by ivanhoe There are a few people here who are too eager to accuse and condemn the Roman-Catholic Church. You can't blame them though because they are in that business and allways will be. They are conveniently forgetting the, sometimes very complicated and difficult, historical context of the events and developments in which the facts have to be placed and which, hop ...[text shortened]... the judicial situation compared to the judicial practises at the time. Thàt, gentlemen, is all.
Are you suggesting that I am one of these people Ivanhoe?
Originally posted by ivanhoe There are a few people here who are too eager to accuse and condemn the Roman-Catholic Church. You can't blame them though because they are in that business and allways will be.
I was wondering when the "victim card" would be played in this discussion. And lo and behold....
Originally posted by ivanhoe There are a few people here who are too eager to accuse and condemn the Roman-Catholic Church. You can't blame them though because they are in that business and allways will be. They are conveniently forgetting the, sometimes very complicated and difficult, historical context of the events and developments in which the facts have to be placed and which, hop ...[text shortened]... the judicial situation compared to the judicial practises at the time. Thàt, gentlemen, is all.
It sounds like the poor RCC is a victim of far more persecution than those "heretics" who were burned at the stake by the thousands (tens of thouands?) at its insistence.
I wonder what Agnes Francou would have thought of Ivanhoe's post? (her story is at http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=31759&page=7).
Originally posted by ivanhoe There are a few people here who are too eager to accuse and condemn the Roman-Catholic Church. You can't blame them though because they are in that business and allways will be. They are conveniently forgetting the, sometimes very complicated and difficult, historical context of the events and developments in which the facts have to be placed and which, hop ...[text shortened]... the judicial situation compared to the judicial practises at the time. Thàt, gentlemen, is all.
To fight this kind of political mob-rule, which was and is only interested in the truth if it serves its political purposes was exactly the reason why the Inquisition was installed at the time.
I thought the primary reason was to combat heresy, blasphemy and violations of Church moral doctrine.
My claim was and is that the initial creation of the Inquisition was an improvement in the judicial situation compared to the judicial practises at the time. Thàt, gentlemen, is all.
That is, I grant, a relatively small claim. The point remains that that does not make the actions of the Inquisition “good,” only less unjust and less brutal than secular judicial practices.
If there are people on here who have some particular animus toward the RCC, I’m not one of them. Therefore, I will simply assume that I do not stand so accused. If I am so accused, I will simply call my accuser a damned liar and go merrily on my way.
28 Oct '05 16:20
The Church and Heretics
Back to Top