The Cathars and the Roman Catholic ideology turns to genocide.

Ok before i get started i want to make something perfectly clear we are discussing a topic in history which if you give me the opportunity is highly interesting filled with intrigue myths and legends we can explore.I dont want this to turn into just an excuse for people to show their disdain for christianity if thats all you have to say please dont bother.

Now i story begins with a group known as the cathars the Cathars were a religious group who appeared in Europe in the eleventh century, their beliefs something of a mystery it is believed there beliefs may have come from persia through the Byzantine empire.Cathars believed in two principles, a good creator god and his evil adversary (much like God and Satan of mainstream Christianity). Cathars called themselves Christians however the Roman catholic church considered them heretics or even gnostics.

Now the cathars were destined to clash with Roman catholics and they did. The reason for this conflict has to do with the tenants of Catharism. For example they largely regarded men and women as equals, and had no doctrinal objection to contraception, euthanasia or suicide. In some respects the Cathar and Catholic Churches were polar opposites. For example the Cathar Church taught that all non-procreative sex was better than any procreative sex. The Catholic Church taught - and still teaches - exactly the opposite.Catharism was based on tolerance and liberalism, the Cathar religion took root and gained more and more adherents during the twelfth century. By the early thirteenth century Catharism was probably the majority religion in Languedoc an area in france.Im reluctant to go here but lets explore it now the cathars believed at the time that the Roman catholics were corrupt they believed the feudal system was wrong because you had to take oaths.Yet another annoyance the Roman Catholics had to deal with since they believed the feudal system was divinely ordained in whats called the right of kings.

In open debates with leading Catholic theologians Cathars seem to have won the debate. This was embarrassing for the Roman Church because they had fielded the best professional preachers in Europe against what they saw as a collection of uneducated peasants. Worse still a number of Catholic priests had become Cathar adherents (Catharism was a religion that seems to have appealed especially to the theologically literate. Whole Cathedral chapters are known to have defected, as they did for example at Orleans). And even worse the Catholic Church was being ridiculed publicly (some of the richest men in Christendom, bejewelled, dressed in finery, and preaching poverty, provided an irresistible target even to contemporary Catholics in the Languedoc). Worst yet, Cathars refused to pay tithes to the Catholic Church.So we have the conflict set from a historical standpoint.

So what does Rome do you ask? Well the Pope Innocent III called a formal Crusade against the Cathars of the Languedoc, appointing a series of military leaders to head his Holy Army. The first was a Cistercian abbot (Arnaud Amaury) now best remembered for his command at Béziers "Kill them all. God will know his own".In 1208 the war began as it were its estimated before it ends over 500,000 people would be killed Languedoc men women and children were massacred both Catholics as well as Cathars. The Counts of Toulouse and their allies were dispossessed and humiliated, and their lands annexed to France. Dominic Guzmán (later Saint Dominic) founded the Dominican Order and soon afterwards the Inquisition, manned by his Dominicans, was established explicitly to wipe out the last vestiges of resistance. Id venture to say however this isnt true and there are still some very powerful people still battling the church from a war started centuries ago.I personally believe this is the current issue we see of christians being attacked. People were trying to destroy the Roman catholic church and using media but this lead to attack of all christians which wouldnt be there intent at all.

So what was this gnostic teachings that directly conflicted with the Roman church? Well they believed the old testament was an attempt by Satan to influence mankind. They believed Jesus was sent to teach us to the way of light and believed they knew the truth. While the Roman church had been corrupted by the old testament. In these secrets or teaching of christ leads to several myths including the fact they had the holy grail or cup of christ. We can discuss this in detail especially a german by the name of Otto Rahn who eventually is forced by the SS to commit suicide for his failure to locate the grail. Or we can discuss the link between the knights Templars the merovingians and catharism. Ill leave this up to the discussion and we see where it shall lead us. Lets explore the history people tried to hide and see where it leads us.But Historically speaking the biggest threat the Roman catholics ever faced was Catharism and not Islam like the crusades would have you believe.

my av belonged to a knights templar ...a christian mason...

whats killing christians today
its christian american money funneled through peeps like John mcCain and being paid to alciaduh to slaughter christians
there are lots of threads about this around here

just like the religious wars in europe since Luther....
christians killing christians
the inquisition was just one such ..a cull ...

better hope someone didn't buy an indulgence so they could covet you...and still go to that great big pie in the sky

with over 30,000 diferent kinds of christians who all think god gave this infested slag heep to them..and them alone because they are the only kind of christians...and all the others are THE SPAWN OF SATAN
this could go on for some time

what, no hot buttered radioactive popcarn smiley?


having said all that
great thread star and flag

reply to post by dragonridr


Hey Dragonridr,

I think it's an interesting topic. My own reading on the topic is minimal, but based on what I've read, my understanding is in conflict with some of what you're saying.

For example:

For example the Cathar Church taught that all non-procreative sex was better than any procreative sex.

My understanding is that the Cathar's held a negative view about all sex, but again my reading on the topic has been minimal.

So I guess I'd like to know what the source(s) is for your understanding of the Cathar's beliefs. I'd like to read them and possible expand/correct my own understanding.

reply to post by dragonridr


Cathars sound much more agreeable to me and that's coming from a 'militant atheist'.

I don't have much to add except now I want to do some reading on them

From wiki:

The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, as opposed to the bad God, whom many Cathars identified as Satan, creator of the physical world of the Old Testament. All visible matter, including the human body, was created by Satan; it was therefore tainted with sin.

That definitely reminds me of gnostic Christianity. Not only is there an evil god but the creation of the physical world was the result of that god. Like the Demiurge of Gnosticism.

Additionally I have seen numerous Christians on ATS that hold the god represented in the Old Testament is different than the god referenced in the New Testament.

TheConspiracyPages
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Hey Dragonridr,

I think it's an interesting topic. My own reading on the topic is minimal, but based on what I've read, my understanding is in conflict with some of what you're saying.

For example:

For example the Cathar Church taught that all non-procreative sex was better than any procreative sex.

My understanding is that the Cathar's held a negative view about all sex, but again my reading on the topic has been minimal.

So I guess I'd like to know what the source(s) is for your understanding of the Cathar's beliefs. I'd like to read them and possible expand/correct my own understanding.

Well actually the cathars views on sex was used like a club against them by the roman catholics. They assumed because they were ok with just the pleasure of sex that meant they believed in sodomy and this became one of the accusations used in the inquisition as a matter of fact.Cathars devided themselves into two sects the credenti--(croyants)--the believers, or followers, and a minority of perfecti--(parfaits) These are the ones that committed themselves to celibacy and the denial of all earthly pleasures for they saw this as a path to sin.But back to the topic cathars saw procreation as a problem they saw marriage as a trap they really didnt like taking any vows or oaths. Also thought much like Christians children were evil at birth and only through training could they be introduced to goodness or the light. This goes back to man being born of sin. Now when dealing with the cathars we also have to cut thru the information the Roman catholic church spread about them as well which granted can be difficult. You can read further here.

www.saissac.com...

The threat to christianity came in the form of the credenti they were allowed to sin well thats not the right word lets say experience as it was seen as a journey into the light.Needless to say this was appealing to many people since in the middle ages the roman catholics were busy teaching about damnation.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Cathars sound much more agreeable to me and that's coming from a 'militant atheist'.

I don't have much to add except now I want to do some reading on them

From wiki:

The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, as opposed to the bad God, whom many Cathars identified as Satan, creator of the physical world of the Old Testament. All visible matter, including the human body, was created by Satan; it was therefore tainted with sin.

That definitely reminds me of gnostic Christianity. Not only is there an evil god but the creation of the physical world was the result of that god. Like the Demiurge of Gnosticism.

Additionally I have seen numerous Christians on ATS that hold the god represented in the Old Testament is different than the god referenced in the New Testament.

edit on 1-3-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Well they were by all accounts gnostics they believed in christ as the son of the true god. They literally threw out the old testament as evil and it was believed at the time they followed the true path set forth by Jesus Christ and were shall we say privy to his secrets. They claimed that their beliefs and practices dated from the earliest Christian times, and predated the innovations of the Catholic Church.This is why they became so entwined in grail lore for example. Theres even a link to them for the shroud of turin. And if you look carefully you see the similarities between them and the Knights Templars which is ironic because they both meet the same fate at the hands of the church.

Just so everyone understands what happened to the Cathars From 1208 a series of military campaigns were launched against the Cathars and their sympathisers, known together as the Albigensian Crusade from a mistaken idea that the Cathars were centred in the town of Albi.

en.wikipedia.org...

Danbones
my av belonged to a knights templar ...a christian mason...

whats killing christians today
its christian american money funneled through peeps like John mcCain and being paid to alciaduh to slaughter christians
there are lots of threads about this around here

just like the religious wars in europe since Luther....
christians killing christians
the inquisition was just one such ..a cull ...

better hope someone didn't buy an indulgence so they could covet you...and still go to that great big pie in the sky

with over 30,000 diferent kinds of christians who all think god gave this infested slag heep to them..and them alone because they are the only kind of christians...and all the others are THE SPAWN OF SATAN
this could go on for some time

what, no hot buttered radioactive popcarn smiley?

edit on 1-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

having said all that
great thread star and flag

edit on 1-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

Well i dont think its quite as cut and dry as you seem to think i will say this. I do believe some very powerful people or should i say families escaped the inquisition and the cathars beliefs were handed down. And these families havnt forgiven the church and are very active in undermining it. But i really dont want this to go into lets bash the vatican first its to easy a target. Just kidding any way i think if you dig deep enough even into the current backlash on christianity that its controlled and it all boils down to differing beliefs.

reply to post by dragonridr


What happened to the Cathars is one of the greatest stains upon the history of the catholic church (as indeed was there link to the fascists), As you know the catholic church (though it was for well over a thousand years) was not alway's the class entrenching elitist power tool that it became and indeed was actually genuinely not extant as a true church after the fall of Rome until celtic/anglo-saxon missionary's from hermitage monastery's on the island's off scotland and ireland actually went on mission to Rome and converted the Semi-Pagan catholic church back to christianity, indeed there is a dark ages illuminated bible which is one of the first returned bible's and the oldest bibles in Italy which was taken back to rome by these missionary's whom you could argue reconverted the Roman church, this was also the age of pope Joan whom may have been one of the forgotten female missionary's whom history and the catholic church erased.

Now what happened is that the Roman power player's as indeed there greek orthadox equivelant's of the time did also used the church with it's influence over the people, the church was for them a tool of power and so liberal and heretical interpretation was used to justify the invalid claim's to royal power of many king's under there auspice's in spite of the recurring theme that God is Lord, his anger with the People for wanting a king and the Christ the king He finally sent as the true messiah and these of course automatically invalidate all royal claim's, As the Lord said "You can have only one master or you will hate the one and despise the other".

Little has filtered down to us about the Cathars except that when they died they died in faith to God and Christ so they may indeed be regarded as martyrs for there faith in Christ while the catholic church of the time can truly be regarded as a heretical establishment which was headed by wealthy men of Noble birth whom used the nunnery's as private brothels, lived in opulant palace's of marble and gold, dressed in the finest silk's and stuffed there face's with the finest food and wine while the very people whom they were supposed to be shepherding were litteraly living in mud hut's and having short miserable live's, all of this is known fact.

However the Persian link is interesting as among the oddities of the past is the link and vehement argument about it between the Zoarastrian religion and the Hebrew religion, Essentially Zoroastra founded or founded one sect of this ancient persian religion and a belief in a god Ahurra Mazda (the Good One) and the first being he created when he was lonely in the nothingness and whom he made like himself but different (Whose name translated as the bad one) and how when Ahurra mazda had created the universe and the world the bad one had set about corrupting it and claiming to be it's god, so this persion religion was a monotheistic religion which had a god, an enemy of god whom was jealous and hated god's children and many of it's prophets though going by different name's are startlingly similar to many of the old testament prophet's.

This is probably why in the old testament story's of people killed for offering the lord STRANGE fire are also recorded and in persia there is a place were natural fire's used to burn which was regarded as sacred by the zorastrian worshippers and why we call them fire worshipers as Ahura mazda was a fire god (note the similarity to the burning bush and the pillar of fire and the confusion this may have caused).

Now there were argument's in the very early church when other religions crossed over into the new christianty including zorastrianism but I wonder if there may have been a link between the cathars (Whom if I remember correctly also believed in reincarnation) and the persian christian's which there likely under zorastrian influence.

As for there crime's agains Jaques de mollet and the Templers well we know the pope was a GUEST of the french at the chateu du pap and did more or less what they told him to,.

The Templers had a class structure as well, only a noble could be a templer and only a templer could ride a horse in there order, but nevertheless they were sworn to celibacy (there quarteres were sparse and monk like) with only the like's of the king of portugal whom was crown prince so had special dispensation to marry and leave the order allowed to actually father children so any one claiming to be descended from the TEMPLERS well unless it was a crown prince, NO?, they had no link whatever to the later mason sect's though once the persectution of FRIDAY THE 13th Started some may have left the order and even married.

Now commoners could join the Templers though they were not actually Templers and wore mail acting as Templer foot soldiers and though sworn to the same oath's they may have been far more likely to have left after the Templers were framed and founded family's though there history they wouldlikely have done all they could to bury and hide it.

Many Templer did flee to portugal and some are claimed to have fled to Scotland but there is no evidence of the latter especially if modern claim's are put aside or put to the argument and many templer emblam's found in scotland actually came about after the romantisication of the Nightly orders and the romantic fiction of arthurian legend (which may be originated in of all places the hittite culture were there is a temple with a king whom is a sword in a stone), It is of interest to note as well that the Templer swore to fight against satan in life and if possible in death and at his stake Jaques de Mollet told the king of france and the pope he would bring them within the year before the throne of god for judgement, both died within the year, the pope fell from his horse (he was an excellent young horseman) and the king choked at his meal (though the Templer spy network may have enacted a final act of grim justice).

Now given there oath do you think they would joint certain brotherhood's of today which are diametrically opposed to there own belief's.

I have no bone of contention with they whom point out the well documented and historical sin's of the catholic church (Especially the ironically and incorrectly named innocent the third though I would like that they point to the people whom directed it at the time) but once they start on Mary well as a marionite christian then I have a very large one and would point out that marionite tradition goes right back as far as history can recall in christian litturgy and tradition and is not the domein of the catholic church alone, I would also point out that most catholic's are simple people whom at least believe in christ and they whom would see them called evil because of the name of the order whom baptized them will be the one's whom the lord is more likely to chastize.

I think if the Cathars were around today many would follow there doctrin but I tend toward the precatholic Syriac orthodoxy and it's genuinely older way's as they to this day hold there mass in Arymaic though this may be the last century they will have any autonomy in there homeland of syria which is predominantly islamic and are likely to be persectuted and used as scapegoats by those same islamic groups'.

reply to post by dragonridr

Now i story begins with a group known as the cathars the Cathars were a religious group who appeared in Europe in the eleventh century, their beliefs something of a mystery it is believed there beliefs may have come from persia through the Byzantine empire.

Actually, quite a bit is known about the beliefs of the Cathari, though since much of it comes to us filtered through the propaganda of their persecutors, it is sometimes necessary to fill in the gaps from other Gnostic traditions. There are many Christian Gnostic traditions, and much literature survives from the time of Christ, for example, the Nag Hamadi Library. Many of the Roman (and Byzantine) Church's 'favorite' heretics were Gnostics of some flavor or other.

The term Cathar (plural Cathari) describes several Gnostic groups in 11th and 12th century Europe: the Bogomili in Bosnia, the Patarini in Lombardy, the Tisserands and Waldenses at Lyon, and the 'famous' group the Albigenses at Languedoc. It was the Albigenses that were martyred (at Beziers I think) by Arnau Amalric who is credited with the "Kill them all; God will recognize his own" (or "Let God sort them out" or various versions or translations amounting to the same thing).

Cathars believed in two principles, a good creator god and his evil adversary (much like God and Satan of mainstream Christianity). Cathars called themselves Christians however the Roman catholic church considered them heretics or even gnostics.

The Gnostic creation myth is actually quite beautiful. But the Cathar's 'creator god' you mention was NOT 'good', and is usually identified with the 'character' we call 'Satan'.

Remember that this is myth, and is not a 'legend' or 'un-truth' as we (sloppily) use the word today. It is a map of the human mind, in word form, meant to be a teaching tool and a path to self-awareness. While it takes somewhat different forms in different specific Gnostic traditions, the Gnostic creation myth generally goes something like this (extremely simplified of course):

In the beginning was pure spirit, the primal cause, the 'Pleroma'. The Pleroma is not God as we know it in the orthodox western tradition, we will get to that later. The Pleroma is the embodiment of all psychological archetypes. You could perhaps think of this as the sum of all the different Greek or Hindu gods. It is the nature of the Pleroma to 'emanate' entities known as 'aeons'. It turns out that the emanation of one aeon implies the emanation of other aeons until the ultimate aeon 'Sophia' results. Sophia represents wisdom and feminity (though she as a masculine characteristic too). To make a long story short, Sophie sins (ignoring her masculine characteristic, she attempts to emanate a copy of herself), repents, is reunited with her masculine characteristic, and is expelled from the Pleroma.

In an attempt to return to the good graces of the Pleroma, Sophia creates the 'demi-urge' and tasks it with the duty to 'create' the Cosmos as an image of the Pleroma. The theory is apparently that when the Pleroma 'sees' Sophia's devotion the Pleroma will allow Sophia to reunite with the Pleroma. The demi-urge does exactly that, and Biblical Creation proceeds much as we are familiar with.

Here's where it gets good because, the traditional Biblical story is turned upside down. In Gnostic mythology, the demi-urge creator corresponds (roughly) to that 'character' we call Satan. Satan, in order to populate the Cosmos, uses the life force provided by Sophia (which is originally part of the Pleroma, don't forget). The other aeons are horrified that these pieces of the Pleromic spirit ('life-sparks') are trapped in mundane matter send 'Christ' (one of the very first aeon emanations) to redeem them and return them to the Pleroma. The first appearance of Christ in the Bible is the Serpent in the Garden that gives the gift of Knowledge (Gnosis) to humanity.

I personally love that interpretation of the so-called 'fall' that actually turns it into story of human triumph. The 'orthodox' interpretation of this episode as humanity's quest for knowledge being the original sin is disgraceful. It is also unique in all of mythology as far as I can tell (I'm not an academic in this area, I can probably be shown to be wrong). For example, when Prometheus steals the knowledge of fire from the gods, it was a triumph, not a sin (not to Zeus of course, who punishes Prometheus), but for humanity; and humanity is grateful to him.

reply to post by dragonridr

Well actually the cathars views on sex was used like a club against them by the roman catholics. They assumed because they were ok with just the pleasure of sex that meant they believed in sodomy and this became one of the accusations used in the inquisition as a matter of fact.

I cannot find any 'scholarly' support for this assertion. (I will list my references below, they are books, not internet web pages.)

The Cathari considered sexual intercourse a 'dialbolical operation'. Thus they were vegetarian because meat derives from sexual intercourse. Fish was OK because they are born without intercourse.

Furthermore, according to Cathari theory, the purpose of humans was to become 'perfect' so that the life-spark (spirit) could be freed from entrapment in the mundane physical world and be reunited with the Pleroma. Creating more life through intercourse only serves to prolong the life-sparks entrapment. The created world is a 'wicked world'. To be bound to the world is evil, matter and spirit were never meant to be mixed. To extricate oneself from the mundane world through virtuous practice of a religion of love and goodness, was salvation.

The charge of sexual licentiousness among the Cathari is false. It was a standard charge against all groups considered heretical by Rome. It was not Cathari sexual practice that was used against them, it was lies about their sexual practices.

Cathars devided themselves into two sects the credenti--(croyants)--the believers, or followers, and a minority of perfecti--(parfaits). These are the ones that committed themselves to celibacy and the denial of all earthly pleasures for they saw this as a path to sin.

These were not two sects, anymore than parishioners and priests are different sects. In fact there were no priests among the Cathari - that was one of the main sore points between them and Rome.

The Perfecti are better understood as preachers who, having achieved 'perfection' are able to 'break with the world'. The Credenti were the ordinary believers, those who revered the perfecti but who preferred to raise a family or ply a trade and leave the final 'break', the 'Consolamentum' to their death bed. Roman Catholics do that to this day.

But back to the topic cathars saw procreation as a problem they saw marriage as a trap they really didnt like taking any vows or oaths. Also thought much like Christians children were evil at birth and only through training could they be introduced to goodness or the light. This goes back to man being born of sin. Now when dealing with the cathars we also have to cut thru the information the Roman catholic church spread about them as well which granted can be difficult. You can read further here.
www.saissac.com...

I can find no reference to a Cathari objection to marriage vows. They certainly would not take an oath to support the Roman Church or the Pope, but that was not because of an objection to the idea of an oath, it was because they considered the institution evil.

It is also obvious that the Perfecti must be celebate, or they wouldn't be perfect. I assume that those ascending to the Perfecti would have had to forego marriage or 'put away' their spouse. The Manicheans DID reject marriage and all sexual intercourse, but this was not denied to the Cathar Credenti.

The web site you link appears to be a tourism information site. The author seems to have been very lazy in getting content about the Cathari and contains very little useful (i.e. correct) information. Frankly, it reads, to me, like they are reading from the Church's justification for the Albigensian Crusade.

The threat to christianity came in the form of the credenti they were allowed to sin well thats not the right word lets say experience as it was seen as a journey into the light.Needless to say this was appealing to many people since in the middle ages the roman catholics were busy teaching about damnation.

That is completely false. While the Credenti were not required to live the aesthetic life of the Perfecti, that does not imply that they were licentious in any way. Indeed, all Cathari, Prefecti or Credenti were considered by the non-Cathari populous as extremely virtuous. They were absolutely not a threat to Christianity in any way.

They were, however, perceived as a threat to the Roman Church on several grounds.

To start with they did not accept Priests. How can Rome control them if they don't accept Priests? Indeed, the Cathars considered the Church of Rome as positively the temple of Satan. Rome worships the creator of the world that entraps the spirit within mundane matter, and that creator is nothing other than Satan (to the Cathari). A Roman Priest was anathema to them.

Also the Cathars did not need the Church to grant them salvation. That was achieved through their own personal enlightenment (Gnosis) and marked by the 'Consolamentum', either when they were raised to the Perfecti, or on their death bed. The fact that the Credenti could receive the Consolamentum on their death bead in no way gave them license to licentiousness anymore than the 'Last Rites' give such license to a Roman Catholic today. But what it DID mean is that the Church's 'purgatory' scam to raise money to build cathedrals and raise armies didn't find much fertile ground among the Cathari - and that was the kicker.

My references include the following books:

The Gnostics, Tobias Churton, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1987, ISBN 0297791060

A History of Gnosticism, Giovanni Filoramo, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1990, ISBN 0631157565

The Heretics, Barrows Dunham, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1963, ISBN unknown

The Tree of Gnosis, Ioan P. Couliano, Harper, San Francisco, 1990, ISBN 0060616156

I don't know how successful you will be at finding any of these books, but there are others out there. Gnosticism is a rather popular topic, and the Cathari are a popular field of study. But for goodness sake, don't take the writings from a tourism promotion web site as a reasonable starting point for trying to understand something like this.