Albigensians and Innocent III - Which was the Christian Side?

HGL's F.B. writings : A Shorty from a Long Debate : on Innocent III as a pretended "mass murderer of Christians" · Albigensians and Innocent III - Which was the Christian Side? · "Sola Scriptura inevitably results in countless contradicting theologies." · Someone admired Kent Hovind without my reservations · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Kent Hovind's Errors on Anti-Catholicism and Heliocentrism

By the way, I abbreviated MSi as such when not sure whether he was a public person or not, but he is: pastor Matt SIngleton.

HGL

status

If Kent Hovind believes Genesis 1, I presume he should support Pope Innocent III against Albigensians, right?

HGL

Here are my two cents on the matter, extracted from a longer debate:

HGL's F.B. writings : A Shorty from a Long Debate : on Innocent III as a pretended "mass murderer of Christians"
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-shorty-from-long-debate-on-innocent.html

[Added a link to this post and asked those below, after tagging whether they preferred full names. Tagging unsuccessful in the case of JC not JC. JL answered here, but really continued I.]

I

JL

Well, Kent was born 700 years too late to do that.

HGL

One can still say which side one thinks represents the Church back then ... including "neither of the two but another", if for instance you support the Orthodox instead.

JL

HGL --- What are you trying to say, Hans? Of course the Albies were hertics, but Catholics were as warped.

HGL

JL If so, where was the Church that wasn't warped?

JL

HGL --- Not sure. There is none so far that are beyond criticism of faith and practice in their history. My own prefered congregation killed Anabaptists and Baptist which I find terrible, and Preterism is a terrible eschatology, and they don't like Dispies. In my opinion, John Mac Arthur is pretty squared away with adult baptism and pre-trib/pre-mill eschatology with Calvinist soteriology, which is as unwarped as one can be. But our histories are deserving of critical opinion. As an amateur military historian I can admire a Catholic general in the 30 years war name Wallenstien as an enlightened man of good character. But that is about it.

HGL

"There is none so far that are beyond criticism of faith and practice in their history."

How does such an assessment square with Matthew 28:20?

It doesn't.

JL

HGL --- So, are you contending that only perfect churches/denominations can take the Gospel to the lost? Anyone who preaches Christ and Him crucified is okay for that.

JL not JL

The church is not an organisation. It is a body of believers.

HGL

JL "Anyone who preaches Christ and Him crucified is okay for that."

If he is in Christ's words "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"

In other words, not individual perfection in all believers or leaders, but collective one on the matter of doctrine and morals.

And I am saying this was not just around in the Church in Jerusalem, but in all times and even all days, according to this promise:

"and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

(Matthew 28:20).

[To JL not JL] "The church is not an organisation. It is a body of believers."

Due to the clause of "teaching" it is a visible such body, therefore an organisation (not to mention Christ actually organised it, chosing 72, chosing 12, chosing St Peter).

AT

Mt 23:9
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Hans-Georg when you call your priests father and when you follow the "Pope aka papa which means FATHER" you are blaspheming against the only Father in heaven and directly disobeying Jesuss commandments.

Now stop deceiving people with your RCC cult doctrines.

Was Peter The First Pope? DEBATE Martin vs Pacwa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjck413FOVc

HGL

If you think that, why was Christ (in the Gospeller's Greek) using the word "pater" and why is "pappas" more like "daddy"?

Also, if you think that, why would St Paul have blasphemed that in relation to Corinthians?

"For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you."
[1 Corinthians 4:15]

While one can hope your deceptions have so far been unintentional, how about starting to check and stopping back from even the risk of unintentionally deceving someone?

Here is a new article also bearing on identity of the Church:

Kent Hovind's Errors on Anti-Catholicism and Heliocentrism
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/11/kent-hovinds-errors-on-anti-catholicism.html

To use your Slovene, Christ tells us to call no one oče and pope means očka.

II

SL

Satan certainly supports the Popes... Especially during the time when there were 3 Popes all claiming authority at the same time, all excommunicating the others. The Papacy is just another secular ruling political governing party during a part of Europe's history, no different than any other rule under reigning monarchs or emperors...

Western Schism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism

HGL

Western Schism started more than a century after Innocent III.

I was asking, how about whether you are on Albigensian or on Catholic side?

DO PLEASE check out what I had to say on Albigensian doctrine being anything BUT Christian.

III

TDG

So it was okay for the RCC to slaughter Albigensians over bad doctrine?

HGL

You are saying that:

• a) as if bad doctrine (I'd rather sa&y rank apostasy) were all the issue
• b) the main thing happening to Albigensians was being slaughtered, rather than for instance converting.

TDG

• A. Even if you consider it apostasy or heresy, it's not right to murder people for it.
  
  
• B. Main or minor, slaughtering them is wrong, and converting under threat of death is not evangelism.
  
  
• C. You have exposed your Roman Catholic Church as an ungodly, wicked, vile institution.

HGL

Could people *ever* be lawfully killed for doctrinal things?

Or was it murder to kill Cnaaneans or apostate Israelites over sacrifices to Baal? Was Elijah a murderer?

That is the first question.

The next one, if you say there was a time when executional killing over doctrine was correct, did Jesus explicitly do away with that?

HGL

Here is one more : do you think that the threat of death was the main and sole motivator of reconversion to Catholic?

I say re-conversion, since most Albigensians were from Catholic families and had grown up as Catholic (those born in Albigensian families and not baptised, if any, would in theory not have been able to be judged by Inquisitors).

TDG

No, evangelism by murder is not the scriptural method of evangelism.

The example you gave was from the nation of Israel. No Church, in particular the Catholic church, is Israel today.

If you want to give Israel authority to kill Heretics, according to their beliefs, they'd be killing you guys as well.

HGL

"No, evangelism by murder is not the scriptural method of evangelism."

Killing was not the main method of converting used by Inquisitors.

Arguing was, as long as there was one to argue with.

"The example you gave was from the nation of Israel. No Church, in particular the Catholic church, is Israel today."

On the contrary, we believe that the Church Christ founded is the New Israel.

"If you want to give Israel authority to kill Heretics, according to their beliefs, they'd be killing you guys as well."

Pharisees lost the right after Christ came, in accordance with the prophecy in Genesis 50 over Judah.

Romans and other nations still had a right to kill malefactors, they were meant to be converted, see Matthew 28:16-20, and that collectively.

Was there any direct revocation of the principle that some doctrinal positions merit death?

Calling the God of Israel "Satan" would arguably have been such a position even in OT, since it was a blasphemy.

IV

AV

Apples and oranges

HGL

Not at all. Albigensians were clearly denying Genesis 1.

The Albigensian Bible is only NT plus an Albigensian commen (book of two principles).

They considered that the "God of the Old Testament" was ... Satan.

AV

HGL Jesus said not the least stoke will be done away....I have come not to abolish the law but fulfill it...

HGL

Well, Innocent III was supporting Genesis.

AV

HGL Jesus supported the Old Testament too

HGL

Exactly - so, would you agree Innocent III was on Jesus' side?

AV

HGL well Jesus was is and is forever God, so he doesn't need anyone on his side. As for Inocent III and the whole catholic cult, they got a lot of things wrong.

HGL

"so he doesn't need anyone on his side."

He nevertheless promised to have someone on His side in 1215.

Check Matthew 28:20.

V

JE

Black and White Fallacy, possible Strawman...

HGL

You know, if "no side whatsoever in 1215 was right, every side was wrong" were an option for a Christian, you would logically have a point.

Now read Matthew 28:20 - especially the phrase "all days".

That includes all 366 days of 1215, from March 25 1215 to March 25 1216. (Or if that was just 365 days, and the leap day of 1216 came in what we would call February 1217, since 1216 lasted to March 25 1217).

Where was, exactly, the Church to which Christ gave the promise of "all days"?

As said, Innocent III believed Genesis 1, Albigensians didn't.

AV

JE even when Israel was carried away into captivity God saved a remnant....

HGL

AV - the thing I am asking is, would you consider Albigensians the remnant in this case, even while they were denying Genesis 1?

AV

HGL I'd have to say no. I'm saying to leave out the Old Testament is wrong. It's all or nothing.

HGL

Thank you.

So, if Albigensians were not it, where was the Church of God those years?

AV

HGL ask God?

HGL

I don't think He left the remnant so insignificant we can't find any trace of it.

So, I ask history.

AV

HGL try the case for Christ author...

HGL

You mean this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Christ

Where does it go into where the Church was in 1215?

JE

HGL, my point of the fallacy is this: if Kent believes Genesis 1 to be true, then the only result is for him to support the Pope in his slaughter. But there are other options. The most basic of which would be: Kent believes Genesis 1 and does not support the killing of those who teach false doctrines. That's my point.

HGL

OK - so that would leave him considering:

• Albigensians wrong bc not believing Genesis 1
• Innocent III wrong for believing Inquisition and Crusades are OK

Well, next question is, if so, who was RIGHT in AD 1215?

According to Matthew 28:20 some Church that was right had to exist.

JE

Or, Kent believes the Albigensians wrong AND Innocent III wrong for his crusades.

Neither was right in 1215, but those weren't the only two options.

HGL

Well, which one was other?

Waldensians were very insignificant as yet compared to Albigensians and probably were getting more heat than deserved over being in that bad company.

Also, it is not clear they believed Genesis back then, even if later remnants of them, when siding with Calvinism, did.

Orthodox were the guys who had both initiated First Crusade by Isaac Comnenus asking the help of Pope Urban II and he had also executed Basil the Physician (similar heresy to Albigensians) before any official execution of heretics took place among Catholics.

JE

Well, I think you answered your own question. There's more, but that's enough to get started.

HGL

I was definitely not in any kind of serious doubt about where the Church was.

So, where of these groups do you think you find the Church Our Lord founded?

I say Catholics.

JE

I'm still in need of more research, but I currently say during that time the Waldesians. That is not to say, however, that other groups, whether named or not, weren't the Body.

HGL

• 1) What nations did Waldensians convert (Matthew 28:16-20)?
• 2) "whether named or not" sounds like invisible Church (for not named) (Matthew 28:20 and "teaching" involves visibility).

JE

Nations (ethos), meaning tribes or races. Think, ethnicities. There's plenty of groups that did this, including Catholic and Waldesians.

I don't like the term "invisible church" and I don't know of a good one. The Bible is clear, if you're saved, your part of the Body. So, I'm sure there was at least one underground church that taught truth and was never named, and was probably killed off. Whether they were able to succeed themselves or not is irrelevant. They were saved and thus part of the Body. Some were named, some were not. Having a named does not matter though, as long as it's Christian.

"Invisible church" normally implies those people who say they don't go to church because they are the church. I agree we don't HAVE to, but we SHOULD because God has commanded it of us.

HGL

"There's plenty of groups that did this, including Catholic and Waldesians."

Unless you count Catholics as Pagans and Waldensians as making disciples of them in Piemontese region, no single ethnos was converted by Waldensians.

"The Bible is clear, if you're saved, your part of the Body."

Would be very acceptable theology about the individual soul.

"So, I'm sure there was at least one underground church that taught truth and was never named, and was probably killed off. Whether they were able to succeed themselves or not is irrelevant."

If this is your best for 1215 AD, you would have a somewhat inadequate theology about the Body as a whole.

Also, "killed off" - by whom? Catholics were converting and sometimes killing Albigensians and Waldensians and the latter had by then absorbed any possibly remaining Petrobrussians. Except such as went Albigensians, of course.

So, who would have been doing the killing?

" "Invisible church" normally implies those people who say they don't go to church because they are the church."

In the time of Luther, it meant sth else.

Catholics would ask : if you are the right Church and started out in Wittenberg 9th of March 1522, where was the Church before that? Matthew 28:20 means it has always been there, were you?

Luther(ans) would reply : oh, it was invisibly a Church of saved souls, among the Catholics.

Now, part of the Catholic case is, such an invisible Church of souls displaced into another Church than they really belong to, a false one, does not fulfil the criteria of Matthew 28:16-20, since such isolated souls are obviously not teaching the nations.

"I agree we don't HAVE to, but we SHOULD because God has commanded it of us."

It is actually the Church which commands us to assist Mass on Sundays and on Holidays of obligation. This is an application of III Commandment of keeping Holy the Lord's day, but it is not given per se in that commandment.

And dubbing that the "invisible Church" is of course to begin with a joke. Whoever came up with it knew that "invisible Church" is a term starting out as a far weightier thing in theology.

AV

HGL I'm not God, so I don't have all the answers. I do know that God makes it possible to preserve His truth, the Dead Sea scrolls for example.

HGL

The Dead Sea Scrolls are an extra.

God's main work to preserve His Truth is, according to Bible, His Church.

Knowing history and being God are two very different things.

Do you think Moses had human means to know the history from Genesis 2 to Genesis 50?

Or do you think everything was revealed to him, like Genesis 1?

JE

There was conversion among ethnos. The verse doesn't say the entire nation has to be taught. If that's the case, then Catholicism failed too.

That's not my best for 1215, I just gave a made up example. Nothing more. Knights commanded by the Pope or other church figures did the killing, as you've said before. Besides, that was an example. Maybe the believer died of a heart attack after they were saved.

I don't know how Luther meant it, I was referring to modern usage.

The CC commands mass because God commanded it first. I go to church because He said it.

Lastly, I don't think Moses had everything revealed to him. He had copies of scriptures that had been passed down since Adam. I'm happy to explain if you need me to.

HGL

" There was conversion among ethnos. The verse doesn't say the entire nation has to be taught. If that's the case, then Catholicism failed too."

No, since there have been entire nations and also nations with a clear majority which have been Catholic.

"That's not my best for 1215, I just gave a made up example. Nothing more."

OK.

"Knights commanded by the Pope or other church figures did the killing, as you've said before. Besides, that was an example. Maybe the believer died of a heart attack after they were saved."

OK, once again "single believer" perspective rather than Church of a whole perspective.

"I don't know how Luther meant it, I was referring to modern usage."

It is a modern usage among Lutherans, when I converted from Lutheranism, I had Lutherans tell me the Church survived as an invisible unity of saved souls.

"The CC commands mass because God commanded it first. I go to church because He said it."

In fact, I don't think presence every Sunday is ever stated as mandatory in the Bible itself.

"Lastly, I don't think Moses had everything revealed to him. He had copies of scriptures that had been passed down since Adam. I'm happy to explain if you need me to."

In other words, as for Luke, history is a knowable field. Meaning, I am very far from pretending to be God when I simply say I know what was around visibly in 1215 AD (visibly to us now too) and therefore can rule out what wasn't as not being the Church which was given the promise of "all days" (Matthew 28:20).

VI

and note, "JL not JL" has same initials but other name than "JL".

JL not JL

So many theological trolls about these days...or maybe one with several accounts.

HGL

I have one account - and I am Roman Catholic.

JC not JC has another account - and he is Orthodox.

I am also a Young Earth Creationist, and I'll gladly contribute to the theme of the group, which I did before.

JC not JC is not so, and I wonder whether he came in in order to post things which would make me impopular here. Because on the ground he choses, nine times out of ten, I am in conscience obliged to agree with him.

JC not JC

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am far more bothered by Kent Hovind's fanbase's belief in Pastor Jim-like conspiracy theories than I am of its views on evolution.

Really sad L not JL believes Christianity is a religion of opinion, and that the Trinity is as lowly as bickering humans. Such heresy.

HGL

JC not JC Do I get it right that you have therefore come here as a missionary to Kent Hovind's fanbase?

One of them, as said, is not into "Pastor Jim-like conspiracy theories" if you meant Hislop.

JC not JC

I used to be a brainwashed Baptist. I am hoping to plant a seed with one of these memes/

JL not JL

You're nothing but a spammer.

JC not JC

JL not JL also believes the Apostles failed. Paul traveled across the entire Mediterranean, yet none of his churches were Baptist. Every single one of them fell into 'pagan Catholicism' once he left.

Hopefully JL not JL will unharden his heart towards God the Father. John 17:21

HGL

JC not JC I didn't.

I was loosely Evangelical my first years as a Christian, but Can We Know by Dale and Elaine Rhooton had more to do with Ist C. AD matters where they are right than with 7th C. AD matters, where they are wrong. Of course, the chapter "the most persecuted book" is wrong, but the rest is very Catholic.

JL not JL

JC not JC knows nothing about me, and evidently knows very little in general given his spamming here.

JC not JC

JL not JL You seem to be one of those protestants who believes Constantine destroyed Christianity.

JL not JL You have in the past shown belief in the 'invisible church' which is very insulting to God.

HGL

Indeed, "invisible" the Church can possibly be in one country (like Catholics in Japan from beginning of persecution - excepting martyrs - to 1868). But over the world over centuries? No.

JL not JL

God is invisible, is that insulting? Jesus did not come to create the monstrosity that has evolved today. Christ's true followers are found amongst all christian denominations. Some are even living in secret in repressive communist and islamic states, they dont need to be a part of your sect or any sect to be saved.

Constantine tried to usurp christianity by blending paganism with scripture, that's historical fact, only the most brainwashed and ignorant would deny.

HGL

"God is invisible, is that insulting?"

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"
[Colossians 1:15]

In other words, God is through this image visible.

"Jesus did not come to create the monstrosity that has evolved today."

Prove that?

He certainly did come to create a Church, at least as a means to give us access to the grace of His redemption. John 20:21-23 on absolution, Matthew 28:16-20 in teaching.

"Christ's true followers are found amongst all christian denominations."

Even if He founded one Church?

"Some are even living in secret in repressive communist and islamic states,"

That is another situation.

"they dont need to be a part of your sect or any sect to be saved."

Catholics do sometimes at least count on, in situations where external recourse to the Church is impossible, God supplies graces we would normally get through the Church, and God understands the ignorance which ensues. It is possible such cases or some of them are in God's eyes Catholics.

"Constantine tried to usurp christianity by blending paganism with scripture, that's historical fact, only the most brainwashed and ignorant would deny."

On the contrary, it is ignorant - I won't overuse the word "brainwashed" as it is a favourite Marxist expression - to believe that Hislop's fantasy is historical fact.

JC not JC

HGL JL not JL believes in a strange form of Christianity. He believes in man's interpretation.

JL not JL You are wrong to think Christianity went extinct. The Eucharist existed long before Constantine was born.

It's not the blood of the martyrs which saved the true religion of Christ, it's the Protestants apparently. Never mind that they are splintered into tens of thousands of sects. Coz that just means nothing to them. The martyrs gave their lives in the face of brutal torture by the pagan Romans, yet Constantine comes along and achieves what his predecessors couldn't achieve without firing a single shot so to speak? Give me a fugging break.

HGL He will assert that Constantine defeated God. No evidence or data will change his mind. He already believes in weird conspiracies like the Pastor Jim memes.

HGL

A somewhat different one, actually.

VII

MSi

If believing in evolution was heresy then, and if it was an excuse to murder. Then why didn't the RCC execute Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? It's not the time period of World war one and two was not murder/lynching free, it would have been easy. Heck the guy wasn't just a heretic he was forging the Piltdown man hoax! Of course you NEVER CITED ANY THING FROM THE ALBIGENSES THAT WAS HERESY. Why? Because if there was anything written by Albigenses the evidence was burnt by the inquisitors so that you can blaspheme there name. not to mention the fact that even if you found one person saying one thing heretical, it does not mean that it stould for the group. You are simply endorsing murder.

TDG

And why don't the Catholics execute their own recent popes and Bishops who have been evolutionists? Hypocrisy?

HGL

TDG - first of all the recent bishops and so called Popes of the Vatican II sect are not Catholics.

Second, there was some sense in executing heretics while there was a Catholic consensus to save, there is no sense in it now.

HGL

MSi "If believing in evolution was heresy then,"

No one believed in Evolution.

Albigensians believed in a kind of creationism, but a two level one, where God creates only spirits and a fallen spirit playing God creates bodies.

"and if it was an excuse to murder."

There is a difference between execution and murder.

"Then why didn't the RCC execute Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?"

More general terms, last state which had Inquisition and death penalty for heresy was Spain with colonies, and that ended in 1820. We do NOT believe in lynching for heresy.

More specific, Teilhard was given a ban on writing, which he obeyed, and which was lifted by the Vatican II sect. He could have been excommunicated too, but Pius XII who had given that ban considered him more or less a madman (hence no excommunication).

"It's not the time period of World war one and two was not murder/lynching free, it would have been easy."

As said, we don't believe in lynching for heresy. Executions were a means to avoid the religious pluralism which is now giving way to a one world huge hoax. In Teilhard's time, the pluralism with non-Catholic hegemony was already there, no use in any secret lynch-mob-inquisition.

This is also why I don't believe there is any use of bringing the Inquisition back as in those days.

"Heck the guy wasn't just a heretic he was forging the Piltdown man hoax!"

Like, I would have preferred if Pius XII had excommunicated the man and defrocked him.

"Of course you NEVER CITED ANY THING FROM THE ALBIGENSES THAT WAS HERESY."

// [13] On the Principle of Evil. Therefore, it behooves us of necessity to confess that there is another principle, one of evil, who works most wickedly against the true God and His creation; and this principle seems to move God against His own creation and the creation against its God, and causes God himself to wish for and desire that which in and of himself He could never wish for at all. Thus it is that through the compulsion of the evil enemy God yearns and is wearied, relents, is burdened, and is served by His own creatures. Whence God says to His people through Isaiah: "But thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thy iniquities"; and again, "I am weary of bearing them." And Malachi says, "You have wearied the Lord with your words." And David says, "And [he] repented according to the multitude of His mercies." And the Apostle says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, "For we are God's coadjutors." Of the compulsion of God, however, the Lord himself says to Satan in the Book of Job, "But thou hast moved me against him, that I should afflict him without cause." And through Ezechiel the same Lord says, "And when they caught the souls of my people, they gave life to their souls. And they violated me among my people, for a handful of barley and a piece of bread, to kill souls which should not die and to save souls alive which should not live." And the Lord, lamenting over His people, says through Isaiah: "Because I called and you did not answer; I spoke and you did not hear, and you did evil in my eyes, and you have chosen the things that displease me." "

And so it appears plainly that this concept of how one may serve God buttresses my argument. For if there were only one First Principle, holy, just, and good, as has been declared of the true Lord God in the foregoing, He would not make Himself sorrowful, sad, or dolorous; neither would He bear pain in himself, nor grow weary or repent, nor be aided by anyone, nor be burdened with the sins of anyone, nor yearn or wish for anything to be done which was delayed in coming to pass, since nothing at all could be done contrary to His will; nor could He be moved by anyone or injured, nor could there be anything which would trouble God, but all things would obey Him from overwhelming necessity. And most especially would this be true because all things would be by Him and in Him and of Him," in all their dispositions, if there were only one First Principle, holy and just, as I have shown above in discussing the true God. //

Cathar Texts and Rituals : The Book of the Two Principles
http://gnosis.org/library/cathar-two-principles.htm

In the previous, the writer has confused the idea of God creating angels "perfect" (as in not sinful) with the idea of Him creating them "perfect" (as in not able to sin).

"Why? Because if there was anything written by Albigenses the evidence was burnt by the inquisitors so that you can blaspheme there name."

As shown, this is not correct. Quoting intro to above text:

"The Book of the Two Principles is the largest surviving work of Cathar literature. It provides an important witness to the sophistication of Cathar argumentation against orthodox theology -- a debate in which the Good Christians prevailed, at least in the contemporary judgment of a large portion of the population of Southern France during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It should be remembered that the Good Christians dominated the argument and won the heart of Languedoc; it was a genocidal and generation-long crusade against them by Pope and Kings that they lost."

In fact, it was not genocidal. Unlike what these Gnostics, and perhaps you too, may have thought.

But supposing this had been true, we would not have a single writing from Albigensians and those writing of them would have described them (as I do) as non-Christians, this leaves a large burden of proof on anyone pretending they were in fact Christians.

"not to mention the fact that even if you found one person saying one thing heretical, it does not mean that it stould for the group. You are simply endorsing murder."

If you are endorsing Albigensians, you are.

The Crusade and Inquisition with Death Penalty was decided against them after they had precisely murdered a Papal legate. They had also been oppressing Catholics, through the lords who endorsed and protected them.

Here is on the murdered Papal legate:

Pierre de Castelnau - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Castelnau

TDG

No one defended the supposed murder of any people legate. That is a pure straw man argument.

HGL

OK, I joked (which you can see from my next comment admitting in earnest you were talking of murder of Albigensians).

But there is a point to that joke - were Albigensians murderers?

Was the killing of Pierre de Castelnau a thing one could expect of them again, if they weren't checked?

That was the position when a Crusade was launched against Raymond of Toulouse for allowing things to get out of hand.

Would my view on 69 millions (see other subthread) as spurious be a strawman too, or would you admit MSi actually wrote "69million is the total number of those killed in the inquisition over 1500 years"?

By the way, TDG - I think you referred to sth I said in that other subthread, not this one.

"the supposed murder of any people legate."

Btw, "supposed" - do you think there is doubt Pierre de Castelnau was killed by the squire of Raymond of Toulouse who had been favourable to Albigensians?

SL

Matthew 10:14 And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

TDG

I wasn't there so I don't know what really went down. I do know, that you are trying to justify a church committing murder in the name of God. Therefore, I don't trust you.

HGL

SL Guess what Pierre de Castelnau was doing?

He was chased down.

By the way, I had misread the information as I was a teen into Albigensians doing the murder. It was the Count of Toulouse's squire who did it and it isn't clear he was Albigensian.

I just looked up the encyclopedia I was informed by online this time - and it was ambiguously worded.

HGL

TDG "I do know, that you are trying to justify a church committing murder in the name of God."

If you don't know what really went down, how do you know even killing Albigensians after they refused to convert to Catholicism was murder?

There are three occasions when killing of a man is licit:

• death penalty
• licit acts of just wars
• licit self defense if there is no other way

If you don't do the history, how can you tell execution of Albigensians was murder?

"it isn't clear he was Albigensian."

It isn't clear to me, that is, I have things to read up on.

If you want to know someone who did much more research than I, take a look at Elena Maria Vidal's The Nigh's Dark Shade.

Or contact her.

As for the encyclopedia entry I was now looking up, it is here, if anyone knows Swedish (Michel Snoeck does):

Nordisk familjebok / 1800-talsutgåvan. 1. A - Barograf / 367-368
http://runeberg.org/nfaa/0367.html

The article was signed by the Lutheran curate and Court Preacher J. H. Björnström.

TDG

There is no just war against a differing religious group over doctrine.

If one of them committed a crime, that is not justification to commence war against an entire sect.

Or do you think it was good and right for Clinton and Reno to have incinerated the Branch Davidians? Was it licit for the Nazis to exterminate the Jews?

HGL

" There is no just war against a differing religious group over doctrine."

If it's just over doctrine, perhaps?

If neither side represents the obligation of baptismal vows, perhaps?

And perhaps opposite if one side does represent the obligation we have to Christ over baptismal vows and the other a break with them and if the doctrinal differences also end up in very bad behaviours, like accepting abortion and sodomy (Albigensian perfecti would not to either, since celibate chaste, but they would prefer this to marriage and childbirth in others and also be against punishing).

"Or do you think it was good and right for Clinton and Reno to have incinerated the Branch Davidians?"

I don't think Clinton or Reno can claim representing baptismal vows. I also think Branch Davidians are less likely than Clinton or Reno to exhibit the bad behaviours of Albigensians.

"Was it licit for the Nazis to exterminate the Jews?"

While I live in a country where voicing doubts on what happened is on the edge of illegal, and while I think there are some doubts, for one thing Jews are (as such, religious use of the word) not baptised and cannot be held accountable for breaking baptismal vows.

Inquisition was not only not making pogroms (as long as Jews refrained from certain extreme actions) but even protecting them against such. An Albigensian was one kind of baptised person who could end up being judged by them and a pogrom instigator another one.

Michel Snoeck

Who determines that which is a sect? It should in any case not be pixilated parrots of which many are wandering this planet! 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Catholic Church that Christ founded.

Michel Snoeck

Luther wouldn't agree with that and for solid reason... Catholic implies a 'seat' (compare with cathedral). The Catholic Church did so many wrongs that I do not even consider that.

TDG

Ignoring the fact that a baby cannot make a baptismal vow, you don't murder people for violating baptismal vows. That's wicked, ungodly.

HGL

"Luther wouldn't agree with that and for solid reason..."

Before deciding to actually definitely chose Catholicism, I had already ditched Luther - for solid reason. Matthew 28:20. Matthew 16:18.

Or simply that without Catholicism, Luther wouldn't have had a Bible in the first place.

"Catholic implies a 'seat' (compare with cathedral)."

Yes, so?

"The Catholic Church did so many wrongs that I do not even consider that."

Isn't the main one (on your view) the one you are discussing?

It was on mine until I found out what Albigensians were teaching.

"Ignoring the fact that a baby cannot make a baptismal vow,"

If we can partake of Adam's sin (and babies can, since babies do die, see the discussion by St Paul) before the age of reason, we can also partake of Christ's justice before then.

"you don't murder people for violating baptismal vows. That's wicked, ungodly."

Murdering certainly would be so.

Executing now, when the Catholic unity is already gone would be "meaningless justice" if you see what I mean. The ones killed would in a sense have deserved it, but it would serve no purpose.

As it was, it is arguably thanks to the Inquisition that we were born and that Harmageddon was postponed so we could be so. With heresy spreading quicker and unchecked, Antichrist and the False Prophet would aready have come.

Now, there is also a difference between murder and execution.

The latter implies trial, it implies some right to defense (and suspects were not just allowed but encouraged to provide lists of personal enemies, since these could have had a motive to make false denunciations, and if each denunciator was found on your list of personal enemies, you were automatically set free).

In fact, the justice of Inquisitors was so famed (OK, some centuries later, in Spain, but if you went Calvinist there and didn't repent, you would still be facing the stake) that people would make a minor religious crime (like blasphemy in anger, like what the letters "o" and "m" and "g" are stylising in English internet discourse) just in order to get a trial by inquisitors.

Michel Snoeck

Right, so if you do not leave your evil beliefs (or do not tell as we say) you get executed (or murdered, what's the difference?). Luther did not have a Bible? He must have or he would not have been able to translate it into German (NT at least, as the OT was already available in German).

Too many wrongs with Catholicism propagandists. With their 'popies' that do as they please and change rules when one dies and the next one gets inaugurated. I certainly did ditch that. Not even talking about they changed the ten commandments to fit their own view. Yeah, ditched it was! 🙄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Right, so if you do not leave your evil beliefs (or do not tell as we say) you get executed (or murdered, what's the difference?)."

Are you posing a threat or are you playing with rhetoric?

So, Catholicism was around before Reformation. We have priority about being Christians. You have no right to judge the ones you came from. That would be murder. And the Reformation committed that murder in more than one place.

Again, Inquisition was there to prevent a mindset of spreading in which Antichrist could easily come. That mindset is already here and next decade we will probably see Antichrist in power. If nothing happens. Executing heretics for heresy is senseless. Even those actually guilty, actually deserving of death, would be senseless to kill - not to mention impossible considering the number of Apostates who are baptised.

"Luther did not have a Bible?"

WOULD not HAVE HAD. Turning a conditional into an indicative categoric is making a strawman.

"He must have or he would not have been able to translate it into German (NT at least, as the OT was already available in German)."

Both were available in German, thanks to Catholicism, and the one he translated from (at least NT) was there thanks to Catholicism too.

"Too many wrongs with Catholicism propagandists. With their 'popies' that do as they please and change rules when one dies and the next one gets inaugurated."

Well, I am not into the Vatican II Sect and its changing rules either.

"I certainly did ditch that. Not even talking about they changed the ten commandments to fit their own view. Yeah, ditched it was! 🙄"

Except we didn't. We have not cut out Exodus 20:4 from the Bible, you have not proven there is a commandment starting in that verse. Jesus has shown giving a shortlist of commandments, shorter than full text in Exodus 20 (aka Shema Israel) is licit.

Michel Snoeck

To say it briefly, I find that Catholicism is a corrupt and human institution. It is lead by humans, can it be anything other than at least a little bit corrupt? One can theorize and argue that a dead body decaying is alive, it will not make it alive, stand up and start walking...

SL

Roman Catholicism is identical to the Pharisees during Jesus time.

HGL

"To say it briefly, I find that Catholicism is a corrupt"

You are not good at arguing it from Inquisition. Not with me, at least.

"and human institution. It is lead by humans, can it be anything other than at least a little bit corrupt?"

A little bit corrupt? What is "a little bit"? Someone being a horrid sinner in it? Judas Ischariot was.

Or Church leadership as a whole being corrupt? THAT is a challenge to Matthew 28:20. And As Baltimore Catechism n3 pointed out:

Q. 513. Why must the true Church be visible?

A. The true Church must be visible because its founder, Jesus Christ, commanded us under pain of condemnation to hear the Church; and He could not in justice command us to hear a Church that could not be seen and known.

BALTIMORE CATECHISM #3 : LESSON 11 - ON THE CHURCH
http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson11.htm

"One can theorize and argue that a dead body decaying is alive, it will not make it alive, stand up and start walking..."

If you meant Vatican II Sect, I tend to agree about it. Catholicism is alive where it is not obeying Pope Francis. There are great laymen obeying him, but they are betrayed by less great pastors.

"Roman Catholicism is identical to the Pharisees during Jesus time."

If any religious body is so, it is Talmudic Judaism.

Considering how the words about Pharisees applied to bad Catholic leaders has been a constant topos for Catholic rhetoric for centuries, this was then hijacked with exaggeration by diverse Protestant sects, but is still used by Catholics (Pharisees sat on chair of MOses, bad Popes have sat on the chair of Peter).

However, the identic religion to those Pharisees rejecting Christ are Rabbis arguing why Jesus from Nazareth was not the prophecied Christ, and that you don't get from Catholics.

Noted that Michel Snoeck was not posing a serious threat, by the way, just doing rhetoric.

Michel Snoeck

Only logic applied and reference to recorded history... the grandest threat there is...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, no, rhetoric misapplying logic.

• 1) We are in a different position withs secularised states, there are basically no Catholic (or Protestant) states to defend and making one would normally require religious tolerance.
• 2) Catholics (except individual converts) do not come from Protestantism, Evangelical or otherwise and today Protestants (similar exception) do not come from Catholics. Heretics judgeable by Inquisition were ex-Catholics or people whose parents or grandparents had been Catholics - ALL of them. Where anabaptists formed a separate "ethnicity" Inquisitor Belllarmine (St Robert is noted for the Galileo and Bruno cases) considered them as unbaptised and not judgeable by Inquisition for that reason, any more than Jews or Moslems.
• 3) You are demanding compassion for one actor who suffered in the past, but you are doing to deprive another one (Catholics have suffered horribly by Protestant Reformations, Sweden and elsewhere even worse). AND in order to demonise one of the actors now, which is not judging heretics by an Inquisition that extradicts to the secular arm.

Three inconsistencies in your misapplied logic.

Btw, "recorded history" means very little in your mouth, when you can consider Kurt Baschwitz as an authority on it.

Michel Snoeck

Those accusing an opponent of the things you accuse me of commonly are guilty of the offense themselves... You did know nóthing of Kurt Baschwitz prior to me mentioning him, then you read a brief biography of him after an Internet search, it listed something with psychology, which then was enough for you to discard wholly of him without looking ány further! You said so in the group. At that I have not presented him as an authority or my authority, I only suggested that you should familiarize and find out what he wrote about these matters, but you would not.

You also, might I say, turn it personally, you write demeaning comments with the intent to minimize my credibility. I find that people who behave in such manners try to cover up something, usually a lack of valid arguments proving their own case! 🤔

SL

I wonder if anyone actually reads any further than the first line that Hans writes. He never makes any valid points so I'm guessing nobody bothers anymore after the first line...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I only suggested that you should familiarize and find out what he wrote about these matters,"

Meaning, you considered him as giving valid information on historical facts on this matter - i e you were presenting him as a historical authority.

Sorry, I have no intention wasting time on people whose misgrip on history a few centuries ago is as dreary as a rainy day after I find out they are not likely to have very many valid arguments about the facts.

"I wonder if anyone actually reads any further than the first line that Hans writes."

Some don't, but in that case, they should not bother to answer.

Michel Snoeck "you write demeaning comments with the intent to minimize my credibility."

In history you don't have any.

And as to demeaning, how many did you make to me first?

Study that question here, it is not just in the air:

Galileo and Hexenhammer
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/11/galileo-and-hexenhammer.html

VIII

JL not JL

See, trying to justify murder is where yoking oneself blindly to a cult can lead.

HGL

So, you distance yourself from the murder on Pierre Castelnau?

Pierre de Castelnau - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Castelnau

In that case, can you identify with getting to grips with the murderers?

In fact, I felt like remaining a Lutheran up to when I had - unexpectedly - a justification for what I presume you are (to be serious) referring to as "murder of Albigensians".

It was not murder since execution and was not judicial murder, since merited by Albigensians actually blaspheming.

Up to realising this, I didn't have any plans on immediately going Catholic.

I did have plans on joining hands with other pro-Catholic Lutherans in sooner or later reuniting collectively, undoing the Reformation, which was a REAL affair of murders.

MSi

notice you quote "cathar" instead of Albigenses. You might as well say a muslim was behind 9/11 so lets get all muslim countries.....And thus we see more genocide.

but hey 69million is not genocide right?

Look if you want to call yourself Christian then don't make a pagan idol infront of your base of operations as in the trevi fountain! LOL

HGL

"69million is not genocide right?"

Where the Hell do you get that "statistic" from?

Some few thousand or even just some hundreds of Cathars certainly were killed. Manyfold more converted.

Btw, Albigenses were one local name of the more general designation Cathars.

"Look if you want to call yourself Christian then don't make a pagan idol infront of your base of operations as in the trevi fountain!"

Totally other subject.

MSi

The "holy Roman Empire" was never a sovereign nation. It was a terrorist organization based upon the fraud upon King Pepin. It ransomed people with frauds and black mail obtained through the priest confessional.

again you have NO DOCUMENTATION from the Albigenses. you ae using blanket documents of another group. my illustration already refuted your argument.

69million is the total number of those killed in the inquisition over 1500 years

HGL

"The "holy Roman Empire" was never a sovereign nation."

It was not a nation state in the first place.

"It was a terrorist organization"

Not so.

"based upon"

Not so.

"the fraud upon King Pepin. It ransomed people with frauds and black mail obtained through the priest confessional."

Not so.

"again you have NO DOCUMENTATION from the Albigenses. you ae using blanket documents of another group. my illustration already refuted your argument."

Cathars were not another group, but a general group which was locally called Albigenses.

You have refuted nothing, since you have no kind of argument that Albigenses were in fact Christians.

"69million is the total number of those killed in the inquisition over 1500 years"

Inquisitors were not in the business of extradicting to the secular arm for that long. The "total number" given is a total lie.

IX

MSi

a case for the Waldenses ancient origin

bible smack : a case for the Waldenses ancient origin
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2010/03/case-for-waldenses-ancient-origin.html

and here is the next rebuttal answered.

HGL

"They deny the existence of not only the waldenses but multiple churches throughout he centuries."

We do not deny the existence of Waldenses, but think it limited in time. Too limited to reach back to pre-Constantine Church.

Some would consider Peter Waldo as basically rehashing Peter Bruis and Henricus.

Some would even go so far as to consider they could go back to Claudius of Turin.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : History Forger James Aitken Wylie
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/12/history-forger-james-aitken-wylie.html

Claudius of Turin was contemporary with the evil Byzantine Emperors known as Iconoclasts, so this would at most link Waldensians to Leo Isaurus and Constantine Copronym.

"Even if the Waldensees were off the table. You still have the montanist, Donatist,"

Montanists and Donatists were Ancient schismatics, fairly similar to Catholicism - as were Novatians - except on particulars. Montanus believed he was incarnation of Holy Ghosts (yes, wacky Catholics exist). Novatian and Donatus were claimants to papacy who were denying absolution to penitent apostates (yes, hardline Catholics exist).

Montanists were absorbed into Catholic Church before these ither schisms, Novatians into Catholics and Donatists and Donatists after loosing bishops with Apostolic succession (St Augustine helped condemn Donatism in a Council of Carthage and this over time impressed bishops even among those), they degraded to the robber band known as Circumcelliones.

"Paulicans,"

Were like Albigensians a non-Christian and Manichaean sect.

"lumbees"

Don't know who these are.

"and several similar sects."

Similar to what of above? The enumerated sects are very different from each other!

"The fact is that these people not only existed but were murdered for their faith."

Iconoclasts were murdering Orthodox. Donatist Circumcellions were executed as robbers. Many simply disappeared when people got tired of the fad. When Albigensians were out of the way, Waldensians were treated far more leniently, that is why they survived to the time of Reformation and joined hands with Calvinism.

"The 1120 A.D. confession of faith was uncovered by Samuel moreland in 1658. Moreland was commission by Oliver Cromwell to give aid to the Waldenses and to research their history."

As if Samuel Moreland and Oliver Cromwell were above forgery!

"The Waldenses were massacred by the Roman Catholic church at that time."

In fact, this is not totally untrue, if you substitute RC secular authorities for "Church".

"In January 1655, the Duke of Savoy commanded the Waldensians to attend Mass or remove to the upper valleys of their homeland, giving them twenty days in which to sell their lands. Being in the midst of winter, the order was intended to persuade the Vaudois to choose the former; however, the bulk of the populace instead chose the latter, abandoning their homes and lands in the lower valleys and removing to the upper valleys. It was written that these targets of persecution, including old men, women, little children and the sick "waded through the icy waters, climbed the frozen peaks, and at length reached the homes of their impoverished brethren of the upper Valleys, where they were warmly received.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#Piedmont_Easter

"By mid-April, when it became clear that the Duke's efforts to force the Vaudois to conform to Catholicism had failed, he tried another approach. Under the guise of false reports of Vaudois uprisings, the Duke sent troops into the upper valleys to quell the local populace. He required that the local populace quarter the troops in their homes, which the local populace complied with. But the quartering order was a ruse to allow the troops easy access to the populace. On 24 April 1655, at 4 a.m., the signal was given for a general massacre."

Were the reports false?

"According to one report by a Peter Liegé"

This name could not be found on French wiki ...

I did find one Jean Léger (of which Liegé could be a spelling variant) - who called on French help against the Duchy of Savoy - and Louis XIV provided it (then).

"Now one can claim that this document was forged by the Waldensees. However, the confession doesn't match the 2nd one. The first is more anabaptist and allows reading from the apocrypha. Yet the second does not. The third is entirely more reformed than anabaptist. Apparently the first is also written in Italian."

In other words, Waldensians were not even united on what to believe over the centuries. Christian unity to certain Protestants = cursing Catholicism. Christian liberty to them = differring over why Catholicism is to be cursed, a Calvinist claiming there is too much freewill and an Anabaptist claiming there is too little of it in Catholicism, for instance.

"None of the Waldensees confessions, nor other writings from the ancient church ascribe Waldo to be the founder of the church. Yet this is odd among reformers."

Peter Waldo may have believed he was reviving the Henrician and Petrobrussian movements and have projected a continuity beyond that.

"When we look at the way protestants honor Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc. It would seem odd that the Waldenses not give respect to their supposed church father."

As with Albigensians, they were making a claim of going back to Apostolic Church.

"Waldenses were commonly accused to be the same as the albigenses as well as Paulicans. It is obvious that similarity points to the fact that these groups held the same faith. which is much more ancient than Peter Waldo. Catholic apologists typicaly lump these groups together in the same heresies,"

No, we don't.

Paulicians, Bogumils and Cathars (of which the mightiest group was Albigensians) are one distinct group. They attack the notion that the true and good God has created our bodies.

Henricians, Petrobrussians, Waldensians, perhaps going back to Claudius of Turin who was perhaps an Iconoclast, are another distinct one. They attack Catholic ritual, specifically as to images.

Novatians, Donatists and before them Montanists are yet another group, Catholic compared to above, and differed in particulars, specifically rigorism, from the Catholicism that survived them.

Linking the three groups of heretics together is a lie.

"The Inquisition was used to destroy all these so-called "heretics" in order to keep an iron grip on their "holy Roman Empire"."

Where does this author get this goobledigook from?

France was West of Holy Roman Empire and Inquisition was not under the German King Emperor of Rome. It was under the Pope - except where it was under the English king (the one that persecuted Lollards, its system being imitated in process of St Joan of Arc) and where it was under both Pope and Spanish King.

"After all why were medeival europeans really so concerned with preserving Iranian doctrine?"

If you mean Albigensians, they weren't preserving, they were introducing a novelty. They came from the East. Cathars are Western Europe, Bogumils are Balkan, Paulicians were Eastern parts of Byzantine Empire. Some epochs have Eastern influences. China food is arguably better than hypnosis, and hypnosis arguably better than believing one is reincarnated from previous lives and trying to use hypnosis to grasp what one was doing back then.

So, Albigensians were not preserving, they were introducing a novelty.

"Waldenses of the past testified to their ancient origin."

BUT they did so with recent testimonies.

"voltaire reveals that there was historical revisionism among french catholics."

As if Voltaire should be taken seriously either among Christians and Historians, when he was NEITHER.

Parallel to previous

MSi had started another subthread on exact same subject, which here is counted as one:

MSi

So hans laid the axiom:

"Cathars were not another group, but a general group which was locally called Albigenses."

The Albigenses were also called the Waldenses here was their confession of faith.

Waldenses Confession of 1120

• 1. We believe and firmly maintain all that is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, commonly called the apostles' creed, and we regard as heretical whatever is inconsistent with the said twelve articles.
  
  
• 2. We believe that there is one God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  
  
• 3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible. (Here follows the title of each, exactly conformable to our received canon, but which it is deemed, on that account, quite unnecessary to particularize.)
  
  
• 4. The books above-mentioned teach us: That there is one GOD, almighty, unbounded in wisdom, and infinite in goodness, and who, in His goodness, has made all things. For He created Adam after His own image and likeness. But through the enmity of the Devil, and his own disobedience, Adam fell, sin entered into the world, and we became transgressors in and by Adam.
  
  
• 5. That Christ had been promised to the fathers who received the law, to the end that, knowing their sin by the law, and their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ to make satisfaction for their sins, and to accomplish the law by Himself.
  
  
• 6. That at the time appointed of the Father, Christ was born - a time when iniquity everywhere abounded, to make it manifest that it was not for the sake of any good in ourselves, for all were sinners, but that He, who is true, might display His grace and mercy towards us.
  
  
• 7. That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification.
  
  
• 8. And we also firmly believe, that there is no other mediator, or advocate with God the Father, but Jesus Christ. And as to the Virgin Mary, she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and this we also believe concerning all other saints, namely, that they are waiting in heaven for the resurrection of their bodies at the day of judgment.
  
  
• 9. We also believe, that, after this life, there are but two places - one for those that are saved, the other for the damned, which [two] we call paradise and hell, wholly denying that imaginary purgatory of Antichrist, invented in opposition to the truth.
  
  
• 10. Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men [in the affairs of religion] as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of saints, and what is called holy-water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the masses.
  
  
• 11. We hold in abhorrence all human inventions, as proceeding from Antichrist, which produce distress (Alluding probably to the voluntary penances and mortification imposed by the Catholics on themselves), and are prejudicial to the liberty of the mind.
  
  
• 12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them.
  
  
• 13. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord's supper.
  
  
• 14. We honour the secular powers, with subjection, obedience, promptitude, and payment. "

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Waldenses Confession of 1120"

Found and published in the 17th Century.

"The Albigenses were also called the Waldenses here was their confession of faith."

While there was a while popular confusion about the two, they were not the same.

66 books and two sacraments were not Albigensian.

X

SL

Matthew 10:14 And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

TDG

Shake the Dust off must mean execute them in Latin :-/

MSi

notice how he cackles with murder in his heart?

SL

MSi I was on Catholic Answers forum a few years ago and asked the Catholics there if the Pope ordered that there needed to be a war against Protestants and would they follow his call and kill them if instructed to. The main users of the forum, men and women, said YES.

HGL

Would you mind linking to the threads, SL?

You know, linking to a thread on Catholic Forums is possible.

Also, Pierre de Castelnau was doing precisely as Matthew 10:14 prescribes.

The words of Christ were not directed to Catholic rulers who were not themselves missionaries or apostles.

SL

I can't link to it, it was over 12 years ago...

But my comment was not meant to convince anyone else, it was what convinced me about the fallacy of Catholicism from the mouths of actual prominent Catholics at the time. I still have in storage a box of autographed books those people sent me.

HGL

This one is from seven years ago, and I can link to it:

Does apologist Bob Sungenis, Ph.D. seriously believe the Earth, Planets, Stars don’t rotate ?
https://forums.catholic.com/t/does-apologist-bob-sungenis-ph-d-seriously-believe-the-earth-planets-stars-dont-rotate/229561

XI

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have noted, no one is defending what Albigensians actually taught, though some are in denial over it and attribute it to Inquisition lying about whom they were judging.

TDG

What they taught is irrelevant when we are talking about murdering them for it.

HGL

Still leaves them out of the competition of being the actual Church that Christ founded.

PLUS you are wrong about definition of murder PLUS you are wrong about what happened to most Albigensians (they converted and got fairly light penances, like wearing a yellow cross for some years and standing up with it outside Church when people were leaving Mass).

If you realise they weren't Christians, you are very upset on some of them dying and most of them getting at least a bit more Christian. Centuries ago.

If you don't realise that, you are of course making what they taught matter.

TDG

Having doctrinal differences doesn't necessarily mean someone is not a Christian. Whether they are or not, you still don't kill people over that.

You are showing very clearly that the Roman Catholic cult is a bloodthirsty killer and indeed the whore of Revelation.

HGL

Oh, no. In order to be that, the victims would have to be Christians.

She was drunk of the blood of the saints, remember?

Well, if Albigensians weren't Christians, their demise is not proof the ones killing a few of them is that harlot.

Also, I think decapitation was mentioned in that context [of Apocalypse].

Well, I'd say Anglicans decapitating and quartering a lot of Catholics as traitors fit the description better.



Btw, one reason I'd not call Vatican II Sect Catholic is, "Pope Francis" was extremely good friend with an Anglican and said "they don't need to convert".



Not quite Tolkien's attitude to CSL.



Also, "bloodthirsty" is not very appropriate if 9/10 judgements are not concerned with death penalty, and the 1/10 which are half are not burned themselves, but only have puppets burned. This is the stats for Bernard Gui as Inquisitor of Toulouse (930 cases) and there were no serious efforts to keep all the condemned ones confined so they could get killed (42 burned in person, 45 in effigie, that is puppets with their name on it were burned while they were living on elsewhere).



"Having doctrinal differences doesn't necessarily mean someone is not a Christian."



Depends on which ones.



Calling the creator of Earth Satan is not within the pale.



Also, Matthew 28:20 says there is a rule given by Christ to Apostles outside which a doctrine cannot be considered as Christian.

TDG

So you kill a mixture of Christians and non-christians. It's wrong either way.

You don't kill them all, you only kill some of them. It's still wrong. It's still murder.

They became converts. Yeah, by force. You don't know if any of them were true converts in that case.

Instead of murdering some, you gave them a penance very much like the Nazis gave the Jews. Oh how benevolent!

If anglicans did something wrong, that is not justification for the Catholic cult to do the same thing to someone else.

You are going to Great extremes to justify and minimize murder in the name of a church.

HGL

"So you kill a mixture of Christians and non-christians. It's wrong either way."

Supposing Waldensians were real Christians, which is a generous assessment (as with you).

Well, in fact mostly it was not killing.

"You don't kill them all, you only kill some of them. It's still wrong. It's still murder."

In that case judicial murder, but where do you get it Christian states cannot exist (contrary to Matthew 28:18) or cannot punish blasphemy?

It was most certainly not murder in the normal sense of private citizens plotting deaths of other private citizens for reasons of dislike or inconvenience.

"They became converts. Yeah, by force. You don't know if any of them were true converts in that case."

I think talking to a man over weeks (after the initial max. three days of torture who someone else inflicted on him) and being a generally empathetic person would give you a hint if someone really saw "oh, Jesus said Genesis was true? why didn't the Cathar perfectus tell me so?" or if someone just blank changed his mind overnight for no stated reason at all.

"Instead of murdering some, you gave them a penance very much like the Nazis gave the Jews."

I am sorry ... you refer to the yellow six edged star?

In Nazi Germany, if it had lasted, there are two major differences from that:

• "Jews" didn't (according to officially known history at least) concern confession, but genetics. You have three to four Jewish grandparents, you count as Jew, even if you are Christian (which by the way agrees with a Jewish way of thinking about it) - by contrast, Albigensian is not about origin (every Albigensian would have had three to four grandparents born in Catholic families and raised Catholics).
• The yellow cross is not about the difference, it is about cessation of the difference.

"Oh how benevolent!"

I have sufficient empathy to hear an angry man blurting out a condemning shout of irony. Did you work yourself up to anger before answering?

"If anglicans did something wrong, that is not justification for the Catholic cult to do the same thing to someone else."

It was not the same thing.

It was Anglicans who did the decapitation. It is Anglicans who had that external and exact similarity with Apocalyptic evil.

Also, on a deeper level it is not the same thing. Montfort killed some over NOT having the religion of their eight great-grandparents. Henry VIII killed people over HAVING the religion of their eight great-grandparents.

Anglicans killing Catholics is like Albigensians killing Catholics over refusing to become Albigensians.

"You are going to Great extremes to justify and minimize murder in the name of a church."

You are going to great extremes to call me out on that one. Michel Snoeck pretended that the great threat to me was logic and recorded history. No, but there is a threat to me in having day after day, hour after hour spent on FB rounded up by you, him, Matt SIngleton, SL, now also AT, repeating same charge over and over again.

With people like YOU I cannot afford showing empathy, since what you will accept as such is lying flat on my back and telling you you are right, when you are wrong. Inquisitors did not use that method of converting, but possibly Albigensians and Waldensians had, and that could possibly have been one cause of the Crusade.

In fact, watching JA's video, what you have so far done is like collectively shaming the one Muslim for defending Saladin or for Mohammed's conquests (and note, Mohammed could not pretend very realistically that the 8 greatgrandparents of every Christian, Jew or Pagan he killed for not converting had been a Muslim).

TDG

Can you show me where a Christian Church is supposed to punish anyone for glass of meat? I see we are not to have fellowship with them and we can put them out of the church, but we have no business meteing out punishment. We certainly have no business executing anyone for that. Such punishment is God's job.

HGL

"Can you show me where a Christian Church is supposed to punish anyone for glass of meat? I see we are not to have fellowship with them and we can put them out of the church, but we have no business meteing out punishment. We certainly have no business executing anyone for that."

Very long, indeed up to Albigensian flood of infidelity, Catholic discipline agreed with your assessment.

When the Emperor decided to punish Priscillianists, St Martin of Tours was against that.

Nevertheless, there is a distinction between what Catholics do as CHURCH and what Catholics do as this or that NATION or other STATE.

Meting out punishments like death was done by the state power, while the Inquisitors were "handing someone out to the secular arm".

What Inquisitors were doing themselves before deciding that was pretty much what you are trying to do for me : reason someone out of an error.

DIFFERENCE : they were arguably calmer and less fanatic than you are.

And "glass of meat"? Is that a mistype?

"Such punishment is God's job."

Is EVERY punishment God's job, so no crimes can be pursued? Or is it just in the field of religion and doctrine where the foulest crimes must be tolerated bc it's God's job to punish them?

TDG

Glass of meat was supposed to be blasphemy but voice text really messed it up.

A church has no business being a government.

HGL

Well, that is not what the Catholic Church was.

The question is, can a government belong to a Church?

According to Matthew 28 "all nations" clause, yes.

A nation arguably includes its government.

TDG

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The church is supposed to go to all nations to evangelize. It is not supposed to become a nation.

HGL

Not the point. Is any nation supposed in its entirety to become part of the Church? Matthew 28 says yes.

This means that those governing, while normally laymen, normally not Church leaders, are still Catholics, part of the Church, and protecting the Church is part of their job.

TDG

You still have them blending church and civic responsibilities.

If Baptists are in govt you'd actually support them killing Catholics to protect their church?

Protecting the church by murder is never part of their job.

HGL

You are, sorry, mixing apples and oranges. Like murder and execution, for one.

A valid Catholic baptism obliges you to lifelong Christian faith. Therefore makes heresy a crime against God.

Crimes against God are the worst ones. Next question : is it hurting society?

N O W .... was there some use in Albigensians getting mostly converted but in some cases killed? Well, if it hadn't been for that, some conservative Protestants with far less heresy than Albigensians would not be around.

Also, if Antichrist had already come, we would not be around, since history would have ended.

How exactly would you imagine killing Catholics by a Baptist government (though you had that where Munzer took power!) (If you count Anabaptists as Baptists, that is) would postpone any bad things in the end times?

It's more like they are already here or close on, and you are accusing me of being on the evil side, because I don't share your horror of the Inquisition.

And Anti-Catholics in power were already on the scene, Protestant powers have massacred Catholics in the meantime, massacres you ignore to concentrate on others where we were on the killing side .... bias?

If you say you are equally against Protestants persecuting Catholics from 1534 to 1830 in England, to name one country, are you aware of the fact that you have not spent days in denouncing Protestants defending that persecution (no one was doing so, so far, you can say) and also the fact that pretending Albigensians Protestant and the numbers killed massive was part of how Protestants motivated persecuting Catholics as traitors?

AND you still have no support for Albigensians being Christians.

So, where was Christianity that year?

A question you might like to cover up by accusations of "murder"?

TDG

{{A valid Catholic baptism obliges you to lifelong Christian faith. Therefore makes heresy a crime against God}}

No, heresy against the RCC is NOT heresy against God. In fact, The RCC is heresy against God, but that's another debate.

In any case, nowhere are Christians, churches, or their leaders to mete out capital punishment for heresy.

{{Protestant powers have massacred Catholics in the meantime, massacres you ignore}}

They weren't the topic YOU originated. I'm Baptist, not a Protestant. Baptists have been persecuted by Catholics (mostly abroad) and Protestants (mostly in America). Either way, I oppose any such killing over religious doctrine. So does God.

HGL

"No, heresy against the RCC is NOT heresy against God."

Between Albigensians and RC, it was Albigensians who were heretical about Genesis 1.

"In fact, The RCC is heresy against God, but that's another debate."

I took Genesis 1 and Albigensians as an example. That is the topic I did chose.

"In any case, nowhere are Christians, churches, or their leaders to mete out capital punishment for heresy."

Bible verse for that?

Churches or their leaders are normally not civil governement anyway, Christians cannot be considered obliged to stay out of government and army, governments cannot be said to be obliged to abolish forever death penalty.

"They weren't the topic YOU originated. I'm Baptist, not a Protestant."

Baptists are a branch of Protestants.

"Baptists have been persecuted by Catholics (mostly abroad)"

Less than by Protestants. If only because Protestant countries were where they fled to and eventually got persecuted in, but also Baptist community in TRansylvania or where it was after a generation or two was by Inquisition considered as a non-baptised community of heathens and therefore not under the Inquisitors' judgement.

"and Protestants (mostly in America)."

And England.

"Either way, I oppose any such killing over religious doctrine."

That we know.

"So does God."

That you haven't shown.

You have also not answered where Christianity was that year.

If you rule out both Innocent III (since killing) and Albigensians (since heretical about Genesis 1 as well as rest of OT and therefore about a lot of passages in NT as well), where was it?

XII

Two subthreads from other status (and thereofore other thread) previously here, are now on next post. That being : "Sola Scriptura inevitably results in countless contradicting theologies."