The Albigensian Crusade

[Ellen Brown]

Youtube video by the above title.

Listening to this video, it seems that my own point of view is nothing new. Sadly, from my point of view, the good guys lost. The key points in the Cathar philosophy are that God is one, not three, and that since Angels have no gender, then it means that here on Earth, men and women are equal full stop. Very interesting.

This occured around 1206 AD.

 

[Valjean]

Heterodoxy is very threatening to the power elite. They usually try to extinguish it -- though maybe not so brazenly these days.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Ellen, which video have you watched? It may be of interest to know that many modern historians now believe 'Catharism' as an organized religious structure did not really exist, being largely a political fabrication intended to drum up support for the 'Crusade' by making it appear as if a band of heretics was organizing in France.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Heterodoxy is very threatening to the power elite. They usually try to extinguish it -- though maybe not so brazenly these days.

Agreed. I am reading a story that includes the Dine and discusses Nadeeli. Their philosophy of Hozho bears study. They were trampled, and almost wiped out by the raiding hordes of Europe.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Ellen, which video have you watched? It may be of interest to know that many modern historians now believe 'Catharism' as an organized religious structure did not really exist, being largely a political fabrication intended to drum up support for the 'Crusade' by making it appear as if a band of heretics was organizing in France.

The one done by "The History Guy" called The Albigensian Crusade. He seems reliable. I believe him.

 

[dianaiad]

Ellen, which video have you watched? It may be of interest to know that many modern historians now believe 'Catharism' as an organized religious structure did not really exist, being largely a political fabrication intended to drum up support for the 'Crusade' by making it appear as if a band of heretics was organizing in France.

Huh.

Is this a rewriting of history meant to claim that religious persecution did not, actually, exist?
Or is this a rewriting of history along the lines of "Holocaust denial?"

Pope Innocent II was a real piece of work; his actions were not, by any means, limited to "Kill them all: let God sort them out" massacring of Albigensians. Though they are right about one thing; after the powers that were through, there was no Cathar religious organization in France. Something about them pretty much all being dead and all...

On the other hand, I wasn't aware that the Cathars were 'organizing' any sort of 'rebellion' at all, come to think. The local leaders liked 'em...or at least, put up with 'em. It was Innocent, England and the rest of France that really wanted the political power.

Oh, wait. That seems to be the real motive behind most, if not all, the "Crusades" of that era, come to think of it; politics and a way to handle rowdy nobles. Get 'em out of the local politics and aim them at Jerusalem, promising them riches and estates along the way.

While I think that historians are right in thinking that the major impetus behind the Albigensian Crusade was political, don't go thinking that the Cathars did not, in fact, exist. They did.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Huh.

Is this a rewriting of history meant to claim that religious persecution did not, actually, exist?
Or is this a rewriting of history along the lines of "Holocaust denial?"

I hope you realize that ‘rewriting of history’ is the job description of a historian. There are very good reasons to question whether “Cathars” existed as the Church insisted they did.

Historians who question the existence of “Cathars” don’t deny the fact of religious persecution — they believe it’s possible accounts of heresy were fabricated or exaggerated, and further exaggerated in their retellings until the myth of an organized “Cathar” heresy emerged. Agree or disagree, they do have good reasons to question the traditional historical narrative.

On the other hand, I wasn't aware that the Cathars were 'organizing' any sort of 'rebellion' at all, come to think. The local leaders liked 'em...or at least, put up with 'em. It was Innocent, England and the rest of France that really wanted the political power.

Some of the reasons the clerical narrative of a ‘Cathar’ movement is questioned is that inquisitors and priests who actually worked with the supposed “heretics” never used the word “Cathar,” their accounts of what these people believed differed village to village, and it seems that the “Cathars” themselves didn’t perceive themselves to be separate from the Church or espousing any particularly schismatic ideas. It’s really not difficult to imagine that “locals” wouldn’t have had much opinion on the issue.

Oh, wait. That seems to be the real motive behind most, if not all, the "Crusades" of that era, come to think of it; politics and a way to handle rowdy nobles. Get 'em out of the local politics and aim them at Jerusalem, promising them riches and estates along the way

That’s awfully reductionistic.

While I think that historians are right in thinking that the major impetus behind the Albigensian Crusade was political, don't go thinking that the Cathars did not, in fact, exist. They did.

I’ll tell the historians in question that someone on the Internet knows better than they. I’m sure they’ll be grateful to hear it.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Ellen, which video have you watched? It may be of interest to know that many modern historians now believe 'Catharism' as an organized religious structure did not really exist, being largely a political fabrication intended to drum up support for the 'Crusade' by making it appear as if a band of heretics was organizing in France.

 

[dianaiad]

I hope you realize that ‘rewriting of history’ is the job description of a historian. There are very good reasons to question whether “Cathars” existed as the Church insisted they did.

Historians who question the existence of “Cathars” don’t deny the fact of religious persecution — they believe it’s possible accounts of heresy were fabricated or exaggerated, and further exaggerated in their retellings until the myth of an organized “Cathar” heresy emerged. Agree or disagree, they do have good reasons to question the traditional historical narrative.



Some of the reasons the clerical narrative of a ‘Cathar’ movement is questioned is that inquisitors and priests who actually worked with the supposed “heretics” never used the word “Cathar,” their accounts of what these people believed differed village to village, and it seems that the “Cathars” themselves didn’t perceive themselves to be separate from the Church or espousing any particularly schismatic ideas. It’s really not difficult to imagine that “locals” wouldn’t have had much opinion on the issue.



That’s awfully reductionistic.

Sometimes things can be reduced to basics.

I’ll tell the historians in question that someone on the Internet knows better than they. I’m sure they’ll be grateful to hear it.

I think that depends completely upon who the 'someone on the internet' is,.....and who the historians are. The internet doesn't automatically mean 'false,' and 'historian' doesn't automatically mean 'accurate.'

BTW, perhaps I am a bit confused. Are you trying to say that the Cathars were not, after all, fomenting a rebellion of heretics? Because if that's so, I agree.

However, if you are attempting to claim that there were no Cathars at all, I have to ask you to show some evidence for your claim here. The people we now call 'Cathars,' did have very heretical notions, as viewed by Catholicism; dualist, absolute equality of sexes, where people came from....

None of those beliefs involved 'let's go kill the Pope!" but .....dang, Duke Leto, attempting to deny that they existed at all? That's just plain weird.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Sometimes things can be reduced to basics.





I think that depends completely upon who the 'someone on the internet' is,.....and who the historians are. The internet doesn't automatically mean 'false,' and 'historian' doesn't automatically mean 'accurate.'

BTW, perhaps I am a bit confused. Are you trying to say that the Cathars were not, after all, fomenting a rebellion of heretics? Because if that's so, I agree.

However, if you are attempting to claim that there were no Cathars at all, I have to ask you to show some evidence for your claim here. The people we now call 'Cathars,' did have very heretical notions, as viewed by Catholicism; dualist, absolute equality of sexes, where people came from....

None of those beliefs involved 'let's go kill the Pope!" but .....dang, Duke Leto, attempting to deny that they existed at all? That's just plain weird.

I'm not making the case that they didn't exist (or more correctly, that Catharism didn't exist, not that the individuals accused of being Cathars didn't exist), and I'm not qualified to make that judgement. But it is the position of many -- not all -- qualified and respected historians that "Catharism" was never an organized movement, from the following evidence:

A) Those who were called "Cathars" did not themselves use the term; neither did inquisitors and orthodox priests who worked among the so-called "Cathars", one of the indicators that

B) "Cathars" did not see themselves as a separate religious group/as schismatics.

C) While there is certainly evidence that individuals in many "Cathar" communities did express some heterodox beliefs, the precise respects in which these heretics diverged from Church doctrine differed person to person and village to village.

D) Heterodox beliefs were not uncommon in the time period (or even now; last time I checked the entire most of the Christian population of these forums was comprised of heretics).

This suggests that accounts of organized, fermenting heresy were wildly overblown.

 

[dianaiad]

I'm not making the case that they didn't exist (or more correctly, that Catharism didn't exist, not that the individuals accused of being Cathars didn't exist), and I'm not qualified to make that judgement. But it is the position of many -- not all -- qualified and respected historians that "Catharism" was never an organized movement, from the following evidence:

A) Those who were called "Cathars" did not themselves use the term; neither did inquisitors and orthodox priests who worked among the so-called "Cathars", one of the indicators that

B) "Cathars" did not see themselves as a separate religious group/as schismatics.

C) While there is certainly evidence that individuals in many "Cathar" communities did express some heterodox beliefs, the precise respects in which these heretics diverged from Church doctrine differed person to person and village to village.

D) Heterodox beliefs were not uncommon in the time period (or even now; last time I checked the entire Christian population of these forums was comprised of heretics).

This suggests that accounts of organized, fermenting heresy were wildly overblown.

So..my question went 'whoosh.'

I agree with you that there was no organized, fermenting heresy (especially a specific heretic group out to mess with politics).

However, the fact that the Cathars didn't call themselves that means nothing. I'm quite certain that they called themselves something else. However, they were called that by others, and the specific beliefs being targeted here were common to all, if not most, of the folks called 'Cathars.' Pope Innocent didn't send folks to target a vague group called 'heretic' that comprised of all the folks who had heretical ideas who happened to live in one area. They were targeted because of specific beliefs and behaviors.

So I'll ask again; are you claiming that these folks didn't comprise a heretical group out to wage war on the establishment (the which I think everybody agrees with ) or are you claiming that there was no such group as the 'Cathars" (whatever it is THEY called themselves) at all?

 

[Duke_Leto]

So..my question went 'whoosh.'

I agree with you that there was no organized, fermenting heresy (especially a specific heretic group out to mess with politics).

However, the fact that the Cathars didn't call themselves that means nothing. I'm quite certain that they called themselves something else. However, they were called that by others, and the specific beliefs being targeted here were common to all, if not most, of the folks called 'Cathars.' Pope Innocent didn't send folks to target a vague group called 'heretic' that comprised of all the folks who had heretical ideas who happened to live in one area. They were targeted because of specific beliefs and behaviors.

So I'll ask again; are you claiming that these folks didn't comprise a heretical group out to wage war on the establishment (the which I think everybody agrees with ) or are you claiming that there was no such group as the 'Cathars" (whatever it is THEY called themselves) at all?

I am not claiming anything; I'm not qualified to make that assessment. Neither are you, incidentally. Yes, the dispute I'm referring to is whether or not a group such as the Cathars did in fact exist.

That "Cathars" didn't call themselves Cathars -- or anything -- means quite a lot. It means that sources which do refer to them as "Cathars" are biased in a particular way.

Innocent III might have been persuaded to call a crusade if French priests, under pressure from the French nobility and monarchy, had interpreted their findings in such a way to make their heretics appear part of a unified whole. That unified group might decide to eschew Church teachings. Innocent III, being a particularly war-favoring Pope, would not have needed much prodding to declare another 'Crusade' -- especially at the request of the French monarchy, which he was indebted to from their successful campaign to keep the Holy Roman Emperor out of Italy.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ellen, which video have you watched? It may be of interest to know that many modern historians now believe 'Catharism' as an organized religious structure did not really exist, being largely a political fabrication intended to drum up support for the 'Crusade' by making it appear as if a band of heretics was organizing in France.

Which modern historians are you referencing?

 

[Ellen Brown]

I am not claiming anything; I'm not qualified to make that assessment. Neither are you, incidentally. Yes, the dispute I'm referring to is whether or not a group such as the Cathars did in fact exist.

That "Cathars" didn't call themselves Cathars -- or anything -- means quite a lot. It means that sources which do refer to them as "Cathars" are biased in a particular way.

Innocent III might have been persuaded to call a crusade if French priests, under pressure from the French nobility and monarchy, had interpreted their findings in such a way to make their heretics appear part of a unified whole. That unified group might decide to eschew Church teachings. Innocent III, being a particularly war-favoring Pope, would not have needed much prodding to declare another 'Crusade' -- especially at the request of the French monarchy, which he was indebted to from their successful campaign to keep the Holy Roman Emperor out of Italy.

The persecution and murder of dissidents is rife throughout history.

 

[dianaiad]

I am not claiming anything; I'm not qualified to make that assessment. Neither are you, incidentally.

You have no way of knowing that, y'know.

Yes, the dispute I'm referring to is whether or not a group such as the Cathars did in fact exist.

That "Cathars" didn't call themselves Cathars -- or anything -- means quite a lot. It means that sources which do refer to them as "Cathars" are biased in a particular way.

Actually, 'Cathars' is a pretty innocuous term. It simply refers to where most of 'em were.

Please remember that the church I belong to has been attempting, for nearly two hundred years now, to get people to call us by the name of the church or the name we prefer (though we have 'given up' from time to time and just...gone with it...) rather than the originally very mocking and disrespectful term "Mormon." We are trying it again, actually. Good luck to us.

However, the fact that we PREFER to call ourselves "Latter-day saints" rather than "Mormons" and the fact that the critics keep insisting upon equating us with the greater 'Mormon" group does not mean that none of us ever originally existed, now, does it?

Same goes for many other groups that have been labeled with disrespectful names by critics: "Quakers," Methodists and Jesuits come instantly to mind. Does the FACT that the original names for these groups:"Society of Friends," Wesleyans and the Society of Jesus have been supplanted even by the members of those groups mean that they never actually existed?

As well, it's easy to pretend that a group never existed if their enemies manage to exterminate them.

Innocent III might have been persuaded to call a crusade if French priests, under pressure from the French nobility and monarchy, had interpreted their findings in such a way to make their heretics appear part of a unified whole. That unified group might decide to eschew Church teachings. Innocent III, being a particularly war-favoring Pope, would not have needed much prodding to declare another 'Crusade' -- especially at the request of the French monarchy, which he was indebted to from their successful campaign to keep the Holy Roman Emperor out of Italy.

'might have...' But you haven't given us any proof here. How about some actual evidence?

We have the various beliefs that these folks have in common; their dualism, the theory that we are all actually 'fallen angels,' the complete equality of the sexes, etc.... Those are pretty solid commonalities.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Which modern historians are you referencing?

I think R. I. Moore and Mark Pegg are the most well-known faces of that side. Here's a link, if you're interested, to a synopsis of the debate.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I think R. I. Moore and Mark Pegg are the most well-known faces of that side. Here's a link, if you're interested, to a synopsis of the debate.

*lol* I have that book. I didn't recognise it's conclusions in your comment. Thanks for answering.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You have no way of knowing that, y'know.

...well... are you? Or are you just being kneejerk contrarian?

 

[dianaiad]

...well... are you? Or are you just being kneejerk contrarian?

You are attempting to deflect from the point, which is...you yourself have no way of knowing whether I am, or am not, an expert in history. However, you made a very 'positive' claim that I am not. Whether you are correct or not is completely beside the point. You. Can't. Know.

And you claimed that you did.

However, you DID admit that you are no expert, so, in return for your honesty regarding that, I'll let you know about my 'expertise" I am...sorta. Not an expert on history in general, but on religious persecution in history, and about the 'real' motives (political, almost 99% of the time, using religion to stir things up). I know a lot about that. I've been doing the research regarding this issue for close to twenty years, if not longer.

On the other hand, none of my degrees are in history. I have specialized too closely to get one.

As to your question about being a 'kneejerk contrarian," why, I think I may be. However, only when I see something really obvious to provide a kneejerk contrary opinion about. When I agree with a position, I don't go 'knee jerk contrarian' on it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You are attempting to deflect from the point, which is...you yourself have no way of knowing whether I am, or am not, an expert in history. However, you made a very 'positive' claim that I am not. Whether you are correct or not is completely beside the point. You. Can't. Know.

And you claimed that you did.

However, you DID admit that you are no expert, so, in return for your honesty regarding that, I'll let you know about my 'expertise" I am...sorta. Not an expert on history in general, but on religious persecution in history, and about the 'real' motives (political, almost 99% of the time, using religion to stir things up). I know a lot about that. I've been doing the research regarding this issue for close to twenty years, if not longer.

On the other hand, none of my degrees are in history. I have specialized too closely to get one.

As to your question about being a 'kneejerk contrarian," why, I think I may be. However, only when I see something really obvious to provide a kneejerk contrary opinion about. When I agree with a position, I don't go 'knee jerk contrarian' on it.

You really need to read who your replying to. I didn't claim anything. I asked you a question.