The Medieval Catholic Church and Heresy

[Lee Freeman]

Below is Part I of an article I originally wrote for a medieval history website I frequent. I edited it and added to it and re-posted it on the Alabama Renaissance Faire (of which I'm a board member) MySpace page last year.

Though this article will attempt to examine the medieval Roman Catholic Church's attitudes toward heresy as objectively as possible, I do have an agenda in mind-to show the church's real attitude to heresy and why, in certain instances, the medieval church felt compelled to suppress it and why it did so in the ways that it did. Though not to condone everything the medieval Church did, I do hope to be able to put such actions into a historical perspective.

There is a widespread misconception that the medieval Church routinely went around torturing and burning at the stake anyone who disagreed with it, that it willfully kept the masses ignorant and refused to let them read the Bible for themselves. I hope it will become evident that such was not in fact the case.

I routinely get comments from people, often by medieval re-enactors (?) at renaissance faires, about how the medieval Catholic Church was a misogynistic, oppressive, controlling church which was intolerant and ruthlessly suppressed any disagreements and went around burning everyone at the stake. Often, Protestant Christians, who've perhaps read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, hold a similar view. This incorrect twenty-first century stereotype of the medieval Catholic Church is very widespread and most people usually don't want to be bothered with actual facts. Perhaps they were taught this in school, or college, or maybe they saw a History Channel documentary that presented this view (THC in my opinion is notorious for presenting the Medieval Church as barbaric, superstitious, backwards and misogynistic. I've actually written e-mails to them complaining about such a-historical stereotypes).

But before we examine misconceptions about the medieval church and its approach to heresy let us first examine some popular and widespread misconceptions about the Middle Ages themselves.

The Middle Ages are often incorrectly referred to, often in TV documentaries, as "the Dark Ages." This period is said to be a period of roughly 1500 years, during which learning stopped and civilization ground to a screeching halt. Medieval Europeans are popularly thought to have been dirty, smelly, unwashed, barbarians who made war all the time and then died of the plague, all the while being oppressed by a corrupt church that burned at the stake Jews and anyone else who didn't agree with it.

Many people's idea of what life was like in the Middle Ages resembles the scene from the cult comedy classic Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in which, as Arthur approaches, two English serfs are on the ground, futilely scraping around in the mud. Or perhaps they recall the scene of the man with the plague cart collecting the bodies of victims (some of which aren't dead yet!), crying out "Bring out your dead!"

Though great fun for Python fans (of which I am one), such conceptions of the Middle Ages could not be further from actual reality. First of all, the term "Dark Ages" is not used by scholars to describe the whole Medieval period, but only the early centuries, between the fall of the Roman Empire in 475 AD and the year 1000. This period is called "the Dark Ages" by scholars, not because life was especially horrible for the people who lived then, but because historical and archaeological records from this period are scarce, hence our knowledge of its history and peoples and their cultural and social customs is not as plentiful as we would like. Our lack of knowledge is "dark."

"Middle Ages" is a much more acceptable term, one used by the majority of modern scholars to describe the whole period from 475-1500 AD.

It is a fact that, far from dirty, ignorant, war-mongering barbarians, medieval people were sophisticated, cultured, and had a very complex society. Medieval civilization was a rich and complex one, if an imperfect one. They had their own assumptions, biases and frictions, just as in any period in history.

Commenting on medieval society and its relevance to modern society, the late Dr. Norman Cantor, Professor Emeritus of History at New York University and the author of numerous books on the Middle Ages, writes:

First, we can say that medieval heritage is very rich today in a prominent set of ideas and institutions, such as the Catholic Church, the university, Anglo-American law, parliamentary government, romantic love, heroism, just war, the spiritual capacity of little as well as elite people, and the cherishing of classical literatures and languages. That this heritage ought to be consciously identified, cultivated, and refined is commonly asserted. Secondly, we can say less conventionally that medieval civilization stands toward our postmodern culture as the conjunctive other, the intriguing shadow, the marginally distinctive double, the secret sharer of our dreams and anxieties. This view means that the Middle Ages are much like the culture of today, but exhibit just enough variations to disturb us and force us to question some of our values and behavior patterns and to propose some alternatives or at least modifications. The difference is relatively small, but all the more provocative for that.

Dr. Cantor further commented on the relevance of medieval society for us today:

In reading the Middle Ages, in hearing its voices, recreating with our eye and mind its discourse, we are engaged not merely in an act of piety or memorializing.  We are experiencing immediately and overwhelmingly a vibrant, creative, and complex civilization and accessing systems of value, ideas, and behavior that are capable of present-day appreciation. The Middle Ages are important to us not only for their time and place in the scheme of world history, or as a segment of Western Civilization in its genesis and destiny. The Middle Ages represent a set of assumptions, attitudes, hopes, and expectations that together comprise an identifiable way of comprehending the world and a shaping ethos for human behavior that is still a meaningful moral and ideological choice at the end of the twentieth century.

The Middle Ages themselves are often referred to by scholars and historians as the "Age of Faith." Commenting on this thought, renowned theologian Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan says: "If by that phrase [age of faith] we mean that any conception of the world from which the supernatural was excluded was profoundly alien to the minds of that age, that in fact the picture which they formed of destinies of man and the universe was in almost every case a projection of the pattern traced by a Westernized Christian theology and eschatology, nothing could be more true."

Medievalists Drs. Marie Collins and Virginia Davis write:

The Middle Ages are often portrayed as an era dominated by a repressive Catholic Church, corrupt and in need of reform. Yet what would strike the modern time-traveler visiting late Medieval Europe would not be the oppressiveness of the church, but rather, the wide acceptance of religion as a part of everyday life. People attended mass regularly; this was a normal part of existence, rather than an imposition. Religion was closely interwoven with daily life. Sermons by traveling friars were popular occasions, and itinerant players performed plays with religious and moral themes. Holy days were welcome holidays. In villages, the church was at the center of community life. Local religious houses provided valuable social services to the community, perhaps running small schools, providing rudimentary nursing care and giving food and shelter to travelers. Well-off widows might aspire to spend their latter days in the relatively secure environment of a convent. Many people were concerned about the fate of their immortal souls and took care to provide for their welfare, though others carried out their religious commitments sketchily, trusting that the church would save them.

Dr. Cantor writes:

The Medieval Church was a vast institution, eventually comprising hundreds of thousands of people, from the Pope and cardinals and bishops and abbots on top, to the humble priests and friars at the bottom. They were held together by a common commitment to service society's religious, moral, and educational needs. They were also held together by an elaborate legal system that conformed to theological doctrine but usually worked only fitfully and in a fragmented way to realize an ideal of a unified international system. As individuals, medieval churchmen were as diverse as the people who today are designated "businessmen." There were idealists and martyrs; there were scholars and saints; there were corporate managers and accountants. There were also charlatans, ignoramuses, scoundrels, and materialists within the rubric of churchmen. But taken together they were a vital, indispensable, and withal, integral force in Europe, and like the nobility, an active and distinct side of the Medieval triangle.

So. Why was the medieval church bothered by heresy? First of all we can say that the medieval church was concerned with heresy, not because it wanted to ruthlessly oppress the people. The medieval church was concerned with heresy because the church truly believed that it was the possessor and guardian of religious Truth and that the ideas expressed by Cathars, Lollards, Hussites, and other heretical groups were genuinely dangerous spiritual beliefs.

In Part II we will continue.

[Lee Freeman]

Part II:

Medieval man had a very limited concept of the separation of church and state. Medieval thought (at least as it was understood in theory) stated that God had precisely ordered society in a sort of triangular fashion with the Church at the apex, commoners and nobles at either corner of the base; this order was seen as static-though in actual fact there was some limited fluidity. There was tension throughout much of the period between the crown and the papacy regarding the so-called "investiture controversy," basically, who had the authority to appoint and regulate bishops and clergy within a particular realm, the crown or the pope?

Generally speaking, Medieval thought held that God had established the catholic, or universal, Church as his voice and representative on earth; thus, to challenge the teaching of the church was believed tantamount to challenging God himself. It was the same with challenging the civil or societal order; to challenge God's divinely inspired and ordained social order was seen as a threat to society and a challenge and affront to God. Medieval people craved order and stability. So important were these concepts that they are key concepts in monastic rules, such as the Benedictine rule. Heresy upset that order and stability. The happy man or woman knew their places religiously and socially and stayed in them.

However, the church only bothered with heresy when it was made public and/or directly challenged established orthodoxy. The understanding was that the Church was the inheritor and guardian of the faith of the apostles and early church fathers, a duty it took very seriously.

For all practical purposes people could hold whatever private views they liked. All the church mandated as absolutely essential was weekly attendance at mass, baptism, last rites, and at least once yearly confession. According to Dr. R. N. Swanson, in his Cambridge Medieval Textbook Religion and Devotion in Europe, c. 1215-c. 1515, the Medieval church "certainly hunted heretics, but it appears generally reluctant to inquire too precisely into what people believed and how they understood it. Acceptance of the basic principles was sufficient; deep insight was unnecessary, and was even inappropriate for those not called to serve in the priesthood (sometimes even for those who were). There was an ambivalence in attitude towards doctrinal instruction, similar to the ambivalence in attitude about confessional procedures; too many searching questions, especially leading questions, were dangerous, because they might teach people the wrong things."

Swanson says further: "While 'the faith' had to be considered as a universal, and therefore a uniformity, manifestations of the faith did not have to be identical; the Fourth Lateran Council had recognized this, although probably without intending it to apply to Western Europe, when it ordained that provision should be made for the varieties of regional rites and ceremonies. Uniformity lay in acceptance of the basics, and their implementation as a social construct."

The church encouraged deeper piety but had no way of enforcing it even if it had wanted to. The church just simply didn't have enough priests (let alone educated priests) to go around.


And while the papacy was accorded a primacy, the precise nature of papal authority was never fully agreed on. In the Middle Ages, popes were not infallible-the doctrine of papal infallibility was not asserted as a dogma of the Catholic Church until Pope Pius IX did so at the first Vatican Council of 1870. Medieval popes could not introduce major doctrinal changes without the approval of a general council of bishops. Even today, popes rarely assert papal infallibility.



There was also no specific ban on making vernacular translations of the Bible-an Anglo-Saxon translation was made in the tenth century. And by 1300, there were vernacular translations of the Bible in Italian; the church was just concerned that, due to the vagaries of language, unauthorized, unsupervised translations might contain serious doctrinal or theological errors. R N Swanson says:

By 1500, most of the dominant vernacular languages had their own texts of the Bible, although the existence of such translations was not always welcomed by the ecclesiastical authorities. This was because a vernacular translation of the Bible posed fundamental problems: Faith should not be perverted by losing something in translation. Therefore the text had to be accessible, but its use controlled. This probably resulted slowly, as ordained clergy lost their monopoly of preaching and theology became much more technical.

The earliest vernacular translations, from before 1000 A. D., aroused no objections. However, after 1200, the climate shifted. There was no specific ban on vernacular translations of the Bible, but there was wariness about the nature of any translation and their use.

Swanson continues:

How much access did people have to the Bible? The idea of a Bible-less church may seem strange, but it is likely that full Bibles were rarely encountered. They would be found in universities with theology faculties, and in teaching establishments of the regular religious orders [monks], but most places did not need them; church service books would provide all the scripture passages required for such purposes. Apart from the Latin texts themselves, access to the Bible was gained in many ways. Sermons expounded the texts. There were also "books of hours," stained glass windows and mystery plays.

Regarding literacy, Swanson writes:

The strictures regarding the Bible apply to most books. Yet to deal with books raises the question of literacy, and the fact is that medieval European society was not one of mass literacy. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, reading and writing, especially writing, were restricted skills, although they became more common later. Reading may have been more widespread than writing, and would inevitably increase as vernacular literatures themselves developed....The availability of formal education to teach reading and writing, especially education in Latin, was limited, but expanded considerably over the centuries...

The situation was not helped by the fact that many professional clergy, both regular and secular, were also illiterate.



St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636 A. D.) taught that Jews could not and should not be forced to accept Christianity. He stated that "Faith is not in any sense achieved under duress, but by the persuasion of reason and of evidence. In those on whom it is forced by violence it is never permanent." He was critical of attempted conversions of Jews brought about "not according to knowledge, because it forced by constraint those whom it should have persuaded by a rational presentation of the faith." Christian Canon law officially forbade the forced conversion of Jews. However, as non-Christians who did not accept Christ as the Messiah and Savior or adopt Western European culture but instead had their own rich, vibrant, yet to Europeans alien culture, Jews (and Muslims) were regarded by Western Europeans as "other." Jews were often also economically more prosperous than their Christian neighbors, which sparked resentment.

As non-Christians, Jews were not under the Church's ban of lending money at interest, hence were retained by many royal and papal courts as bankers and money lenders, enjoying a privileged, protected status. Many popes and other rulers also employed Jewish physicians. All of which made Jews very unpopular with many people. In spite of official Church attempts to protect them from persecution, Jews were often targets of intolerance and violence. But it should be said that such prejudice was mostly religious and economic, rather than social. For much of the medieval period, Christians Jews and Muslims coexisted peacefully in the Iberian Peninsula, but alas, such was not to last, as the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492.



When a heresy openly challenged the established religious or social order, the church investigated the heresy and the state carried out whatever punishment, if any, was deemed applicable. The aim was always to bring the accused back to the church-by any means necessary, unfortunately including force in some cases. Thus, the Spanish Inquisition, whose aim was to investigate Jews who converted to Christianity but then lapsed back into Judaism. But according to Medievalist Dr. Norman Cantor, "the good thing about the Inquisition is that, contrary to later protestant myth, the papal inquisitors were not normally sadists and maniacs thirsting to turn over victims to the state for execution by burning. This extreme penalty occurred, but it was rare. . . . Most of the sentences handed down by the papal inquisition were relatively mild forms of penance. For those who recanted their heresy and then went back to it, there was imprisonment and loss of property. The death penalty was for repeated backsliders and persistent resisters." The bad thing is the tendency for such a situation to get out of control: "The bad thing about the Inquisition is that once a judicial system to control thought and deviant behavior is established at any time . . . it inevitably goes around seeking alleged criminals and begins to pursue harmless, marginal, and thoroughly pathetic people."

Many Spaniards, including high-ranking bishops and archbishops, questioned the legitimacy and validity of the Inquisition. Many Spaniards felt that the whole thing was unjust, even and especially many Spanish clerics. Archbishop Hernando de Talavera, Queen Isabella's confessor, would not allow "New Christians,

[James A. Wyly]

Lee,

Thanks for posting this material on the history of the Medieval Catholic Church.  It is well done and required a lot of work.

To my mind, you skimmed too lightly over the actions of the  Church in stamping out and punishing heretics, whether the Spanish Inquisition or burning dissenters at the stake.  I am sure there were dissenters to the official church policy (several of whom you referred to), but suppression---as violent and bloody as necessary--- remained official policy.

I will agree, however, it was a religiously intolerant, violent age as typified by Anglican Henry VIII's pursuing and killing Catholics, the Puritan Cromwell's covering Ireland with Catholic blood, or pious John Calvin's assenting to the burning of Michael Servetas, a former Catholic who had drifted into something like Unitarianism.

But having said that, nice job and thank you.

Jim Wyly

[Lee Freeman]

Thanks, Jim. Honestly though, I don't believe the Middle Ages (ca. 475-ca.1500) were all that more violent or intolerant than, say, the 20th century. The so-called "dark ages" are popularly said to have been an era characterized by superstition and violence, a repressive and all-powerful Church which persecuted everyone who didn't agree with it, kept the masses ignorant by refusing to educate them, discriminated against women, burned heretics at the stake for kicks, monarchs who made war on every one, so that if the Church or your king didn't kill you, the plague probably would. This is as big a caricature of that era as you can get. Just think about how future historians 800 years from now might characterize our own era:

The 20th century can be summed up as a century characterized by two world wars, a dozen smaller ones; Communist expansion in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Korea, and Cuba, precipitating the Cold War; Polio, cancer, heart disease; gross sexual immorality, leading to abortion, STDs, AIDS; earthquakes, floods, hurricanes; racial discrimination and predjudice; the Cuban Missile Crisis, the JFK assassination, Watergate, etc. Is that an accurate way to describe the 20th century, by only focusing on the negatives?

Or could the 20th century be characterized as the century of automobiles, planes, global telecommunications, the moon landing and space exploration, the cures for malaria, polio, and other medical breakthroughs, the fall of Communism, the defat of Nazism in WWII, the equality of blacks brought about in the Civil Rights, the era of Walt Disney, Dr. Martin Luther, King, Jr., Ganhdi, CS Lewis,  Pope John Paull II, Mother Theresa, Mr. Rogers, Nelson Mandela, Billy Graham, etc.

Its all a matter of perspective, it seems to me. Every era, including the medieval era, has high points and low points. My point in posting that material was to show our SDA friends that the Catholic Church is not the worst tyrant in history, as they believe.

Sure, the Catholic Church was not perfect by anyone's criteria, and did in fact, do some very un-Christian things, but it did lots of other good things, too. I hoped the scholars I quoted would help shed some objectivity onto the subject.

But thanks again for bothering to read the post. Hope our SDA friends do as well.

Lee.

[ConnieLard]

Lee, Just wanted you to know that I enjoyed reading this, too.  Thanks!

[normfromga]

I also found it fascinating.

Good work!

[Lee Freeman]

Lee, Just wanted you to know that I enjoyed reading this, too.  Thanks!

Thanks!

Pax.

[Lee Freeman]

I also found it fascinating.

Good work!

Thanks! No work involved really, as I enjoy this kinda stuff.

Pax.

[RND]

Papal Persecutions - Persecution by the Church

It is estimated that between 50 - 100 million people died cruel deaths during the reign of the church.

Why does the church persecute? And why such cruelty? I could quote many popes from the past, but you might say that the church has changed. So let me quote from the present, to show why this method of control will always be an option for the church.

• Pope Innocent III's (1198-1216 AD) Deliberatio claimed the right to dispose kings. He ordered the extermination of heretics, the massacre of Albigensians, condemned the Magna Charta, and forbade Bible reading in the common language.
• The Inquisition of heretics established (1229) under Gregory IX. (1227-1241)
• Pope Innocent IV, in his instruction for the guidance of the Inquisition in Tuscany and Lombardy, ordered the civil magistrates to force a confession of guilt from all heretics by torture, and a betrayal of all their accomplices, in the Papal Bull Ad Extirpanda de Medio Populi Christiani Pravitatis Zizania, dated May 15, 1252.
• Pope Clement V (1305-1314) rebukes England's King Edward II for not torturing heretics and orders him to do so.

Papal Persecutions - The Crusades

The crusades was a series of expeditions, sanctioned by the pope, against heathens and heretics. They were generally called by the church, headed by Holy Roman Emperors and were used to get back the Holy Land from the Muslims and later to persecute heretics in Europe. Most crusades were against the Turks, Muslims who occupied the Holy Land. Other crusades were against Christians who opposed the papacy, threatened Catholic unity and had their own doctrine.
Except for the first crusade, the campaign against the Muslims was largely a failure.

November 27, 1095, The First Crusade

In 1095 Pope Urban II declared a holy war, a Crusade, against the Muslims to make the Holy Land Christian again. He also ordered all heretics to be tortured and killed. With Urban's call and the Church's support, thousands of towns people found a direction for their frustration and hate, and they raped and murdered their way to Jerusalem.

The First Holocaust - Jews of the Rhineland. Godfrey of Bouillon, a respected knight, determined not to leave his country for the Holy Land until he had avenged the crucifixion by spilling a Jew's blood with his own hands. Mobs formed intending to march to the Holy Land and kill the enemies of Christ, but before they went to the Holy land they turned against the Jews of the Rhineland, tried to force them to convert to Christianity and eventually killing a total of 12,000 in 1096. In one month alone, between May and June, 10,000 lives were taken.

The Conquest of the Holy Land. In 1099 they had arrived by boat in Lebanon they captured Jerusalem by July 15, 1099 and killed 20,000 men, women and children in the process.

In June 1099, the crusaders laid siege to Jerusalem, by July 15 they broke through the Northern Wall slaughtering men, women and children all day and night. 6,000 Jews had fled to the synagogue for refuge - it was torched and they were burned alive. Surviving Muslims fled to the mosque of al Aqsa, 30,000 were killed when the crusaders broke down the door.

They did not stop until there was no one else around to be killed. They took some of the men and the prettier women captive, and then they headed off to systematically conquer each city in the country. They conquered many towns and built more than 250 full Crusader fortresses over 50 years in Caesarea, Jaffa, Akko, Montfort, Yehi Am, Tiberius, Nimrod, Belvoir. They also conquered Haifa, Beirut, Sidon, Jericho, Bethlehem, Ashkelon, Eilat and Ramleh.

They also built large shrines at:

    * Church of the Holy Sepulchre (the official site where Jesus was killed, anointed, and buried)
    * Church of the Cross (the official site of the tree which provided Jesus' cross)
    * King David's tomb
    * Jesus' official birth site in Bethlehem. They built huge Templar Halls in Akko, Ramleh, and Jerusalem.

By 1146, the Muslims, led by a brilliant young general named Saladin, began a successful reconquering of the land in 1146. This led to the Second Crusade.

The Second Crusade (1147-49)

A Second Crusade was proclaimed by Pope Eugene III when the news reached Europe in 1146 that a Muslim Saracen named Saladin had begun to reconquer the Holy Land from the Crusaders and that Edessa had fallen to the Turks.

The mobs, once again turned toward the Jewish quarters to start another blood bath. But fewer than 200 were killed after the Jews paid large bribes to the bishops and noblemen and a Christian, Bernard of Clairvaux, wrote letters to the Christian communities appealing to them not to harm Jews. These efforts avoided another bloodbath.

The crusade was led by Holy Roman Emperor Conrad III, King Louis VII of France. They took Ashkelon, Tiberius and various other coastal towns. However, they lost the war due to the unique military tactics of Saladin and by 1187 they were soundly defeated in a decisive battle just west of the Sea of Kinneret at a place called Hattin.
The Second Crusade thus ended in total defeat; the Muslims controlled the entire country.

When the European Christians heard of the defeat of the Crusaders, they once again tried to slaughter the Jews in their frustration, but the intervention of Frederick 1 of Prussia saved them.

The Third Crusade (1189-1192)

The Third Crusade was called by Pope Gregory VIII following the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187 and the defeat of Guy of Lusignan, Reginald of Ch�tillon, and Raymond of Tripoli at Hattin. The leaders were Richard 1 of England, Philip II of France, and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I.

Frederick died (1190) in Cilicia, and only part of his forces went on to the Holy Land. Richard and Philip, arrived at Acre in 1191. Philip left by July of that year. In 1192 Richard made a three year truce with Saladin and left. The Christians retained Jaffa with a narrow strip of coast with the right of free access to the Holy Sepulcher, but their main objective to capture Jerusalem failed, but Antioch and Tripoli were still in the hands of Christians.

The Fourth Crusade (1202-1204)

Pope Innocent III launched the Fourth Crusade but the crusaders never made it to Palestine. Instead it was totally diverted from its original course.
The Crusaders, led mostly by French and Flemish nobles, attacked Constantinople and drove out the Byzantine Emperor Alexius III and set up the Latin empire of Constantinople. Alexius (later Alexius IV), son of the deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II and brother-in-law of Philip of Swabia, a sponsor of the crusade, joined the army at Zara and persuaded the leaders to help him depose his uncle, Alexius III. In exchange, he promised large sums of money, aid to the Crusaders in conquering Egypt, and the union of the Roman and the Eastern churches.

The Children's Crusade (1212)

The Children's Crusade, 1212 was led by a visionary French peasant boy, Stephen of Cloyes. Children embarked at Marseilles, hoping they would succeed in the cause that their elders had betrayed. Most of them perished of hunger and disease or were sold into slavery.

The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)

Soon afterward, Innocent III and his successor Honorius III, began to preach the Fifth Crusade. King Andrew II of Hungary, Duke Leopold VI of Austria, John of Brienne, and the papal legate Pelasius were among the leaders of the expedition, which was aimed at Egypt, the center of Muslim strength. Damietta (Dumyat) was taken in 1219 but had to be evacuated again after the defeat (1221) of an expedition against Cairo.

The Sixth Crusade (1228-29)

The Sixth Crusade, was undertaken by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II he made a truce with the Muslims, securing the partial surrender of Jerusalem and other holy places and crowned himself king of Jerusalem. The Muslims later reoccupied the city.

Thibaut IV of Navarre and Champagne, started the war again in 1239 and the struggle was continued by Richard, Earl of Cornwall. They were unable to compose the quarrels between the Knights Hospitalers and Knights Templars. In 1244 the Templars, made a treaty and an alliance with the sultan of Damascus rather than with Egypt. A treaty (1244) with Damascus restored Palestine to the Christians

The Seventh Crusade (1248-1254)

The Seventh Crusade was due to Louis IX of France. It was called after the Egyptian Muslims and their Turkish allies took Jerusalem and utterly defeated the Christians at Gaza. Again, Egypt was the object of attack. Damietta fell again in 1249 but in 1250 Louis was captured on an expedition to Cairo. After his release from captivity, he spent four years improving the fortifications left to the Christians in the Holy Land.

The Eighth Crusade (1270)

The fall of Jaffa and Antioch to the Muslims in 1268 caused Louis IX to undertake the Eighth Crusade in 1270, which was cut short by his death in Tunisia.

The Ninth Crusade (1271 - 1272)

The Ninth Crusade, was led by Prince Edward (later Edward 1 of England). He landed at Acre but retired after concluding a truce. In 1289, Tripoli fell to the Muslims, and in 1291 the last Christian stronghold in Acre also fell.

Papal Persecutions - Hussites

The Hussites in Bohemia and Moravia were followers of Jan Huss who was burned at the stake in 1415 for heresy. This was a complex religious, political and social struggle that aligned these forces:

    * Roman Catholic Church against the Protestants.
    * Germans against the Czechs.
    * Civil war between Upper class and the peasants.

After the death of Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia in 1419, the Hussites took up arms to prevent Emperor Sigismund from succeeding to the throne. They were without a king between 1429 and 1436. While this War of Succession was going on, the crusades against the Hussites began. The crusades against the Czech Hussites were mostly a failure until the Council of Basil in 1433. At this time, moderate Hussites recanted their heresy and went back to the Catholic Church. This caused disagreement and the civil war broke out between the Utraquists and the Taborites (lower class).

In Bohemia, a country with a population of four million by the year 1600, 3.2 million of which were Protestants, only the population of 800,000 Catholics were left alive by the time the Hapsburgs and Jesuits were through. 2,400,000 Protestants were cruelly murdered

Papal Persecutions - Waldensians (1147-1658)

The Waldenses or Vaudois were French Protestants in the Piedmont Valley region of southern France and northern Italy. By the middle ages, the church was filled with darkness and superstition. Around the year 1000, some people, notably Berengarius, boldly preached the primitive gospel truths and separated themselves from the Roman church. He was succeeded by Peer Bruis who wrote a book called Antichrist.

By the year 1140, there was a large number in the reformed movement, and their popularity alarmed the pope, prompting him to gather scholars to write against their doctrines and to ask several princes to banish them from their dominions.

By 1147 Peter Waldo of Lyons became a popular preacher among the reformed and they came to be known as Waldensians. Pope Alexander III excommunicated Waldo and his followers and asked the Bishop of Lyons to exterminate them from the face of the earth. So the persecution of the Waldensians began. This was the first time that the system of the Inquisition was used. Any open or anonymous accusation was sufficient evidence of guilt. The Dominician Order was formed from a monk named Dominic who was tasked with debating the Waldensians out of their beliefs. The Dominicans had been principally responsible for being the inquisitors in all future inquisitions.

No one of any race, gender, wealth or rank was spared from the inquisition. To be rich was automatically a proof of being a heretic. People's property was confiscated. Their heirs were robbed of their inheritance. Some were sent to the Holy land and the Dominicans took possession of their property and pretended not to know them when they returned. Others could not visit their loved ones in jail, give them fresh straw to sleep on or give them a cup of water, nor could any lawyer plead for their cause because they would be prosecuted for favoring a heretic.
Their malice went so deep that even after death, anyone accused of heresy had their bones dug up and publicly burned.

So the church not only used this inquisition to accuse people of heresy, they also used it as an opportunity to rob the rich of their property.

Papal Persecutions - Albigensians

The Albigenses or Carthari were French Protestants in southern France, northern Italy and northern Spain, a people of the reformed religion, who inhabited the country of Albi. The Albigensian heretics were also known as Cathari or Cathars. Pope Alexander III condemned the religion in the Council of Lateran, but their numbers still increased. The Albigenses were members of the reformed church who believed in dualism, they believe God created Christ and the Holy Spirit. They did not believe in purgatory, resurrection, the priesthood, veneration of images, sacraments or the Nicene Trinity.

In 1208, Pope Innocent II asked King Philip II to eradicate the heresy and called the crusade to combat the heresies. In the crusading Bull, the pope promised paradise and the land of the defeated was promised to the victors. So a land rush began. An inquisition was also called against the people - those who did not recant were burned, those who did were forced to wear yellow crosses.

This struggle against the Christians of Southern France lasted 20 years. In one battle alone, an estimated 60,000 were slaughtered by Pope Innocent II in the siege of the city of Beziers, France in 1209.

King Luis VIII again lead the crusade to exterminate the Albigenses in 1226.
Many were beaten, racked, scourged, and burnt to death. At the height of the crusade a hundred were burned at the stake at a time.

Papal Persecutions - Huguenots (1562 -1598)

"Une foi, un loi, un roi," (one faith, one law, one king) was the motto of the French. The French wars of religion was caused by growth of Calvinism, noble factionalism, and weak royal government. From 1550's Calvinist or Huguenot numbers increased, fostered by missionary activities in Geneva. Noble factions of Bourbons, Guise, and Montmorency were split by religion as well as by family interests. Civil wars were encouraged by Philip II's support of Catholic Guise faction and by Elizabeth I's aid to Huguenots (French Protestants). The wars of religion started with the Massacre at Vassy in 1592 when servants of the Duc de Guise fired on the unarmed Huguenot and set the church on fire.
The most notable incidents of these wars were the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre and the slaughter of the Protestants under Louis XIV. Pope Pius V decreed the extermination of Huguenots and asked all loyal Catholics to help hunt them down.

Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre of Huguenots in France (August 24, 1572)

Catherine de Medici, the mother of the King of France arranged a fake wedding between her daughter, Margot de Valois, and Henri de Navarre who was a Protestant leader. The marriage was publicly conducted on August 17 and was attended by the Cardinal of Bourbon.

Four days later with a prearranged signal at midnight the homes of Protestants were entered. Admiral de Coligny, the chief military leader of the Huguenots, was stabbed by an assassin, in the chest with a sword in his own bedroom. Then they threw him out of a window into the street, cut off his head and sent it to the pope. Then they cut off his arms and private members, dragged him through the streets for three days, and hung him by the heels outside the city.

For many days they killed as many Protestants as they could, starting with the upper class. In the first 3 days 10,000 were killed and their bodies thrown into the river. The bloodbath spread from Paris to other parts of the country and in a week over 100,000 Protestants were killed across the kingdom. Some priests, holding up a crucifix in one hand, and a dagger in the other, ran to the chiefs of the murderers, and strongly exhorted them to spare neither relatives nor friends

Many who gave great sums of money for their ransom were immediately slain; and several towns, which were under the king's promise of protection and safety, were cut off as soon as they delivered themselves up, on those promises, to his generals or captains.

[RND]

Of course, no expose on the persecution by the catholic Church would be complete without an in depth look at the types and methods of torture inflicted upon the so-called heretics of the Church:

Summary of the Methods and Tactics of Persecution
Since the church technically has no army, it uses the faithful and the armies of the nations it controls. Soldiers are recruited by many tactics.

Recruiting an Army

    * A call to the faithful to destroy heresy.
    * Penance - or a way to atone for past sins.
    * Leaders promise to fight for church in future wars as penance, using their national armies. Therefore, the penance of one ruler can recruit an entire army and slaughter a million innocents.
    * Leaders are threatened with an internal civil uprising if the church is not obeyed.
    * Leaders are asked to use civil means to accomplish the aims of the church.
    * An indulgence is issued promising direct passage to heaven on death, instead of purgatory. (Normally, most people go to purgatory. Only the perfect go straight to heaven.)
    * Promise of financial and other economic gain by robbing or confiscating the property of the persecuted.

Methods of Persecution

The persecuted are tormented by various methods:

    * Property is destroyed or confiscated and placed in the treasury of the popes.
    * Loss of jobs and other means of financial support.
    * Inability to enter certain professions by law.
    * Civil Laws against the group.
    * Social pressure. Loss of support systems.
    * Fear of false accusations.
    * Fear of guilt by association. Friends and loved ones cannot assist the persecuted without fear of being accused themselves.
    * Planned single attack in one night - Usually the attack is well planned with the cooperation of the state. Secret laws are passed, local leaders or spies are set in place and civil resources are used to block escape.
    * Torture
    * Death, cruel and slow.

Methods of Torture

Even the Muslims have come to refer to this as Christian barbarism. One cruel fact about these evil acts were the fact they found ways to prolong the torture so that the victim would be conscious for as long as possible. Here are some of the methods:

    * Using green wood instead of dry when burning at the stakes.
    * Hang victims upside down so that the blood could reach the brain when you are being cut into two. This prolonged their consciousness so that they could suffer more pain.

#   Deprivation. Starvation and sleeping on hard wood or stone in an 18 inch space with no toilet facilities.

# Exposure. Galley slaves suffered this the most. They are forced to work hours with little food and thin cotton clothes in cold weather.

# Running the gauntlet. The victim runs between two rows of soldiers, often barefoot on top of sharp objects and broken glass while they are beaten and stabbed by the people on the line.

# Burning alive at the stake. People are tied alive to a wooden stake, surrounded with hay or other fuel and burned alive. For quicker death. older, fast burning wood is used. For a slower death and torture - young green wood is used.
The church officially sanctioned this method of punishing heretics at one of their ecumenical councils.

# Raping. Even this too, from the representatives of God in the name of God.

# Pinning. Pins were attached all over the body.

# Pulling. Pulled and dragged by the ears and nose.

# Piercing. Piercing the body in sensitive areas, using devices such as the Iron maiden, Virgin Mary, Chair of spikes, and the Judas Cradle. The iron maiden brought slow death. It is a coffin that was manufactured in Germany and used in the Spanish Inquisition. It had long spikes on the bottom and the lid. When the coffin is closed the victim is pierced to death. But the spikes are arranged so that they avoid the vital organs. This prolongs the suffering before death.

The "Virgin Mary" was a standing statue with moveable arms. The heretic walked into the arms of the statue and was impaled with three inch spikes as the arms were tightened around the body.

"The Interrogation Chair". It was made of metal, had spikes and could be heated.
"Chambre chaufee". Until 1816 this was the approved method for the torture of homosexuals was to be lowered on to a red hot spike.

# Ripping. Ripping the flesh with spiked instruments such as the pear, Cat's paw, Heretic's fork and the Breast ripper. They were either cold or red hot when used.

# The Pear. Used to shatter the jaw bones or the pubic bones. A pear shaped object was inserted into a body cavity and opened until it shattered the bones. It was inserted into the mouth, anus or vagina then opened until it tore the organ and cracked the bone.

# Stabbing. Victims were stabbed or cut all over the body with knives.

# Scourging. Beaten often with a whip that had sharp spikes or nails at the end.

# Amputation. Cutting off tongues, hands, ears and noses.

# Smoking. Victims stood in a pile of smoking hay and periodically removed to see if they had recanted or told the church whatever they wanted to hear - true or false.

# Hanging. Hanging by the feet or the hair or neck.

# Explosion. Gunpowder was placed in their mouths and then ignited.

# Beheading. With an axe.

#   Buried Alive. This was apparently a suitable punishment for Anabaptist women who recanted. The men who recanted were killed by the sword. Those who did not were burned alive. Lutherans suffered the same fate in 1535.

# Rack. Stretching the body. Ropes tied to the arms and legs then pulled by turning a pulley.

# Drawn and quartered. The arms and legs were tied to horses facing four directions, the animals were then made to run in each direction until the poor victim was torn apart.

# Eaten by Animals. In the new world babies and young children were baptized and then thrown to hungry wild dogs. In the Roman persecutions, Christians were thrown to hungry lions while the citizens watched and cheered. They attended these events as if they were a game of sport!

# Water ordeal. The victim, tightly bound, was stretched upon a rack or bed, with the body in an inclined position, the head slanted down. The jaws were distended, a linen cloth was forced down the victim's throat and water from a quart jar allowed to trickle through it into his inward parts. On occasion, seven or eight such jars were slowly emptied. This possibly simulates slow drowning.

# The garrucha or the strappade. Weights (180 then 250 pounds) were attached to the feet and the body suspended so that only the toes alone touched the ground. The body was then raised and lowered leisurely to increase the pain. A sudden drop would dislocate the shoulders.

# Degredation. Forced to eat feces and urine.

# Thumb and Finger Screws. These were screwed tightly until it shattered the thumb or the fingers.

# Greeks: The Brazen Bull. Invented by the Greeks. It was an oven shaped like a bull. The victim was enclosed inside and slowly roasted to death. The muffled groans and screams sounded like a bull.

# Romans: Flagellum. A whip with metal balls on the end.

# Romans: Crucifixion. Nailed to a four point cross.

[zoonance]

May history never repeat itself!   Course, we live 500+ years later.  What my great great great great great great great great great great grandfather did still affects my witness today.  What will our great great great great great great great grandchildren reflect on about us?

[ConnieLard]

RND,

Maybe I missed it, but what are your sources for this information?

Thanks!

[RND]

RND,

Maybe I missed it, but what are your sources for this information?

Thanks!

Your welcome!

Fox's Book of Martyrs

Roman Catholic Faith Examined" by David J. Riggs internet Article

Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages an Internet article by David A. Plaisted

A History of Torture. George Riley Scott. Bracken Books (1994)

The History of Protestantism by James A. Wylie.


Also, the above referenced material is directlt from:

Bible Prophecy and History - Church History

[RND]

Here's another great source of information that one should find very interesting:

HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH

[zoonance]

still a fixation on great great great .... great grandad?

[RND]

still a fixation on great great great .... great grandad?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
- Socrates

[marc]

still a fixation on great great great .... great grandad?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
- Socrates

Santayana.

[marc]

Thanks, Jim. Honestly though, I don't believe the Middle Ages (ca. 475-ca.1500) were all that more violent or intolerant than, say, the 20th century. The so-called "dark ages" are popularly said to have been an era characterized by superstition and violence, a repressive and all-powerful Church which persecuted everyone who didn't agree with it, kept the masses ignorant by refusing to educate them, discriminated against women, burned heretics at the stake for kicks, monarchs who made war on every one, so that if the Church or your king didn't kill you, the plague probably would. This is as big a caricature of that era as you can get. Just think about how future historians 800 years from now might characterize our own era:

The 20th century can be summed up as a century characterized by two world wars, a dozen smaller ones; Communist expansion in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Korea, and Cuba, precipitating the Cold War; Polio, cancer, heart disease; gross sexual immorality, leading to abortion, STDs, AIDS; earthquakes, floods, hurricanes; racial discrimination and predjudice; the Cuban Missile Crisis, the JFK assassination, Watergate, etc. Is that an accurate way to describe the 20th century, by only focusing on the negatives?

Or could the 20th century be characterized as the century of automobiles, planes, global telecommunications, the moon landing and space exploration, the cures for malaria, polio, and other medical breakthroughs, the fall of Communism, the defat of Nazism in WWII, the equality of blacks brought about in the Civil Rights, the era of Walt Disney, Dr. Martin Luther, King, Jr., Ganhdi, CS Lewis,  Pope John Paull II, Mother Theresa, Mr. Rogers, Nelson Mandela, Billy Graham, etc.

Its all a matter of perspective, it seems to me. Every era, including the medieval era, has high points and low points. My point in posting that material was to show our SDA friends that the Catholic Church is not the worst tyrant in history, as they believe.

Sure, the Catholic Church was not perfect by anyone's criteria, and did in fact, do some very un-Christian things, but it did lots of other good things, too. I hoped the scholars I quoted would help shed some objectivity onto the subject.

But thanks again for bothering to read the post. Hope our SDA friends do as well.

Lee.

Lee, thanks for the articles.

One thing I've struggled with is defining exactly what the church was during the middle ages.  By that, I'm not talking about the old "apostate church" chestnut, but rather the shape that the organized Christian church took.  It's role was so different that I think it's difficult for us to look at it objectively.  What we expect a church to be and what they expected a church to be were radically different things.

At a time when the church was fulfilling a role that wasn't strictly religious, strictly spiritual, there were certainly elements of spirituality as well as elements of corruption.  I wonder if our compartmentalization as well as the divided nature of the church plays into the way we think about all this.

[saved]

as one who ministers to hundreds of catholic parishioners yearly, my objections to the "catholic" gospel is its teachings now, not in the times of antiquity. the catechism has so many unbiblical and extra-biblical teachings, i am amazed at any ones attempt to defend rome.
  Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. --from the catholic catchecism #1260.

the phrase in bold type tells me that if a good muslim, or hindu, or pagan can come into a right relationship with god, they can be saved despite not believing on jesus. and of course this is contrary to the basic biblical tenets of no man goes to the father except through jesus

[zoonance]

still a fixation on great great great .... great grandad?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
- Socrates

Socrates was a wise man.  still a man, but wise.  Great grandad made decisions, or just like you and me, followed the conventional wisdom of his time.  There was little choice.  Apparently our conventional wisdom may be a great disconnect with what God had in mind.   It would seem we inherit or surround ourself with the 'wisdom' we have come to grasp as based on truth.  When we adopt a group as the source of all of our 'conventional wisdom and truth' we become grandad all over again.   I live in 2007 and see no great inquisition around me - not from the christian church anyway.  We do learn from our history and I do not see us repeating it but rather some trying to use it to explain and prove a particular point, including an ability to fill in prophetic blanks as accurate and to be without question.

[Lee Freeman]

RND,

Maybe I missed it, but what are your sources for this information?

Thanks!

Your welcome!

Fox's Book of Martyrs

Roman Catholic Faith Examined" by David J. Riggs internet Article

Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages an Internet article by David A. Plaisted

A History of Torture. George Riley Scott. Bracken Books (1994)

The History of Protestantism by James A. Wylie.


Also, the above referenced material is directlt from:

Bible Prophecy and History - Church History

In other words, biased, non-critical, non-scholarly sources. I quoted from the writings of recognized medieval academics and you quoted from popular internet sources and popular histories. RND, friend, you've made my case for me.

Pax.

[Jimbob]

Thanks, Jim. Honestly though, I don't believe the Middle Ages (ca. 475-ca.1500) were all that more violent or intolerant than, say, the 20th century.

That's pretty bad though, wouldn't you agree? 

[Lee Freeman]

still a fixation on great great great .... great grandad?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
- Socrates

It was George Santayana who said that. RND, you're living in some kind of "Bizarro-world" where modern Catholics must be held accountable for everything their ancestors in the faith did, real or imagined. This is unfair. Should they hold you responsible for everything bad Protestants have ever done? Because we don't come off looking so great, either, if you're only talking abuses and corruption.

Can you not see what you're doing? You're like a bad THC documentary, parroting back every real or imagined wrong the "evil" Catholic Church did during the so-called "dark ages." Did the Catholic Church do nothing good for 1500 years? What about the universities, hospitals, art, science, architecture and art, law, philosophy, preservation of the great writings of classical antiquity, Bible translations, preservation of public morality, keeping out of control rulers in check, etc. they gave us? Oh, right. The Asians would've given us those things eventually. Okay. Yeah. Right.

Pax.

[RND]

It was George Santayana who said that. RND,

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
- Socrates

Maybe George was just borrowing it?! Who cares really? I'm more than certain Socrates does care!

you're living in some kind of "Bizarro-world" where modern Catholics must be held accountable for everything their ancestors in the faith did, real or imagined.

Can you quote me somewhere on that Lee? I've never said that today's modern Romanist is responsible for things past, just things present.

This is unfair. Should they hold you responsible for everything bad Protestants have ever done? Because we don't come off looking so great, either, if you're only talking abuses and corruption.

Look, you can paint a rosy picture of what happened way back when, but it would be nice to balance what you say with a little historical fact that puts things into perspective. You kinda painted things back then as not really being so bad. I just wanted to give the audience a sense of balance.

Can you not see what you're doing? You're like a bad THC documentary, parroting back every real or imagined wrong the "evil" Catholic Church did during the so-called "dark ages." Did the Catholic Church do nothing good for 1500 years?

Lee, from a corporate standpoint I am more than certain that the RCC has done many 'good' things over the years. But then stop and think that salvation isn't by corporate works is it?

No matter how mauch 'good' the RCC or the Baptists or the C of C or the Adventists do, it still doesn't count as righteousness for 'everybody' in the fold does it?

What about the universities, hospitals, art, science, architecture and art, law, philosophy, preservation of the great writings of classical antiquity, Bible translations, preservation of public morality, keeping out of control rulers in check, etc. they gave us?

What about them? Do any of things make them more righteous than the next church or denomination? Lee, you sure are a wonderful 'apologist' for the RCC.

Oh, right. The Asians would've given us those things eventually. Okay. Yeah. Right.

Lee, I expected a little more maturity from you than the standard, "My dad can beat up your dad" lines here. History doesn't lie Lee, just those that make the history do! All the things you 'credited' to the RCC for starting were in fact done, some by thousands of years, before the RCC ever thought of them.

Universities, hospitals, art, science, architecture and art, law, philosophy, were all a part of the human culture long before the existence of the RCC.

[RND]

Thanks, Jim. Honestly though, I don't believe the Middle Ages (ca. 475-ca.1500) were all that more violent or intolerant than, say, the 20th century.

That's pretty bad though, wouldn't you agree? 

Excellent point!

[marc]

I've said this before, but I really believe that if it were more socially acceptable, you would still see torture and killing of "heretics" today, and not just by the Catholic church.  It's the seed that's in man that causes it, not a corruption that's unique to a particular organization.  In the end, it's power, the desire for control, and not many of us are immune from that disease. Too often, we get our sense of value not from belonging to God but from proving our superiority to others.

To a large extent, when we look at middle-age atrocities a "there but for the grace of God..." attitude seems appropriate.

[RND]

In other words, biased, non-critical, non-scholarly sources.

Foxe's Book of Martyrs?

The History of Protestantism?

Be serious.

I quoted from the writings of recognized medieval academics and you quoted from popular internet sources and popular histories.

Foxe's Book of Martyrs?

The History of Protestantism?

Be serious.

RND, friend, you've made my case for me.

It appears I have.

[RND]

I've said this before, but I really believe that if it were more socially acceptable, you would still see torture and killing of "heretics" today, and not just by the Catholic church.

Oh, how true that statement is! Outstanding point.

It's the seed that's in man that causes it, not a corruption that's unique to a particular organization.  In the end, it's power, the desire for control, and not many of us are immune from that disease. Too often, we get our sense of value not from belonging to God but from proving our superiority to others.

To a large extent, when we look at middle-age atrocities a "there but for the grace of God..." attitude seems appropriate.

Very good post marc. Manna for you!

[Lee Freeman]

RND I'll take just one of your statements, about the Cathars, and show you where you have given us very simplified, and in places incorrect, information.

The Cathars were not "reformed" Christians. They were a medieval descendent of ancient gnosticism. Cathars believed, like their ancient forbears, that matter and the physical universe were evil. They believed in a dualism of powers, two gods, one good, one evil, equally powerful. The good god created the spiritual realm and the evil god Satan had created matter and the physical universe and then imprisoned the souls of men in corrupt physivcal bodies in that corrupt physical creation. The Cathar's job was to escape the shackles of physical existence. This is why the perfecti, or "perfect ones" among them shunned marriage, because proceation was sinful; and abstained from meat, eating only vegetables, breads and fruits.   Jesus in many Cathar circles was viwed via the old docetist heresy-his incarnation and death were simply an illusion.

At first Pope Innocent tried a peaceful conversion of the Cathars through reason and persuasion, sending a number of legates into the affected regions. They had to contend not only with the Cathars, the nobles who protected them, and the people who venerated them, but also with many of the bishops of the region, who resented the considerable authority which the Pope had given to these legates. In 1204, Innocent III suspended a number of bishops in the south of France; in 1205 he appointed a new and vigorous bishop of Toulouse, the former troubadour Foulques. In 1206 Diego of Osma and his canon, the future Saint Dominic, began a program of conversion in the Languedoc; as part of this, Catholic-Cathar public debates were held at Verfeil, Servian, Pamiers, Montréal and elsewhere.

Saint Dominic himself met and debated Cathars in 1203 during his mission to the Languedoc. He concluded that only preachers who displayed real sanctity, humility and asceticism could win over convinced Cathar believers. His conviction led eventually to the establishment of the Dominican Order in 1216. The order was to live up to the terms of his famous rebuke, "Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth." St. Dominic managed only a few converts.

In January 1208 the papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau was sent to meet the ruler of the area, Count Raymond VI of Toulouse. Known for excommunicating noblemen who protected the Cathars, Pierre de Castelnau excommunicated Raymond for aiding and abetting heresy. Castelnau was immediately murdered near Saint Gilles Abbey on his way back to Rome, by a knight in the service of Count Raymond. As soon as he heard of the murder, the Pope ordered the legates to preach a Crusade against the Cathars. Having failed in his effort to peacefully demonstrate the errors of Catharism, the Pope then called a formal crusade, appointing a series of leaders to head the assault. There followed twenty years of war against the Cathars and their allies in the Languedoc: the Albigensian Crusade.



From the On-line Reference Book for Medieval Studies: http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/crusade/albig.html

The Cathari

The heretics called themselves Christians, arguing that they were the only true practitioners of the faith. To others, however, they were known as Cathars, a word whose origin is not clear. The crusade against them is called the Albigensian because the town of Albi was one of the centers of the movement.

Characteristics of the heresy

Dualist

The spiritual realm was the realm of heaven, the realm of God
The temporal realm was the realm of Satan and the flesh
The real heresy, though, was that the Cathars believed both worlds and both powers to be co-equal
Anti-clerical

Denied the priesthood
Denied the sacraments
Denied the Nicene trinity. They believed that God created Christ and the Holy Ghost, and that Jesus was never truly man.
Believed in the possibility of personal salvation
Apostolic poverty
no oaths
simplicity of life
No resurrection
No Purgatory
Prayer was ineffective and the veneration of images was useless
One of the worst sins was to perpetuate the world of the flesh
Abstain from sex
Refrain from eating sexually produced foods -- meat
The Cathar Church

Had its own bishops and deacons
Had its own liturgy
consolamentum: the laying on of hands to pass spiritual power and authority
Had itinerant preachers who preached in "safe homes"
The body of believers was divided into
credentes - those who believed in the Cathar tenets but who were still in the world of the flesh
perfecti - the perfected ones (that is, the completed ones), who were spiritually pure and one their way to heaven
Development of the Church

Very hazy, because the records were suppressed
Took hold in the 11th century in southern France
Spread vigorously in the 12th century
Was anathematized at the Third Lateran Council, 1179
In 1184 the pope and emperor agreed to use the State to root out heresy


Origins of the Crusade

Raymond VI of Toulouse, 1194-1212

Toulouse regarded itself as virtually independent of the crown, as did most of the other southern French provinces. Indeed, the very word "French" to these southerners meant northern France. The south was called Provence or Languedoc.

Raymond ruled a wealthy county, but his authority within his territory was weak, and many of his vassals went their own way. These lesser barons were insulated from the king and from the local count, and defended their independence jealously. As the storm blew up around the Cathars, Raymond was caught in the middle between local traditions and an ambitious papacy. He was also weak in character, indecisive or unconvincing at critical points--traits not well-suited to the circumstances. Mostly, though, he was overwhelmed by events.

Innocent III, 1198-1216

Greatest of all the medieval popes

Recognized the Franciscans and the Dominicans, so he was not averse to innovation and reform
Preached crusades several times
A lawyer, with a legist's mind; ambitious, with a high opinion of the powers of the papacy
A crisis develops

1199 Innocent appointed legates to root out heresy in Languedoc
It didn't work. In 1204 he sent in Arnold Amalric, the abbot of the prestigious abbey of Cîteaux
In 1206, St. Dominic was there. He learned preaching techniques from the Cathars that he used when he founded his own order.
In 1207 Innocent asked King Philip II to eradicate the heresy
Philip was concerned only with royal power and did not see how this effort would extend his authority but only how it would drain his treasury
His support was never more than lukewarm
Plus, he was locked in his struggle with England, which culminated in the Battle of Bouvines in 1214.
In January 1208, Peter of Castlenau was assassinated
It was widely believed that Raymond engineered this
He protected the murderer, claiming the Church had no right to prosecute
May 1208, Raymond was excommunicated
Innocent called a crusade
Course of the Crusade
The crusading bull


Your view of things is too simplistic and ignores the complex situation that existed. It's not as easy to paint the Cathars as the guys in the white hats and the Catholic Church as the guys in the black hats as you'd like.

Pax.

[Lee Freeman]

In other words, biased, non-critical, non-scholarly sources.

Foxe's Book of Martyrs?

The History of Protestantism?

Be serious.

Yes, I am serious. Were any of your sources written by non-biased medieval professors? Certainly Foxe is not a non-biased source. If you can list sources by recognized academics in medieval studies who argree that the Catholic Church was the worst villain in history perhaps I'll concede your point. But the sources you referred to won't pass scholarly muster.

Pax.

[RND]

RND I'll take just one of your statements, about the Cathars, and show you where you have given us very simplified, and in places incorrect, information.

The Cathars were not "reformed" Christians. They were a medieval descendent of ancient gnosticism. Cathars believed, like their ancient forbears, that matter and the physical universe were evil. They believed in a dualism of powers, two gods, one good, one evil, equally powerful. The good god created the spiritual realm and the evil god Satan had created matter and the physical universe and then imprisoned the souls of men in corrupt physivcal bodies in that corrupt physical creation. The Cathar's job was to escape the shackles of physical existence. This is why the perfecti, or "perfect ones" among them shunned marriage, because proceation was sinful; and abstained from meat, eating only vegetables, breads and fruits.   Jesus in many Cathar circles was viwed via the old docetist heresy-his incarnation and death were simply an illusion.

At first Innocent tried peaceful conversion of the Cathars, and sent a number of papal legates into the affected regions. They had to contend not only with the Cathars, the nobles who protected them, and the people who venerated them, but also with many of the bishops of the region, who resented the considerable authority which the Pope had conferred upon these legates. In 1204, Innocent III suspended the authority of a number of bishops in the south of France; in 1205 he appointed a new and vigorous bishop of Toulouse, the former troubadour Foulques. In 1206 Diego of Osma and his canon, the future Saint Dominic, began a program of conversion in the Languedoc; as part of this, Catholic-Cathar public debates were held at Verfeil, Servian, Pamiers, Montréal and elsewhere.

Saint Dominic met and debated the Cathars in 1203 during his mission to the Languedoc. He concluded that only preachers who displayed real sanctity, humility and asceticism could win over convinced Cathar believers. His conviction led eventually to the establishment of the Dominican Order in 1216. The order was to live up to the terms of his famous rebuke, "Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth." St. Dominic managed only a few converts.

In January 1208 the papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau was sent to meet the ruler of the area, Count Raymond VI of Toulouse. Known for excommunicating noblemen who protected the Cathars, Pierre de Castelnau excommunicated Raymond as an abettor of heresy. Pierre Castelnau was immediately murdered near Saint Gilles Abbey on his way back to Rome, by a knight in the service of Count Raymond. As soon as he heard of the murder, the Pope ordered the legates to preach a Crusade against the Cathars. Having failed in his effort to peacefully demonstrate the errors of Catharism, the Pope then called a formal crusade, appointing a series of leaders to head the assault. There followed twenty years of war against the Cathars and their allies in the Languedoc: the Albigensian Crusade.



From the On-line Reference Book for Medieval Studies: http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/crusade/albig.html

The Cathari

The heretics called themselves Christians, arguing that they were the only true practitioners of the faith. To others, however, they were known as Cathars, a word whose origin is not clear. The crusade against them is called the Albigensian because the town of Albi was one of the centers of the movement.

Characteristics of the heresy

Dualist

The spiritual realm was the realm of heaven, the realm of God
The temporal realm was the realm of Satan and the flesh
The real heresy, though, was that the Cathars believed both worlds and both powers to be co-equal
Anti-clerical

Denied the priesthood
Denied the sacraments
Denied the Nicene trinity. They believed that God created Christ and the Holy Ghost, and that Jesus was never truly man.
Believed in the possibility of personal salvation
Apostolic poverty
no oaths
simplicity of life
No resurrection
No Purgatory
Prayer was ineffective and the veneration of images was useless
One of the worst sins was to perpetuate the world of the flesh
Abstain from sex
Refrain from eating sexually produced foods -- meat
The Cathar Church

Had its own bishops and deacons
Had its own liturgy
consolamentum: the laying on of hands to pass spiritual power and authority
Had itinerant preachers who preached in "safe homes"
The body of believers was divided into
credentes - those who believed in the Cathar tenets but who were still in the world of the flesh
perfecti - the perfected ones (that is, the completed ones), who were spiritually pure and one their way to heaven
Development of the Church

Very hazy, because the records were suppressed
Took hold in the 11th century in southern France
Spread vigorously in the 12th century
Was anathematized at the Third Lateran Council, 1179
In 1184 the pope and emperor agreed to use the State to root out heresy


Origins of the Crusade

Raymond VI of Toulouse, 1194-1212
Toulouse regarded itself as virtually independent of the crown, as did most of the other southern French provinces. Indeed, the very word "French" to these southerners meant northern France. The south was called Provence or Languedoc.

Raymond ruled a wealthy county, but his authority within his territory was weak, and many of his vassals went their own way. These lesser barons were insulated from the king and from the local count, and defended their independence jealously. As the storm blew up around the Cathars, Raymond was caught in the middle between local traditions and an ambitious papacy. He was also weak in character, indecisive or unconvincing at critical points--traits not well-suited to the circumstances. Mostly, though, he was overwhelmed by events.

Innocent III, 1198-1216
Greatest of all the medieval popes

Recognized the Franciscans and the Dominicans, so he was not averse to innovation and reform
Preached crusades several times
A lawyer, with a legist's mind; ambitious, with a high opinion of the powers of the papacy
A crisis develops

1199 Innocent appointed legates to root out heresy in Languedoc
It didn't work. In 1204 he sent in Arnold Amalric, the abbot of the prestigious abbey of Cîteaux
In 1206, St. Dominic was there. He learned preaching techniques from the Cathars that he used when he founded his own order.
In 1207 Innocent asked King Philip II to eradicate the heresy
Philip was concerned only with royal power and did not see how this effort would extend his authority but only how it would drain his treasury
His support was never more than lukewarm
Plus, he was locked in his struggle with England, which culminated in the Battle of Bouvines in 1214.
In January 1208, Peter of Castlenau was assassinated
It was widely believed that Raymond engineered this
He protected the murderer, claiming the Church had no right to prosecute
May 1208, Raymond was excommunicated
Innocent called a crusade
Course of the Crusade
The crusading bull


Your view of things is too simplistic and ignores the complex situation that existed. It's not as easy to paint the Cathars as the guys in the white hats and the Catholic Church as the guys in the black hats as you'd like.

Pax.

Lee, would you mind pointing out for me the exact scripture verse or verses that give any man, or corporate body, the expressed right and/or duty to use any physical force in the aims of conversion?

I think that would be helpful in our clarification of the subject.

Thanks.

[Lee Freeman]

I don't recall making the argument that the Catholic Church was justified in using force. I do recall making the argument that the Catholic Church is not the worst villain in history, and that it had reasons for its actions; we may not like them, but it had them.

The Church honestly believed Cathar beliefs were heretical (and so do I). They were a medieval incarnation of the Manichees.

I have not argued that the medieval Church never did anything wrong; nor have I denied that the Churches use of force was wrong. What I have argued is that if you look at the medieval Church as a whole for the whole medieval period (475-1500) objectively you will see that, overall, it was a vitally necessary stabilizing, moralizing force in society. Without the Catholic Church the Middle Ages truly would've been dark.

Regardless, the Catholic Church of 1215, or 1517, or 1690, or 1870, or 1942 is NOT the Catholic Church of 2007.

All I'm asking for is some fairness and perspective.

Pax.

[Jimbob]

Who was it that said "I am every age that I have ever been"?  So, too, the Roman Catholic Church is everything it has ever been; so are we.

[RND]

I don't recall making the argument that the Catholic Church was justified in using force. I do recall making the argument that the Catholic Church is not the worst villain in history, and that it had reasons for its actions; we may not like them, but it had them.

Lee, you are posting stuff that seemingly aims to justify those things done to 'heretics' because they didn't believe a certain way as the Popes who 'wished' to convert them.

The Church honestly believed Cathar beliefs were heretical (and so do I). They were a medieval incarnation of the Manichees.

The beliefs may have in fact been heretical, no doubt. Where in scripture is a Christian allowed to punish, persecute or use any form of force and violence towards another, whether they are a believer or not?

One verse......

I

have not argued that the medieval Church never did anything wrong; nor have I denied that the Churches use of force was wrong. What I have argued is that if you look at the medieval Church as a whole for the whole medieval period (475-1500) objectively you will see that, overall, it was a vitally necessary stabilizing, moralizing force in society. Without the Catholic Church the Middle Ages truly would've been dark.

Lee, there called the "Dark Ages" for a reason and it wasn't due to the enlightenment of the scriptures brought about by the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the corporate body as a whole had no right to lay one finger one another for any reason, least of all a difference in spiritual beliefs.

There are never, nor can there ever be, any type of justification for the circumstances of any Christian, from any denomination, to use force, fear, intimidation or manipulation to control another....whether a fellow Christian or not.

To suggest that the force employed by the RCC during the Dark Ages "was a vitally necessary stabilizing, moralizing force in society" is still no reason or right or license to control people with force.

Regardless, the Catholic Church of 1215, or 1517, or 1690, or 1870, or 1942 is NOT the Catholic Church of 2007.

Do you realize Lee that the office of Inquisition was reinstitued by Pope JP II?

The Pope Who Revived the Office of the Inquisition
An American Catholic Reflects on Papacy of John Paul II


An that office is now headed by what many call the 'Black Pope' the Jesuit General, Peter Hans Kolvenbach?

Peter-Hans Kolvenbach General # 29
General from 1983 to Present

All I'm asking for is some fairness and perspective.

And I am more than prepared to give it, but man brother, you seriously gotta stop with the 'it wasn't so bad' attitude. The direct actions of the RCC led to Luther placing his 95 Theses on the door of the Worms Church and risking his very life to try to set the church straight.

[RND]

Who was it that said "I am every age that I have ever been"?  So, too, the Roman Catholic Church is everything it has ever been; so are we.

I dunno, who said that?