Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[DHK]

CA,
I will give you one last quote for an example.
And then you must stop derailing this thread.
This thread is about "The Trail of Blood," and the history that pertains to it. It is not about "primary sources"--what is and what isn't.
A primary source is an original source. That much is evident. If we had to have primary sources for everything then we would not have a Bible for we do not have the original manuscripts any longer.

Now a simple quote:

His principal opponent was Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Clugni, and it is from Peter’s book (Contra Petrobrusianos, Patrologia Let, CLXXXIX. 729) that we must judge of the doctrines of Peter of Bruys.

The Petrobrussians, who followed closely after the Albigenses are discussed by Christian. He quotes directly from the writings of Peter of Bruys. I hope that satisfies you. I will no longer discuss this topic with you. If you do not accept the history of other historians then you can verify it for yourself. I am not in the business of searching the libraries and museums of this world to provide for you primary sources for those sects that are hidden in antiquity. If you want to consume your time doing so, then so be it.

 

[Matt Black]

Oh no you don't!! The issue of primary sources is utterly core to the issue as to whether or not the Trail of Blood-style ecclesiastical histories are reliable.

Then you provide primary sources for those groups of believers that are hidden in antiquity.

Which 'groups of belivers' do you mean? Can you be more specific please?

I'm still waiting for your primary sources, BTW...

 

[DHK]

Oh no you don't!! The issue of primary sources is utterly core to the issue as to whether or not the Trail of Blood-style ecclesiastical histories are reliable.


Which 'groups of belivers' do you mean? Can you be more specific please?

I'm still waiting for your primary sources, BTW...

Ha Ha, You asked the original question. Am I supposed to read your mind, or don't you know the meaning of the question that you asked me so that you have to ask me the meaning of the question that you asked of me?

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

... The issue of primary sources is utterly core to the issue as to whether or not the Trail of Blood-style ecclesiastical histories are reliable....

You are correct. This is the core issue. The misuse of primary sources by these writers is outlined in this excellent work:

Baptist Successionism: A Critical View by W. Morgan Patterson

CA

 

[DHK]

You are correct. This is the core issue. The misuse of primary sources by these writers is outlined in this excellent work:

Baptist Successionism: A Critical View by W. Morgan Patterson

CA

From a review of the book:

The theory of Baptist Successionism was an attempt to construct a history of the Baptists back to the early Church period. Given that the Baptists actually arose in the post-Reformation period, this would be no small feat and so a fanciful tale of underground churches and persecution of Baptists was contructed out of thin air. All of it was designed to reassure the Baptists of their special place, all of it was presented without any real evidence, and all of it was complete nonsense. In this little book, published three decades ago, Patterson gives a solid presentation of the motivations of the movement and an explanation of its failings.

When you start with a false premise (or even two), you will end with false conclusions. That much is inevitable.

There are not many (if any) here that are claiming "successionism," as such. So the book, and what it has to say is moot. I don't believe in successionism. I never claimed it, and I don't know many that do. Some cults believe in it: Mormons, the Apostolic Church, and others. There may be some kinds of Baptists that do, but I don't; never have.

I have already stated that what I believe is a "spiritual kinship theory."
If you don't believe a similar belief then one must conclude that God used an apostate murderous organization with unsaved individuals at its helm to preserve his word and promulgate his gospel. Is that really true? I don't believe that, and I didn't think any sane Christian would believe that either. The Bible does not teach that the unsaved promote the gospel and disciple believers. But somehow we have some on this board that believe that is what happened in history.

 

[Matt Black]

Ha Ha, You asked the original question. Am I supposed to read your mind, or don't you know the meaning of the question that you asked me so that you have to ask me the meaning of the question that you asked of me?

Whaaat?! I just asked you to be specific about the groups you are talking about. Why won't you be? Why the games? Why won't you answer a simple question? Your tactics of evasion speak volumes: the truth of the matter is you can't answer the basic question addressed to you and unless you demonstrate to the contrary that you can, that will remain my view.

 

[DHK]

Whaaat?! I just asked you to be specific about the groups you are talking about. Why won't you be? Why the games? Why won't you answer a simple question? Your tactics of evasion speak volumes: the truth of the matter is you can't answer the basic question addressed to you and unless you demonstrate to the contrary that you can, that will remain my view.

You can't even remember your own questions Matt. Why should I remember them?
Here is your original question:

All of the above are secondary sources. CA asked for primary sources, and gave a very helpful link to a definition of the latter; did you not read it?

So, the question remains: please cite the primary sources in support of your contention that the Albigenses-Cathars were evangelical Christians, without setting off on a tangential trek as to which European may nor may not have discovered America.

I responded for you to do the work and find the primary sources. (After all you are the smart one on the board).

Your next post seemed to indicate Alzheimer's. What was that original question?
This last post seems to indicate further symptoms of the same condition.
The groups "I am talking about?" Matt, you listed specific groups in your original post--Albigenses-Cathars. Those are the ones that you wanted me to find primary sources for? You ought to know "the groups" being referred to. Who is the one here being evasive? It certainly is not me?
Remember, in my first answer to you, I challenged you that if it was so easy, you find the primary sources. I await your answer.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

... Matt, you listed specific groups in your original post--Albigenses-Cathars. Those are the ones that you wanted me to find primary sources for?... Remember, in my first answer to you, I challenged you that if it was so easy, you find the primary sources. I await your answer.

If I may, I offer these primary sources.

Primary sources from Catholics.

An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies by (possibly) Ermengaud, the Catholic Bishop of Beziers from 1205-1208. Written ca. 1208-1213.


A Description of Cathars and Waldenses by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, a Cistercian monk from the abbey of Vaux-de-Cernay. Written ca. 1213.

Primary sources from the Cathars.


The Catharist Rituals. Author Unknown. Latin text written ca. 1240-1250; Provencal text written 1250-1280.

The Cathar Council at Saint Felix de Caraman. Author Unknown. Written in 1167.

CA

 

[DHK]

If I may, I offer these primary sources.

Primary sources from Catholics.

An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies by (possibly) Ermengaud, the Catholic Bishop of Beziers from 1205-1208. Written ca. 1208-1213.


A Description of Cathars and Waldenses by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, a Cistercian monk from the abbey of Vaux-de-Cernay. Written ca. 1213.

Primary sources from the Cathars.

The Catharist Rituals. Author Unknown. Latin text written ca. 1240-1250; Provencal text written 1250-1280.

The Cathar Council at Saint Felix de Caraman. Author Unknown. Written in 1167.

CA

No they are not primary sources. They are tainted sources, all from the Catholics. I looked at the last one in particular for it said it was from the Cathars. It specifically named the Cathari and the Albigenses as heretics and falsely accused them of heresies they never believed, for which reasons the Catholics led a Crusade against them. The RCC felt justified in killing these believers because they were supposed heretics. And you think this is a primary source?? NO! It is fiction! Lies! Slander! It is not worthy to be called a source at all.

 

[Matt Black]

Thank you for clarifying your question, DHK. CA has now saved me the trouble of answering it for me. You don't like the primary sources he has adduced (whether you like them or not, whether they're Catholic or not* is beside the point - they are primary source documents) - fine, produce your own which support your argument. We're still waiting for that...

*The Ritual of Lyon is, in point of fact, a Cathar rather than Catholic document.

 

[DHK]

Thank you for clarifying your question, DHK. CA has now saved me the trouble of answering it for me. You don't like the primary sources he has adduced (whether you like them or not, whether they're Catholic or not* is beside the point - they are primary source documents) - fine, produce your own which support your argument. We're still waiting for that...

*The Ritual of Lyon is, in point of fact, a Cathar rather than Catholic document.

I am not sure what you are looking for. CA produced a book of hatred; a book containing quotes of Catholic lies supposedly from the Albigenses and Cathari. They weren't even true. They were fabricated. How on earth do you call that a primary source. It is fiction, at least fiction on the part of the Catholics. Since when does a Catholic source, even if it is primary to them, but full of lies concerning the Albigenses, still stand as primary concerning the Albigenses. It is ludicrous.

A primary source must be accurate with the information it deals with.
The book CA provided me (at least the one I looked at) was printed in 1991 (hardly primary), and contained quotes from sources that were much older. Christian does the same thing, except that his quotes are much more accurate. I find that my sources are far more "primary" than yours.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not sure what you are looking for. CA produced a book of hatred; a book containing quotes of Catholic lies supposedly from the Albigenses and Cathari. They weren't even true. They were fabricated. How on earth do you call that a primary source. It is fiction, at least fiction on the part of the Catholics. Since when does a Catholic source, even if it is primary to them, but full of lies concerning the Albigenses, still stand as primary concerning the Albigenses. It is ludicrous.

A primary source must be accurate with the information it deals with.
The book CA provided me (at least the one I looked at) was printed in 1991 (hardly primary), and contained quotes from sources that were much older. Christian does the same thing, except that his quotes are much more accurate. I find that my sources are far more "primary" than yours.

First of all DHK how do you know the Catholic book with regard to the Albigenses or the Cathari are lies? Really? How do you know? Where you there? How do you know the quotes are more accurate from the book you mention? How are your sources more primary?

 

[DHK]

First of all DHK how do you know the Catholic book with regard to the Albigenses or the Cathari are lies? Really? How do you know? Where you there? How do you know the quotes are more accurate from the book you mention? How are your sources more primary?

Have you heard of the Crusades; the Inquistions? The Catholics misrepresented and deliberately misaligned the character of the Albigeneses and related groups so that they could justify a crusade against them and exterminate them in the name of God. In the name of Christ they massacred Christians, Godly believers who wanted nothing more than to live alone worshiping Christ. Their biggest crime was winning others to the Lord. The others, of course were former Catholics. What could be done about that except to massacre them along with the Muslims.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Have you heard of the Crusades; the Inquistions? The Catholics misrepresented and deliberately misaligned the character of the Albigeneses and related groups so that they could justify a crusade against them and exterminate them in the name of God. In the name of Christ they massacred Christians, Godly believers who wanted nothing more than to live alone worshiping Christ. Their biggest crime was winning others to the Lord. The others, of course were former Catholics. What could be done about that except to massacre them along with the Muslims.

You're imputing your sympathies and ideals on a group of people that there is not much information on. You see them this way because thats how you personally feel for yourself. As far as the crusades and the rest you basically are saying that since these abuses occured (though with the crusades I'm not so sure they were a bad thing. They kept Islam at bay out of Europe) everything else is wrong? In other words your saying you know a catholic is lying because they open their mouth. I'm not sure theres a good argument there. There is also St. Bernard. Monestaries that helped the poor. There are Catholic heroes as well. That stood up agianst the vikings, etc... And Calvin also participated in killing those he considered heretics as well. Does that mean we need to throw out Tulip? See how thats a slippery slope?

 

[DHK]

You're imputing your sympathies and ideals on a group of people that there is not much information on. You see them this way because thats how you personally feel for yourself. As far as the crusades and the rest you basically are saying that since these abuses occured (though with the crusades I'm not so sure they were a bad thing. They kept Islam at bay out of Europe) everything else is wrong? In other words your saying you know a catholic is lying because they open their mouth. I'm not sure theres a good argument there. There is also St. Bernard. Monestaries that helped the poor. There are Catholic heroes as well. That stood up agianst the vikings, etc... And Calvin also participated in killing those he considered heretics as well. Does that mean we need to throw out Tulip? See how thats a slippery slope?

Christian quotes from "primary sources."
The books CA recommends quotes from Catholic sources which he calls primary.
Now, tell me whose sources are more accurate?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Christian quotes from "primary sources."
The books CA recommends quotes from Catholic sources which he calls primary.
Now, tell me whose sources are more accurate?

Well, lets see Christain quotes:

Encyclopedia Britannica, I. 454. 9th edition
. Prof. Bury
Bury, Ed. Gibbon, History of Rome, VI. 563
Jones, The History of the Christian Church, I. 287

I don't see any primary sources here. In fact they are third party sources 2 of which are giving an opinion of these people and the catholic church.

Encyclopedia Brintannica 9th edition was 1875
Bury, Ed. Gibbon, History of Rome, VI. 563 was 1901
Jones, The History of the Christian Church, I. 287 was 1819

quite a ways from the 1100s.

I consider primary sources to be those who were eye witnesses to the events. Not speculations developed centuries later.

 

[DHK]

Well, lets see Christain quotes:


I don't see any primary sources here. In fact they are third party sources 2 of which are giving an opinion of these people and the catholic church.

Encyclopedia Brintannica 9th edition was 1875
Bury, Ed. Gibbon, History of Rome, VI. 563 was 1901
Jones, The History of the Christian Church, I. 287 was 1819

quite a ways from the 1100s.

I consider primary sources to be those who were eye witnesses to the events. Not speculations developed centuries later.

Then you haven't read the book and are simply using a convenient pick and choose method according to your own convenience. This topic, as I told CA already, has derailed this thread. If it continues I will close this thread without notice.

If you disbelieve me, then buy the book, and read it for yourself. Any historian has the right to use as many sources and as wide a variety as sources as he desires as long as they are accurate in the context in which they are used. Thus your objection is moot.

Now, in the future please post to the OP.

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1381487&postcount=1

This is a thread that you started, and you aren't even discussing it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then you haven't read the book and are simply using a convenient pick and choose method according to your own convenience. This topic, as I told CA already, has derailed this thread. If it continues I will close this thread without notice.

If you disbelieve me, then buy the book, and read it for yourself. Any historian has the right to use as many sources and as wide a variety as sources as he desires as long as they are accurate in the context in which they are used. Thus your objection is moot.

Now, in the future please post to the OP.

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1381487&postcount=1

This is a thread that you started, and you aren't even discussing it.

I think what we are discussion is a subject that falls within the over all scope which the Pamphlet covers. Ie. there is an independent history showing the continuity of early Christianity with the current day baptist. With in the context of the Pamphlet it describes the Cathari and the Albegensians as being baptist or the preceeding baptist of those today and that they fall into overall history of baptist. There is discussion therefore on the subject whether this is true or not. You've concluded that it is because there are similarities in beliefs and practices. yet there are those who disagree and say the similiarities are surface only but when we look at these groups they were actually heretical. Now to prove both opposing points there has been discussion on who has the more reliable sources for proving their points. Because an anlysis will conclude that the Pamphlet is wrong and its sources are in error and that Baptist are an offspring of the reformation or just pre reformation before the movement took off. Or it will conclude that the Pamphlet is correct in it supposition that Baptist have been with us since the begining under different names but never Catholic. Is this correct?

 

[DHK]

I think what we are discussion is a subject that falls within the over all scope which the Pamphlet covers. Ie. there is an independent history showing the continuity of early Christianity with the current day baptist. With in the context of the Pamphlet it describes the Cathari and the Albegensians as being baptist or the preceeding baptist of those today and that they fall into overall history of baptist. There is discussion therefore on the subject whether this is true or not. You've concluded that it is because there are similarities in beliefs and practices. yet there are those who disagree and say the similiarities are surface only but when we look at these groups they were actually heretical. Now to prove both opposing points there has been discussion on who has the more reliable sources for proving their points. Because an anlysis will conclude that the Pamphlet is wrong and its sources are in error and that Baptist are an offspring of the reformation or just pre reformation before the movement took off. Or it will conclude that the Pamphlet is correct in it supposition that Baptist have been with us since the begining under different names but never Catholic. Is this correct?

1. I freely admitted that there were historical mistakes in the pamphlet.
2. However, the general premise of the book is correct--that throughout every generation from the time of Christ there have been groups of believers existing outside the Catholic/Orthodox etc. that have remained true to Christ, and thus have had similar beliefs to the Baptists today.
3. If the above premise is not correct, then heaven is going to be a relatively empty place, or Christianity ended at the time of the Apostles and started again at the time of the Reformation. This is a ludicrous position to take.
4. What else is ludicrous is to think that God would use an apostate, unbelieving organization such as the RCC who murdered believers at will, to preserve his Word, and his message (the gospel), which the RCC hates to this day, for more than 1500 years.
5. It is also ludicrous to think that this organization who carried out the Crusades against Christians, the Inquistion against Christians, and has had a history of persecuting Christians even unto this very day should be the true messenger of the gospel even today.
How is all this possible? How do you reconcile all of this?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1. I freely admitted that there were historical mistakes in the pamphlet.
2. However, the general premise of the book is correct--that throughout every generation from the time of Christ there have been groups of believers existing outside the Catholic/Orthodox etc. that have remained true to Christ, and thus have had similar beliefs to the Baptists today.
3. If the above premise is not correct, then heaven is going to be a relatively empty place, or Christianity ended at the time of the Apostles and started again at the time of the Reformation. This is a ludicrous position to take.
4. What else is ludicrous is to think that God would use an apostate, unbelieving organization such as the RCC who murdered believers at will, to preserve his Word, and his message (the gospel), which the RCC hates to this day, for more than 1500 years.
5. It is also ludicrous to think that this organization who carried out the Crusades against Christians, the Inquistion against Christians, and has had a history of persecuting Christians even unto this very day should be the true messenger of the gospel even today.
How is all this possible? How do you reconcile all of this?

It is actually a fair question. I guess on my other question in this forum section you would say no. But not necissarily. I'm just guessing.

Your statement here:

It is also ludicrous to think that this organization who carried out the Crusades against Christians and has had a history of persecuting Christians even unto this very day should be the true messenger of the gospel even today.

leads me to ask two questions:
1) How is the RCC persecuting Christians today? I have never heard of it.
2) What Crusade against Christians? The inquisition? It wasn't really a crusade. I guess it came pretty close to it in Spain. But a study in the inquisition shows that it was actually the Spanish Government that precipitated the executions primarily to get rid of Jews and muslims.

This is how I would reconcile your issues. First of all I can no more say that american baptist who are closely linked to the English Puritans who first settled Mass. are not christian because of the Salem massicre of people who weren't even witches than believe all Catholics for 1500 years were all murderers or hated the gosple. In fact we see strong missionary movements by Catholics all over Europe we see Bede in England, Patrick in Ireland. We see a slow transformation of Europe from Pagan beliefs to less pagan beliefs. You may claim that the RCC church went wrong during Constantine but he was an Arian and he only allowed for tollerance of Christians during his edict of Milan. There were very Christian Catholic leaders like Leo I and Gregory who caused a renessance of their time. I would say Catholics had issues more closely related to Pepin and Charlesmagne than to Constantine which culminated with Otto paving the way for the Papacy political power in Europe. Which was a mistake for the Europeans. what about the millions of CAtholics who lived their faith over this peroid of time? The Irish Catholic monks practically single handedly saved all scripture writings of the NT when the rest of Europe was destroying most of these documents. The crusades were against Islams incursion to Europe which was stopped in France. So I don't think they were all bad but note. The Papacy asked for people to protect the holy land who actually sent troops? The many monarchies of europe which were secular. I believe the Papacy should never have become a political power in europe which caused excess of problems by the clergy. But that is certainly less than 1500 years. There were many catholics opposed to the inquisition and attempted to change it like Erasimus, Francis, and many others. When opposition to the Papacy secular political power but the papacy into question we had the reformation. The Catholic church reacted negatively and put forth its council of trent which is problematic even to this day. But by that time the gospel was in the hands of the presses.