Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[DHK]

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: leads me to ask two questions:
1) How is the RCC persecuting Christians today? I have never heard of it.

Read this article, a headline from today's news. Today the Pope apologizes:
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n042911A.xml

From the 19th century until the 1970s, more than 150,000 native children in Canada were made to attend state-funded Christian schools as an effort to assimilate them into Canadian society. Nearly three-quarters of the 130 schools were run by Catholic missionary congregations.

The Canadian government has admitted that physical and sexual abuse in the schools was rampant, and has apologized and offered compensation.

1970 is relatively current, wouldn't you say?
If you look at my profile it says missionary. I have seen it firsthand. When a Baptist tries to start a work in an Islamic nation he faces two enemies: the Muslims and the Catholics. Neither group wants that work started and both will persecute believers to hinder it from being started. The Catholic Church is not Christian, and never has been. The devil is behind it, and helps it to hinder the work of God.

In the province of Quebec, here in Canada, Bible-believing Christians are discriminated against by the Catholic Church on a regular basis. Persecution takes on many forms. They may not be burned at the stake. They find more "civil" ways of persecution in our day and age.
Have you not read of the all the sexual abuse and scandals in your own nation of priest engaged in pedophilia? Adultery? etc.? Open your eyes!
Not that Baptist churches are completely immune from sin; but when sexual sin if found out in a Baptist church discipline is immediately taken first by the church, and then by the civil law. That is not so by the RCC, who sweep it under the rug, and then move their pedophile to another parish.

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.

Are you that ignorant of history? Have you never heard of Innocent III and his crusade against Christians (Albigenses)? Innocent III was not innocent.
There was more than one Inquistion. Look them up. Why are the Anabaptists called Anabaptists? How was the RCC involved there? Who was Bloody Mary of Tudor, and why is she called "Bloody Mary"?

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.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I doubt if these people were Baptist or even were saved. You are talking of apples and oranges. We are speaking of Bible-believing Christians, specifically Baptists, and those Baptists who are regenerated and following the Word of God.

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.

Reformation is not regeneration. A pagan who leaves some pagan beliefs behind but still believes in paganism is still a pagan. Catholicism is largely pagan.

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.

No, I claim that Catholicism origniated with Constantine.

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?

You cannot be a Catholic living the Catholic faith and a Christian at the same time. It is an impossibility. The Catholic faith is at odds with Christianity as much as Hinduism is. There is no reconciliation. Why do you think Luther was excommunicated. There was no way that he could reform it to the doctrines of Christianity. It was too pagan to begin with.

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 RCC at the time of Tyndale were doing everything they could to gather Bibles up and burn them. They have had a hatred of the Bible; not a love for it.

The crusades were against Islams incursion to Europe which was stopped in France. So I don't think they were all bad but note.

When is killing people justified in the NT? When one doesn't agree with you then you have the right to massacre them? This is your kind of Christianity? Please don't invite me to your house!

The Papacy asked for people to protect the holy land who actually sent troops?

Where is God in all of this?

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.

Not just the Counci of Trent; read all of the heretical councils and see all of their condemnations against Bible-believing Christians. Do some research. See also the Councils where one heresy after another is introduced into this pagan religion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1970 is relatively current, wouldn't you say?
If you look at my profile it says missionary. I have seen it firsthand. When a Baptist tries to start a work in an Islamic nation he faces two enemies: the Muslims and the Catholics. Neither group wants that work started and both will persecute believers to hinder it from being started. The Catholic Church is not Christian, and never has been. The devil is behind it, and helps it to hinder the work of God.

Uh. The US did something as well and so did European Protestant missionaries in Africa. Back in the 1800 to be Christian was thought to be European and so forced natives to act European. In the US protestants forced natives to attend their schools as well. To get rid of their culture. Its wrong. But I didn't see anything in the article that shows the RCC singling out Christians. BTW I went to RVA a protestant Missionary boarding school for many years and have a lot of missionary friends. I lived in Africa and have seen the RCC and Protestant Chruches working together to help the poor.

In the province of Quebec, here in Canada, Bible-believing Christians are discriminated against by the Catholic Church on a regular basis. Persecution takes on many forms. They may not be burned at the stake. They find more "civil" ways of persecution in our day and age.

I've been to Quebec and that provence just stinks. I think it has more to do with them being French than Catholic. I don't particularily like the French either. I seem to like them more the closer I get to Germany.

Not that Baptist churches are completely immune from sin; but when sexual sin if found out in a Baptist church discipline is immediately taken first by the church, and then by the civil law.

This isn't always true. I gave an example of a deacon living with his girlfriend.

Are you that ignorant of history? Have you never heard of Innocent III and his crusade against Christians (Albigenses)?

No I study it all the time. There is still debate on whether the Albigenses were really christian. Inocent III had issues but thats after Pepin and Charlesemagne.

Why are the Anabaptists called Anabaptists? How was the RCC involved there? Who was Bloody Mary of Tudor, and why is she called "Bloody Mary"?

Anabaptist are called anabaptist because it means again baptisers. Yet their direct decendents are the Amish and the Menonites. Not really baptist as I see them. Bloody Mary killed protestants. She was a civil queen ensuring that she wouldn't be kicked out of power because of the protestant movement in England and her own father's decent from Rome. She tried to re-establish ties to strengthen her position. More political than religious. What about Elizabeth the 1st? Was she uncommonly christian? How about the Lord protector Oliver Cromwell?

When is killing people justified in the NT?

It's not really. However, I served in the military so I'm not a pacifist. I understand freedom comes with a cost.

I think you need to review some history BTW.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

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...

DHK,

Please clarify.

Where in The Cathar Council at Saint Felix de Caraman has it “specifically named the Cathari and the Albigenses as heretics?”

And of what “heresies they never believed” did the document falsely accuse them?

CA

 

[DHK]

DHK,

Please clarify.

Where in The Cathar Council at Saint Felix de Caraman has it “specifically named the Cathari and the Albigenses as heretics?”

And of what “heresies they never believed” did the document falsely accuse them?

CA

Take a look at page 126, chapter 20, where the Albigenses are referred throughout as heretics. On page 127 it said that they believe that the good god has two wives. This is just slanderous make believe by the RCC. No group of Christians believed that, especially the Albigenses. The RCC, during that time would look for any excuse to persecute and kill those that oppose the RCC. They would make false accusations. Revisionist history to this day is an on-going occupation with the RCC.

 

[Matt Black]

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.

The point of the matter is that if a primary source document contains material with which you disagree then it is up to you to adduce other primary source documents to refute that otherwise all we are left with is your assertion that the material with which you disagree is "lies" and "slander", which not evidence at all but bare opinion.

[PS BTW - if you close this thread precipitately, then you'll have demonstrated that you have no evidence and no argument]

So...once again, please "produce to the court" your primary source documents which refute the material thus far produced. Then, and only then, will we start taking your opinions seriously...

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Then, and only then, will we start taking your opinions seriously...

How can anyone really take DHK seriously when he makes comments as such:

No, I claim that Catholicism origniated with Constantine.​

Anyone with even a causual basic understanding of Church history knows that the Roman Catholic Church is a result from the Great Schism of 1054, when the Patriarchate of Rome, IMO, excommunicated itself from the other four Patriarchates.

DHK's facination with Constantine is nothing more than Jack Chick, David Cloud and the all knowing History guru Dave Hunt's propaganda, that these Landmarks Baptist eat up.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How can anyone really take DHK seriously when he makes comments as such:

No, I claim that Catholicism origniated with Constantine.​

Anyone with even a causual basic understanding of Church history knows that the Roman Catholic Church is a result from the Great Schism of 1054, when the Patriarchate of Rome, IMO, excommunicated itself from the other four Patriarchates.

DHK's facination with Constantine is nothing more than Jack Chick, David Cloud and the all knowing History guru Dave Hunt's propaganda, that these Landmarks Baptist eat up.

In XC
-

Since Clement referred to the Christian Church as Catholic couple of hundreds of years before Constantine and both Orthodox and RCC adhere to the 1 eccuminical council (Nicea). Why don't the Orthodox call themselves Catholic if they distinguish Roman Catholic after 1054?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Since Clement referred to the Christian Church as Catholic couple of hundreds of years before Constantine and both Orthodox and RCC adhere to the 1 eccuminical council (Nicea). Why don't the Orthodox call themselves Catholic if they distinguish Roman Catholic after 1054?

We do, every Sunday in our Creed..."...I believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church..."

Basically, after the split in 1054, the Roman Patriarchate became known as the "Roman Catholic Church" and the other Patriarchates simply became known as the "Eastern Orthodox Church". No particular reason nor did any council pronounce this...I guess people began to differentiate between the two and thus this is how people referred to the two.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

The point of the matter is that if a primary source document contains material with which you disagree then it is up to you to adduce other primary source documents to refute that otherwise all we are left with is your assertion that the material with which you disagree is "lies" and "slander", which not evidence at all but bare opinion.

I did provide a primary source. CA dismissed it; for what reason I don't know. I believe he said that the quote wasn't a direct quote, but that doesn't nullify the fact that the source wasn't primary. It is. It is far more primary than anything CA has provided as it comes from the direct writings of the Cathari (Albigenses). It is their writings, not what their enemies (the RCC) say about them.

The method of ascertaining the truth in history being pursued here is ridiculous. Think now. Why not take the Koran, study it, and find out the history of Christianity from the Koran. What would you come up with?
I know what the Koran says about Christianity. It isn't nice and it isn't accurate. It is full of lies.
Do the same thing with the Book of Mormon and other Mormon literature.
You see what is going on here. You (meaning CA and others posting here) are taking the enemies of true Biblical Christianity and writing the history of Christianity from the view point of unsaved individuals. How accurate is that going to be. At the same time accurate and primary sources are arbitrarily dismissed. In fact such books are simply dismissed. We are supposed to accept books published in 1991 that supposedly quote from primary sources according to CA, but won't accept a reliable history book taken from a Baptist view point that does indeed quote from the very documents of the Cathari, Albigenses, Waldenses, etc.
Somewhat hypocritical in our approach to history aren't we?

[PS BTW - if you close this thread precipitately, then you'll have demonstrated that you have no evidence and no argument]

The evidence has been there. It has been refused to be even considered. The thread was about a pamphlet. If you (or Thinkingstuff) wanted to start a thread about primary sources then why didn't you? That is not what the topic of this thread was. "Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

So...once again, please "produce to the court" your primary source documents which refute the material thus far produced. Then, and only then, will we start taking your opinions seriously...

Have you read Christian's book yet? Will you? I doubt it.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

I did provide a primary source. CA dismissed it; for what reason I don't know. I believe he said that the quote wasn't a direct quote, but that doesn't nullify the fact that the source wasn't primary.

DHK,

RE The Cathari themselves boasted of their remote antiquity (Bonacursus, Vitae haereticorum... Cathorum, ap. D’Archery, Scriptorum Spicilegiam, I. 208).

Because it "wasn't a direct quote" is exactly what disqualifies it from being a primary source. Citing a primary source and then summarizing what the primary source says makes it a secondary source. Primary sources "are original records... not filtered by interpretation."

The JT Christian quote above, the one you referenced, is a particularly blatant example of why a primary source should be quoted at length and without interpretation since, contrary to Christian's statement, Bonacursus in the "Vitae haereticorum..." makes no mention of the Cathari themselves boasting of their remote antiquity.

And, keeping in line with the OP, I would not be suprised to learn that misquoting sources is one reason why the Trail of Blood is not accepted as legitimate history by any major Baptist seminary.

CA

 

[DHK]

DHK,

RE The Cathari themselves boasted of their remote antiquity (Bonacursus, Vitae haereticorum... Cathorum, ap. D’Archery, Scriptorum Spicilegiam, I. 208).

Because it "wasn't a direct quote" is exactly what disqualifies it from being a primary source. Citing a primary source and then summarizing what the primary source says makes it a secondary source. Primary sources "are original records... not filtered by interpretation."

The JT Christian quote above, the one you referenced, is a particularly blatant example of why a primary source should be quoted at length and without interpretation since, contrary to Christian's statement, Bonacursus in the "Vitae haereticorum..." makes no mention of the Cathari themselves boasting of their remote antiquity.

And, keeping in line with the OP, I would not be suprised to learn that misquoting sources is one reason why the Trail of Blood is not accepted as legitimate history by any major Baptist seminary.

CA

Christian gave you the source from which he quoted. It is a primary source, as you yourself know. If you question his veracity then you can go to the source yourself and check him out.

Continuing on in Christian's book:

This state of affairs greatly alarmed and aggravated the pope. In the year 1139 they were condemned by the Lateran Council; by that of Tours in 1163, and mission after mission was sent among them to persuade them to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Henry, in 1180, employed force. Pope Innocent III published a crusade against them. Says the Historian Hume:

The people from all parts of Europe moved by their superstition and their passion for wars and adventures, flocked to his standard. Simon de Monfort, the general of the crusade, acquired to himself a sovereignty of these provinces. The Count of Toulouse, who protected, or perhaps only tolerated the Albigenses, was stript of his dominions. And these sectaries themselves, though the most inoffensive and innocent of mankind, were exterminated with the circumstances of extreme violence and barbarity (Hume, History of England, II. ch. xi).

In the second crusade the first city captured was that of Braziers, which had some forty thousand inhabitants. When Simon de Monfort, Earl of Leicester, asked the Abbot of Ceteaux, the papal legate, what he was to do with the inhabitants, the legate answered: "Kill them all. God knows His own." In this manner the war was carried on for twenty years. Town after town was taken, pillaged, burnt. Nothing was left but a smoking waste. Religions fanaticism began the war; rapacity and ambition ended it. Peace was concluded in 1229, and the Inquisition finished the deadly work.

The proof is overwhelming that the Albigenses rejected infant baptism. They were condemned on this account by a Council held at Toulouse, A. D. 1119 (Maitland, Facts and Documents Illustrative of the Albigenses, 90. London, 1832), and that of Albi in 1165 (Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of Piedmont, 150). The historians affirm that they rejected infant baptism. Chassanion says: "I cannot deny that the Albigenses, for the greater part, were opposed to infant baptism; the truth is, they did not reject the sacrament as useless, but only as unnecessary to infants" (Chassanion, Historie des Albigeois. Geneva, 1595). Dr. Emil Comba, of the Waldensian Theological College, Florence, Italy, the latest of the Waldensian historians, says that the Albigenses rejected "all the sacraments except baptism, which they reserved for believers" (Comba, History of the Waldenses, 17. London, 1889).

After quoting from the historian, Hume, he goes on to list a number of primary sources. Some of these he gives some short quotes; others he just simply refers to. Again if you have any questions, you can check them out for yourselves, but the evidence is there.



Following this section are some direct quotes about the Petrobrussians, from a document written by Peter of Bruys himself. Would that be considered primary enough for you? Your interrogation of this has gone beyond overboard.

 

[Jerome]

Here is Cardinal Hosius's statement on the issue (in today's orthography) from his The Beginning of Heresies in Our Time, translated out of Latin into English by Richard Shacklock, 1565, pp. 44-48. Note the bolded words are very similar to what the introduction to the pamphlet attributed to Hosius, words that some here (including a moderator and at least one of this thread's sourcitude mallcops) have called gross lies, bogus, ahistorical, fraudulent, a hoax, etc.

"there shall be no faith more certain and true, then is the Anabaptists', seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous. Yea in Saint Augustin his time, as he himself sayeth, there was a certain monstrous desire of death in them. . . . Neither was there such foolish hardy heretics in Saint Augustine his time only. For four hundred years ago, at what time St. Bernard lived, there were Anabaptists, which were no less prodigal to spend their life, then were the Donatists, some (saith he) did marvel that they were led to their deathe not only patiently but as it semed very frolic and merry.
...If you behold their cheerfulness in suffering persecutions, the Anabaptists run far before all other heretics. If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all other, if they were not grievously plagued and cut off with the knife of persecution. If you have an eye to the outward appearance of godliness, both the Lutherans and the Zwinglians must needs grant, that they far pass them.
...And surely how many so ever have written against this heresie, whether they were Catholics or Heretics, they were able to overthrow it not so much by the testimony of the scriptures, as by the authority of the Church."

 

[Matt Black]

The Hosius quote is notoriously a hoax - I can't believe that some are still falling for that!

DHK, just for you I've read Chapter Five of Christian's book on the History of the Baptists, although I fail to see the relevance as a book written by someone who lived from 1854 to 1925 is scarcely primary for the purposes of accurately describing a movement that had all but died by the mid-14th century. Even the best that Christian can do is to say that the Albigensians were "probably" "not Manichaeans". "Probably"! He merely cites other historians (again, hardly primary); the only contemporary primary source he cites is the aforementioned Bonacursus, who is not exactly complimentary, since he was by then 'poacher turned gamekeeper' (ie: a convert from Catharism to Catholicism).

Christian also makes the mistake of conflating the Waldenses with the Cathars. The Cathars were gnostic Manichaeists, the Waldenses were reforming Catholics, much in the style of Francis of Assisi a generation or so later. Furthermore the Waldenses are still around despite many centuries of persecution; I had the pleasure of attending one of their services in St Raphael in the south of France some three years ago. They're far more similar to Presbyterians in their churchmanship than to any Baptist service I've ever attended.

If you want primary sources, I'm tempted to direct you the records of the Inquisition in Foix from 1294-1324, painstakingly collated by Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie in his book Montaillou (the latter of course is 20th century and therefore not primary but all citations are verifiable from 14thC MSS and it's a good starting point for research), but doubtless you will dismiss this as 'Catholic' and therefore 'lies'; very well, may I then direct you to a genuine Cathar document from 1274, the Ritual de Lyon. The Interragatio Iohannis therein makes interesting reading and is plainly gnostic.

 

[DHK]

The Hosius quote is notoriously a hoax - I can't believe that some are still falling for that!

I have heard this accusation many times and don't know how to take it. The source of "it is a hoax" naturally comes from Catholic websites, who would love it to be a hoax for obvious reasons. I reserve my judgment.

DHK, just for you I've read Chapter Five of Christian's book on the History of the Baptists, although I fail to see the relevance as a book written by someone who lived from 1854 to 1925 is scarcely primary for the purposes of accurately describing a movement that had all but died by the mid-14th century.

I never made the claim that Christian's book itself was a primary source.
I simply contrasted it to the books that others were offering, like CA, printed in 1991 that referred to primary sources. He also refers to primary source. What's the difference. I find none. In fact, his book being much older, would have more access to older sources still around at that period of time.

Even the best that Christian can do is to say that the Albigensians were "probably" "not Manichaeans". "Probably"! He merely cites other historians (again, hardly primary); the only contemporary primary source he cites is the aforementioned Bonacursus, who is not exactly complimentary, since he was by then 'poacher turned gamekeeper' (ie: a convert from Catharism to Catholicism).

But the truth is, if you read the entire article, is that he sets forth evidence that the Cathari were a movement intensely opposed to the Catholic Church, and their beliefs demonstrate it. They were killed for having such beliefs. What you are saying is akin to meeting the occasional Catholic who used to be Baptist, something like Agnus. That does happen today. But usually it is the other way around. There are many ex-Catholics on this board.

Christian also makes the mistake of conflating the Waldenses with the Cathars. The Cathars were gnostic Manichaeists,

That is what you say. Christian goes to great pains to show how these accusations were falsely laid upon them by the Catholics.

the Waldenses were reforming Catholics, much in the style of Francis of Assisi a generation or so later. Furthermore the Waldenses are still around despite many centuries of persecution; I had the pleasure of attending one of their services in St Raphael in the south of France some three years ago. They're far more similar to Presbyterians in their churchmanship than to any Baptist service I've ever attended.

The early Waldenses were staunchly against the Catholic movement. But near their end they gave into liberalism, just like many of our mainline Protestant churches today. To say that they were reforming Catholics and have always been that way is a mischaracterization. They were entirely apart from the RCC, and their beliefs contrary to the RCC.

If you want primary sources, I'm tempted to direct you the records of the Inquisition in Foix from 1294-1324, painstakingly collated by Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie in his book Montaillou (the latter of course is 20th century and therefore not primary but all citations are verifiable from 14thC MSS and it's a good starting point for research), but doubtless you will dismiss this as 'Catholic' and therefore 'lies'; very well, may I then direct you to a genuine Cathar document from 1274, the Ritual de Lyon. The Interragatio Iohannis therein makes interesting reading and is plainly gnostic.[/quote]
If the source is Catholic, I may very well dismiss it. I will not give into the revisionist Catholic history of the RCC who see only through their rose-colored glasses and wish for everyone else to do the same things. From their perspective the Inquistion never took place.

 

[Matt Black]

But the truth is, if you read the entire article, is that he sets forth evidence that the Cathari were a movement intensely opposed to the Catholic Church, and their beliefs demonstrate it. They were killed for having such beliefs.

So? Exactly the same can be said of the Muslims during the same period (that they were a movement intensely opposed to the Catholic Church and were killed by Catholics for that). That doesn't mean that Muslims are evangelical Christians, does it? So why do you think that that conclusion applies to the Cathars?

If the source is Catholic, I may very well dismiss it. I will not give into the revisionist Catholic history of the RCC who see only through their rose-colored glasses and wish for everyone else to do the same things. From their perspective the Inquistion never took place.

But the Ritual Cathari de Lyon IS a Cathar source, not a Catholic one. What do you make of it? Surely you can see the the Interragatio Iohannis part of it is clearly dualist and gnostic?

 

[Eric B]

From a review of the book:
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.

Well, who did preserve the word? While the Catholic Church did keep the Bible from the people, it is not like the Bible was underground all these years, read only by the Albigenses and Cathars, and that those groups thus "preserved" it. It was God's providence that preserved it, and the invention of printing that made it available to the public and broke Rome's stranglehold over it. Not the Albigenses and Catharii, which didn;t even have that kind of influence.

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's not about an organization.

Take a look at page 126, chapter 20, where the Albigenses are referred throughout as heretics. On page 127 it said that they believe that the good god has two wives. This is just slanderous make believe by the RCC. No group of Christians believed that, especially the Albigenses. The RCC, during that time would look for any excuse to persecute and kill those that oppose the RCC. They would make false accusations. Revisionist history to this day is an on-going occupation with the RCC.

How do you know they didn't believe that? This source wasn't even Catholic. Yet you keep calling it Catholic lies just because it says something negative about the Albigenses. Yet that is no proof they didn't have practices like that. Other sources saying they opposed the Catholic church don't mean they didn't have practices like that either. And yes, no Christians did that, but we're trying to prove whether or not these groups were christians in the first place. It is not a given.

 

[Matt Black]

I notice DHK still hasn't given us his ruling on the Ritual Cathari de Lyon...

 

[DHK]

I notice DHK still hasn't given us his ruling on the Ritual Cathari de Lyon...

Eric says the source wasn't even Catholic. No source was given. It is an unnamed document. I don't know where it comes from and did not take the time to read the whole thing. It could have been written by anyone. It provides no documentation of any authenticity.

 

[Matt Black]

It's a Cathar document, which is why it isn't Catholic. You asked for a non-Catholic source, well here it is - a genuine, real-life Cathar primary source document, not tainted or corrupted by the RCC. So, what do you think of it?

 

[DHK]

It's a Cathar document, which is why it isn't Catholic. You asked for a non-Catholic source, well here it is - a genuine, real-life Cathar primary source document, not tainted or corrupted by the RCC. So, what do you think of it?

So, what would you like me to think of it? It describes an ascetic group of people who have separated themselves from worldly pleasures, and cites a lot of Scripture. There is a lot that is missing for one to form any dogmatic opinion from that one document. It was probably translated by a Catholic as it uses some Catholic terminology that if translated by an evangelical Protestant, other language would have been chosen. Meaning is often lost in translation. I am sure that the Cathars did not speak English.