What Did the Cathars Believe? - Part II

The idea of a ‘divine spark’ most likely came from philosophies earlier native to this region of Afghanistan Mani visited, for this inner flame was simply a new version of the kundalini. The ‘coiled serpent’ sleeping at the base of the lowest muladhara chakra was the spark of the Divine Mother that again enlivens each and every created thing in the material world. This earlier philosophy however was seen as a part and parcel of the evil in the world by the Zoroastrian Persians on the other side of the mountains. The Divine Mother was the consort of the Divine Father in the form of Shiva. She had created the world for His pleasure to experience and observe Life in all its forms. Shiva was a rather ‘equal opportunity’ god, who forgave even demons their sins, if they did penance enough for them. This was usually accomplished by meditation, fasting and ascetic practices. This in turn carried over into Buddhism, which was far more forgiving than Zoroastrianism.

Zoroastrianism seems to have developed out of ‘Indian’ Brahmanism, where the supreme god was Brahma. Anyone familiar with the history and mythology of Vedanta knows that Brahma and Shiva didn’t exactly get along with one another early on, in spite of the fact they were two parts of the later trinity of gods of Vedanta. The third god was Vishnu, whose avatar Krishna was seen in several religions to be one of the prophets. This trinity can somewhat be compared in many ways to the Christian trinity, wherein Brahma is the Father; Vishnu is the Son who reincarnates in times of trouble, and Shiva as the Holy Spirit who is both male and female. Given that Jesus was said to have taken instruction in India and it is a documented fact that Thomas the Disciple ‘returned’ there after the crucifixion one might suspect that Mani was on to something.

As you can see, the Cathar beliefs are deeply rooted in what the Church and even certain Jewish sects considered to be heretical in nature. Mani sought to improve upon Christianity by incorporating what he learned and considered to be the best of dualistic Zoroastrian beliefs, as well as Gnostic Buddhism. This of course was anathema to the Church Fathers, because they were the ones supposed to be dictating dogma, not some heretic. Mani saw himself as the next and last prophet after Jesus – the Paraclete foretold in the New Testament.

Manichaeism had two groups of persons in its church, the ‘electi’ and the ‘auditors’. The electi were much like the Cathar perfecti. The auditors served the electi and hoped to become electi themselves one day. In many respects, the Cathar credenti served the perfecti as well and looked forward to the day or life when they too would become perfecti. Their ‘service’ however was of a more mundane aspect in learning from, providing and caring for those who were their holy ones.

Like the Manichaeans, the Cathars seem also to have originally believed that Jesus was a flesh and blood man who had ascended to heaven by the way in which he lived his life. They did not hold that he was the ‘son of God’ or in his pre-existence. Later on some groups did acknowledge these beliefs, but whether or not it was a matter of expediency in protecting themselves from the wrath of the Church remains to be seen. The beliefs of Mani’s father, with which he was raised, stated that you would be forgiven if you did something openly, as long as you did not believe it in your heart. Doing things for the sake of appearances is a tactic of self-preservation that has been adopted by several religious groups. Whether or not this was part of the Cathar doctrine or simply a way to protect themselves out of necessity is up for question.

Again, much of what has been said about the Cathars and their beliefs comes from ‘confessions’ extracted under torture, condemnations and observations of Dominican inquisitors like Bernardo Gui and often echo similar confessions and condemnations of anyone with any power who fell out of favor with the Church, including the Templars. There are some very clear beliefs however that we may take away from this:

They believed in reincarnation; the sanctity of life; a dualistic world of good vs. evil; a simple life devoid of ostentation and frivolous belongings, and being responsible for their own ascension back into the Wholeness of Creation. They also believed in the equality of the sexes – that men and women were equal beings. They did not believe in marriage in the sense that it had taken in the Roman Empire – to protect ones properties and inheritances. People were united because they desired to be together and for no other reason.

Some of these things posed issues for those who were lords, sympathizers and defenders of the Cathars. We shall look into that a bit in the next article as well as continuing the story of the Albigensian Crusade.

Until we meet again, dear friends!

Rayvn

   

What Did the Cathars Believe? - Part I

There seems to be some uncertainty about the details of what the Cathars believed. It is noted that like many other religious sects or movements in ancient times, that there appears to have been some variations in the rules and beliefs of different Cathar groups. This was certainly true of early Christianity, itself. Let us examine in this article the roots of Cathar beliefs, so we may better try to understand them.

Catharism originally did not have a ‘church’ or bishops in the beginning of the movement. This came later and they styled their organization after the Church of Rome, ironically enough. They were simply groups of people who believed in certain ideas and concepts. Many of those ideas and belief appear to have come from other, earlier eastern gnostic belief systems.

They were divided into the two groups, the ‘perfecti’ and the ‘credenti’. The perfecti served as their teachers, guides and holy persons and were upheld to live their lives as ascetic exemplars of their faith. The credenti were not held to the same stringent rules as the perfecti, and were the average person who happened to be a Cathar.

The Cathars believed that each being was enlivened by a ‘divine spark’ that had fallen from heaven to become trapped in the material world which was created by an evil demiurge they called Rex Mundi, the King of the World. This is very similar to Gnostic beliefs, however it goes back even further than that to a belief system that was most likely developed in the Far East by a certain Iranian prophet named Mani. Mani’s philosophy became known as Manichaeism, but it was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Buddhism. Mani’s father was a member of the Messianic Jewish sect known as Elkasites, who were one of the many various groups of Christians in the early development of Christianity. These in turn were a branch of the Ebionites, who advocated voluntary poverty. They too were seen as heretical in their day by the early Church and most of what is known about both sects is largely derived from polemics against them by the early Church Fathers.

Like Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism is based in a rigid dualistic belief of good versus evil which are locked in a constant struggle for domination of the world and the souls of men. Like Buddhism, they believed in the sanctity of all life and that each person was responsible for their own salvation. Those who did not escape the bonds of the material world were reincarnated, according to how they’d lived their previous life. The Cathars also believed in reincarnation. There was always another chance to escape and become reunited with the Wholeness, the True God. No one could save you but yourself. Jesus was a prophet, much like John the Baptist and was not born of a miraculous union but was the flesh and blood son of Mary and Joseph, who rose above the material world.

It is said that Mani traveled to what is now Afghanistan and there learned Buddhism from the Caucasoid Saka (Scythian) people who lived there. These have also been called ‘Tocharians’. Their beliefs seem to have been a sort of gnostic Buddhism which may likely have been heavily influenced by the earlier teachings of the Greek Pythagoras. They were highly active in the development and spread of Buddhism in the Far East. Speculating now, Pythagoras may have in his turn been influenced by one of these same people and their beliefs for he was an Ionian Greek. The Ionians were well known in India and were called Yavana. They were originally Mycenaeans and like the Tocharians, the Mycenaeans also had A and B languages, the B language being that of the common folk.

To be continued in Part II.

The White Lady

I’m going to digress briefly here, since the subject of Blanche of Castile has been raised. Her part in this drama is not just relegated to the Treaty of Meaux, signed by Raymond VII in 1229. She will reappear in the drama at a later date, in a similar situation.

In his book “Montségur and the Mystery of the Cathars” Jean Markale says this of Queen Blanche’s actions in 1229 and later:

“Blanche de Castille’s attitude remains inexplicable and prompts a number of questions. It could well be asked if Raymond VII might not have had secret means of applying pressure in order to receive such indulgence when, as an excommunicate and declared rebel, he was liable to the confiscation of his domains. In any event, we know that Queen Blanche has left a strange imprint in the popular memory of Cathar country, particularly in Razés, where a mysterious treasure is attributed to her. It is true that her name is also associated with the widespread belief throughout the Pyrenees in the existence of the White Lady; in other words, a female fairy who rules over the underground world of caves that are quite numerous in this region.” [pg. 34]

I have some revelations to relate that may explain her actions to a large degree. It’s not quite so mysterious and dark as Jean Markale would have it sound. As a member of a royal family, Blanche (b. 4 March 1188, d. 26 November 1252) likely would have been very much aware of her own ancestry. Her own ancestry was the stuff of legends, for she was the great-great granddaughter of Roderigo Diaz de Vivar, otherwise known as El Cid. His daughter, Cristina Elvira Rodriguez de Vivar was the wife of Ramiro Sánchez de Monzón  who was in turn the father of Queen Blanche’s grandfather García Ramírez the King of Navarre.

Cristina Elvira had a sister named Maria Rodriguez de Vivar, who was married to Raymond Berenguer II, the Count of Barcelona. They had a daughter named Jimena Diaz (b. 1101, d. 1169), who was married to Roger III de Foix. In turn, their son was Roger-Bernard I “the Great” de Foix, the father of Esclarmonde de Foix, who is also reputed to be the White Lady. Esclarmonde’s mother was Cecile de Trencavel and her brother was Raymond-Roger (Raimond Drut) de Foix, the father of the twins Esclarmonde d’Alion and Loup de Foix.

Of course, Blanche’s direct ancestors played no part in the Albigensian Crusade, but some portions of her family were heavily allied with the Counts of Toulouse. Possibly, Blanche was playing both sides against the middle trying to protect her relations and their heirs, as well as protecting her husband’s and subsequently hers and her son’s lands. No doubt she must have found herself in a strange and compromising position along with Raymond VII of Toulouse.

Raymond VII and his father were a shining example of what can happen when one goes against the wishes of the Pope and rebels against the Church. Blanche knew from what had happened with them that she couldn’t refuse to act against the rebels. She and her regency would be subject to excommunication by the Pope as well if she did not do so. This might in turn endanger her son’s eventual succession to the throne, because he was still in his minority. Louis IX was about 15 years old when she brought Raymond VII before her at Meaux and offered the treaty. The fact that she had Raymond flogged and ‘briefly’ imprisoned would seem to be for show more than anything else. This wouldn’t be the first time, or the last, that something was done for the sake of appearances in all of this – particularly in the person of Raymond VII himself. One might wonder if at the same time she was laying down stipulations to Raymond, she was also giving him a bit of queenly and ‘motherly’ advice. There is a relationship there of which no one seems to be aware, although it is historically verifiable if one might care to dig.

What comes next is a bit of a mind twister, because of the inter-relations of the royal families of Europe. I shall try to explain it as simply as possible. Raymond VII was the son of Raymond VI’s fourth wife, Joan Plantagenet, whose father was Henry II Plantagenet. Henry II was Queen Blanche’s other grandfather. Another of Henry's daughters was Eleanor of England the Queen of Castile, who was the mother of Blanche of Castile. Queen Blanche was Raymond VII’s great-aunt through her own aunt Joan Plantagenet. This might go a very long way toward explaining her actions toward him.

Was Blanche the White Lady? Certainly, her name means ‘white’, but it would seem that Markale must be referring to the treasures and records of the Cathars. These are said to have been placed beneath either the fortress or the settlement on the pog upon the request of Guillabert de Castres to Raymond de Périella, the seigneur of the fortress at Montségur. Guillabert de Castres was the head of the Cathar church during this time. In this case, if that is indeed the treasure to which Markale is referring, then that would be more associated with Esclarmonde de Foix (the first Esclarmonde) than Blanche of Castile. His reference there is rather vague, but the so-called ‘treasure of the Cathars’ is the most well-known and sought after treasure in the region. The name of the Albigensians broken down also means ‘the white people’, from albi or alba  - 'white', and gens - a family line or just ‘people’.

Was the White Lady – whoever she may be – a Queen of the Fey? That is a whole other subject that encompasses a few thousand years, as well as a horrendous number of ‘begats’ that are as complicated as the genealogies of the royal families of Europe. They are a precursor to those royal genealogies. These genealogies are historically attestable up to a point, and then fall off into the murky realm of myths and legends such as the Grail, and the Merovingians. The Merovingian genealogies are only historically attestable up to Clovis I. Not even his paternity is a sure thing – variously said to be Merovech after whom the lineage was named,  Chlodio the Long Haired King of the Salian Franks or a creature of myth known as ‘the Quinotaur’.

Often these myths and legends are taken for ‘gospel truths’ that people like to take for fact when they are myths and legends. As they say however, “where there is smoke, there is fire”. These myths and legends do seem to have some basis in the lives of several historical groups of people and their propensity to worship certain deities brought westward from the Middle East in times past. From these same groups of people came the royal houses of Europe, but not always and necessarily by the routes some would have you believe.

In spite of all of this or perhaps because of it, there is a great deal of strangeness and other-worldly intrusions that are attendant with these stories. This includes Montségur and the Cathars. Recall, if you will my own tale at the beginning, regarding my vision of the girl running through the forest. I am not the only one to have such visions of or on that fateful pog of Montségur. We can only guess at the significance and meaning of it and how it relates to those who’ve had these experiences as individuals. I can only reveal what I have about the hitherto overlooked relationship between Queen Blanche and Raymond VII, because of where my own vision led me - not without a lot of research that I probably would not have undertaken - were it not for that vision.     

Au revoir my dears and thank you for coming by!

Rayvn

Fathers and Sons

Raymond VI’s excommunication had been lifted in 1209 when he recognized the threat of the forces gathering against them. However, he was excommunicated again in 1211. Raymond was excommunicated several times. Raymond-Roger de Trencavel had gone to the leaders of the crusade and sought accommodation from them but was refused audience. The lords of the Languedoc banded together and had retaken many towns captured by the crusaders during the early years under the leadership of Raymond VI. However, the crusaders would return and take them back. The fortunes of the battle see-sawed back and forth like this for several years until the battle of Muret and Simon de Montfort’s eventual end in 1218.

The Fourth Council of the Lateran was convoked by Pope Innocent III by a papal bull dated April 19, 1213. The council was to gather at Rome’s Lateran Palace in November of 1215. The Third Crusade had failed miserably, resulting in the capture of Constantinople and large portions of the Byzantine empire by the Muslims. The results of the Fourth Crusade to this point had alienated the Church to the people and major lords of the Languedoc. Innocent felt was time to reinstate and reformulate papal involvement with the Crusades both in the Holy Land and on European soil. The Council declared the Fifth Crusade to free the Holy Land of the powerful Ayyubid Muslims of Egypt. Measures dealing with heretics were re-opened and discussed, as well.

The Council was attended by Raymond VI of Toulouse, his son Raymond (VII) and Raymond-Roger de Foix. They were there to dispute the threat of their territories being confiscated by the Church. Guy de Montfort, the brother of Simon de Montfort argued that the Church should confiscate their territories. Raymond’s son-in-law, Pierre-Bermond II of Sauve attempted to lay claim to Toulouse and was rejected.  Toulouse was awarded to Simon de Montfort. The lordship of Megueil was separated from Toulouse, entrusted to the bishops of Maguellone. The lordship of Megueil was Raymond VI’s by his marriage to Ermessenda, the Countess of Megueil. Provence, also one of Raymond VI’s possessions was also confiscated and kept in trust for Raymond VII – if he showed himself worthy of having it. That is, if he denounced the heretical Cathars and no longer aided them.

It was in 1215, the year of the Council that Simon was awarded Toulouse and Narbonne. In April of 1216, Simon ceded these lands to Philip Augustus II, the French King.

Innocent III died in July of 1216 and was succeeded by Honorius III, who was by all accounts a ‘kinder and gentler’ man, but the Fifth Crusade and the war on heresy were still high on his agenda. Philip Augustus was more concerned about his newly acquired lands of Toulouse and Narbonne than he was about the Cathars, for Raymond VI had retaken Toulouse in 1218. Amaury de Montfort, Simon’s son had taken up his father’s leadership of the Fourth Crusade, but Amaury was not the tactician or the warrior his father was. His attempts to retake Toulouse in 1219 failed and several more of Simon’s holds fell to the embattled Raymond and his allies.

In 1221, Raymond and his forces retook Montréal and Fanjeaux, forcing the Catholics to leave. Raymond VI died in 1222 and his son Raymond VII who had also been fighting battles to regain their territories took up where his father left off. Like his father, Raymond VII of Toulouse was excommunicated by the Council of Bourges in 1225 for his continuing fight against the forces of the Church.

Philip Augustus II died in 1223 and was succeeded by his son Louis VIII. Louis mounted a campaign in 1226 to take back his father’s lands. Louis was already well seasoned in battle, having spent his earlier years fending off John Lackland of England’s attempts to take back Normandy. You might know John better as the ‘evil King John’ the brother of Richard the Lionheart from tales of Robin Hood.

Roger-Bernard the Great, Count of Foix went to Louis ‘the Lion’ suing to keep the peace but Louis rejected his overtures. Roger-Bernard and Raymond VII had no choice but to take up arms against the new king. Many fortified towns and castles surrendered to Louis’ forces without a fight, until he came to Avignon. There Louis engaged in a three month siege and finally took Avignon in September of 1226. Louis returned to Paris after taking Avignon, but contracted dysentery on the way home. He died in November of 1226 in his chateau at Montpensier in Auvergne and was succeeded by his son Louis IX.

Louis IX was not of the age of majority to take the throne himself, and so the throne was taken by Queen Regent Blanche of Castile, Louis VIII’s widow. Blanche allowed the Crusade to go on under the leadership of Humbert de Beaujeau. Humbert took Labécède and Vereilles in 1227 and Toulouse in 1228. Queen Blanche then offered Raymond VII a treaty. She would recognize him as the ruler of Toulouse if he would enjoin the fight against the Cathars, return the Church’s properties that they’d seized, turn over his castles and destroy the walls and defenses of Toulouse. She also stipulated that he had to marry his daughter Jeanne to Alphonse, the brother of Louis VIII. This made Alphonse the Count of Toulouse and Poitiers. Their heirs would inherit Toulouse and Poitiers upon Raymond VII’s death. If they had no issue, which they did not, the inheritance would revert to the King of France. With little choice in the matter, if he wanted peace at long last, Raymond VII signed the treaty at Meaux in April of 1229. It is reported that he was then seized, flogged and imprisoned for a short time. The treaty nominally brought an end to the Albigensian Crusade, and put Raymond VII in a position that was not to be envied.

Simon de Montfort

If Philip II Augustus, the King of France was not interested in taking up arms against the Cathars and the lords of Languedoc, a northern noble named Simon de Montfort was keen on it. The Seigneur de Montfort-l'Amaury, was also the 5th Earl of Leicester. The de Montfort family were descendants of the Counts of Flanders.

Simon was said to be a very pious man – at least from a Catholic point of view. In 1209, he took on the role of the Captain-General of the Albigensian Crusade. He went with Philip’s blessing, but Phillip apparently turned a blind eye to Simon's methods. Simon’s first target was Béziers a territory which fell under the lordship of Raymond VI of Toulouse. Béziers became a hallmark of what was to come, as well as Simon’s ruthless character.

 

 

On July 22, 1209 Simon and his forces came to the town of Béziers. The Catholics were given the opportunity to leave before the Crusaders besieged the city. They refused and fought with the Cathars. Their combined forces were defeated outside the walls and those left were pursued back inside the walls of the town. Those who took refuge in the Cathedral of St. Nazaire and the Eglise de la Madeleine were not spared. The Cathedral was set ablaze and those inside the Church were mercilessly butchered. As the Cathedral collapsed, those who escaped were also slain. Those who remained inside were either crushed or burned to death.

Simon became notorious, and not in a good way. He was seen as a cruel, harsh and treacherous man of no honor and bad faith. He was a terror, with a reputation for slaughtering entire villages. In the village of Minerve, Simon burned 140 Cathars who refused to recant their faith. Prior to the sack of the village of Lastours, it was reported that he took prisoners from the nearby village of Bram and had their ears, noses and lips cut off, and gouged out their eyes. He left one poor soul with one eye, to lead them into the village – a warning to those who would not recant.

Simon de Montfort went on to defeat Peter II of Aragon in the Battle of Muret. The counts of the Languedoc were vassals of the King of Aragon. In 1212, Peter learned that de Montfort had partially sacked Toulouse and exiled Raymond. Raymond happened to be Peter’s brother in law at that time. Raymond went to Peter, asking for assistance. Together they crossed the Pyrenees and arrived at Muret in September 1213 to confront de Montfort's army. They were joined there by Raymond’s militia he had gathered from Toulouse, and the armies of the counts of Comminges and Foix. Raymond tried to convince Peter to starve out Simon’s forces, but Peter rejected the idea and proceeded to mount the battle. The number of Peter’s forces far exceeded those of Simon’s, which no doubt led him to be more than a bit over-confident. Simon’s forces numbered less than a thousand, but approximately a fourth of those were knights and not just regular cavalry or infantrymen. They were also battle-hardened and Simon was – for whatever else might be said of him – a savvy tactician.

Peter was so over-confident he refused his royal armor and instead donned the armor of a common cavalryman. In the disarray and madness that followed, Peter was thrown from his horse and was killed – in spite of or perhaps because of his protestations that he was the king. With their king and leader gone, the Aragonese and Catalan armies fled back over the mountains and deserted the battle. Simon de Montfort had won yet another victory. In military terms, it was a hollow victory, but that never stopped Simon from counting. He was appointed the Count of Toulouse and Duke of Narbonne in 1215.

Raymond and his allies continued their battles to regain their lands with some successes. The battles raged on in the years 1216 and 1217. In the later quarter of 1217, Raymond returned to Toulouse and Simon saw his chance to get Raymond once and for all. Simon besieged Toulouse for nine months. He finally met his end on the 25th of June, 1218. According to a song or chanson written about the Albigensian Crusade, his head was smashed by a rock catapulted from a mangonel operated by the women of Toulouse.

Simon was buried in the Cathedral of Saint-Nazaire at Carcassonne. His body was later moved home to Montfort l'Amaury by his son. There is still a tombstone in the Cathedral called "of Simon de Montfort" in the South Transept. Reportedly the inscription on the stone envisaged Simon as a saint in heaven, enjoying the favor of God's reward for his deeds in life. His enemies left him a far different epitaph:

The epitaph says, for those who can read it
That he is a saint and martyr who shall breathe again
And shall in wondrous joy inherit and flourish
And wear a crown and sit on a heavenly throne.
And I have heard it said that this must be so -
If by killing men and spilling blood,
By wasting souls, and preaching murder,
By following evil counsel, and raising fires,
By ruining noblemen and besmirching paratage,
By pillaging the country, and by exalting Pride,
By stoking up wickedness and stifling good,
By massacring women and their infants,
A man can win Jesus in this world,
Then Simon surely wears a crown, resplendent in heaven.

[http://www.midi-france.info/190403_paratge.htm]

I invite you to read the page from which the above quote was taken and compare the idea of ‘paratage’ that was espoused by the Cathars to the principles and practices of ‘God’s warrior’ Simon de Montfort and his Church.

Until we meet again, walk in peace and love my dears,

Rayvn

Ad abolendam: Heresy and Heretics ~ Part II

Recall what is said in Part I about nobles “who did not join in the struggle against heresy when called upon to do so would be excommunicated and their territories placed under interdict”. In light of this, the refusal of the Counts of Toulouse, Foix, Beziers and other districts in the Languedoc becomes a blatant refusal to be manipulated or controlled by either the King of France or the papacy. One might suspect that this really stuck in Innocent’s craw.

According to web sources Pierre de Castelnau was ‘born in the diocese of Montpellier’. This diocese was located in southwestern France. Given his name, Pierre was most likely born in Castlenaudary.  He was a monk of the Cistercian order, also known as Benedictines or Bernardines. This is the same order to which Bernard de Clairvaux belonged. Bernard was said to have had significant ties with the Templars and was involved to a great degree with the Second Crusade. The Cistercians supported themselves by farming, raising sheep for wool and brewing liqueurs.

These same sources state that by the year 1199, Pierre de Castelnau had become the archdeacon of Maguelonne. He was appointed by Innocent III to lead the way in the suppression of the Cathar heresy. Castelnaudary lies in the heart of this particular Cathar country, and so the archdeacon would have been very familiar with not only the particulars of the area, but the politics and ways of the people as well.

In 1207, Pierre de Castelnau became involved in a dispute between Raymond de Foix VI and the Count of Baux. Some sources state that this may have had more to do with the monk’s death than his other involvement with rooting out the Cathar heresy. By other reports [1], the monk met with the lords and in particular with Raymond VI, the Count of Toulouse and Marquis de Provence. The author of the referenced document reports that the monk threatened Raymond that if he did not abjure his associations with and protection of the Cathars, he would forfeit his lands, title and other rights mentioned above as a heretic. It is also reported herein that Raymond did in fact threaten the papal legate with death if he continued on this track. This same source states that it was not a retainer loyal to Raymond or even a family member who slew Pierre de Castelau, but that Raymond hired an assassin to do the job. Other sources state that it was one or more of Raymond’s knights who slew the monk. For that matter, it could be said that Innocent hired an assassin to slay Pierre de Castelnau to force the issue for reasons explained in the final paragraph here. It is not unheard of, as the Borgia popes did such things. This, however, is purely a speculation and one that would not find great popularity.

In any case, it can be said that NO ONE knows for sure what happened that fateful night and speculation has run rampant down through the years. Those speculations are colored by which side of the fence one is standing – the side of the Church or the side of the Cathars. We have seen that the Church was not averse to making up things – devising false documents such as the Donation of Constantine and the collection of the “False Derectals of Isidore” mentioned previously. Personally, in spite of his feelings for the Church of Rome and the Papacy, I don’t think Raymond would have been so blatantly stupid as to threaten the papal legate. Raymond was about 52 years old at this time and hadn’t held on to his lands or titles by being an impetuous hot-head. Furthermore, this was a private meeting between the lords and the legate, so how would anyone know whether de Castelnau was threatened or not, save those directly involved? It comes across as pure supposition on the part of pro-Catholic ‘historians’ who would prefer to see Innocent III as justified in launching the slaughter of thousands of innocent people, men, women and children – from infants to elders - Cathars and Catholics alike.

Pope Innocent III did indeed take the event and run with it, declaring Raymond VI of Toulouse excommunicated. He called for the King of France to take up arms against the Albigensians in the Languedoc. At this particular time Phillip II was the King of France. Due to previous confrontations with Innocent III to do with his own throne, Phillip was not particularly keen to enjoin the battle. Phillip was more interested in the finer pursuits of education and construction. Under his guidance, Paris became the first city of teachers the medieval world had known. He continued the construction on Notre Dame which had begun shortly before he took the throne, and he had the Louvre built. Phillip left it to those who came after him to take up the call to arms. If one studies the history of these particular times, it will be seen that these were times in which everyone seemed to be at war with everyone else – often due to disputes with the papacy and who should or should not be king.

Until we meet again my friends take care and be well,

Rayvn

[1] http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16889493



Ad abolendam: Heresy and Heretics ~ Part I

In November of 1184 Pope Lucius III issued a derectal and bull from Verona. It was called Ad abolendam which means ‘toward abolishing’. The document prescribed measures to abolish any and all ‘heresies’ that threatened the sovereignty and authority of the Church of Rome. Pope Lucius III was one of the popes under which Lotario dei Conti di Segni served. Lotario was later to become Pope Innocent III.

Lucius III condemned any and all persons who preached or offered scriptural interpretations without the authority of the Church, either publicly or privately. He also condemned any persons who supported such heretics openly or covertly. They were all to be excommunicated. Those who supported the heretics were also considered heretics. They were deprived of their rights to hold public office, the right to a trial, the right to draft a will and the hereditability of their lands and offices. They were to be handed over to the authorities to receive their ‘due penalty’ – whatever that might mean in each case.

The Ad abolemdam seems to have been drafted somewhat in response to Lucius’ answer to settling his dispute with the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa over the disposition of the territories left by the passing of Countess Matilda of Tuscany. Frederick made what seems to be a fair proposal that wasn’t going to break the backs of the locals on these lands. They apparently were not to Lucius’ liking. He wanted the land itself, not just a tithe of the imperial income. This was not the only bone of contention between the Pope and the Emperor but it seems to have sparked the need for wording in the derectal to the effect that: all counts, barons, rectors, and consuls of cities and other places who did not join in the struggle against heresy when called upon to do so would be excommunicated and their territories placed under interdict. He declared that these provisions joined the apostolic authority of the church with the sanction of imperial power. With this sort of wording, he made Frederick and any future Emperor complicit in and answerable to this decision. 

In a move much like todays ‘corporate sales goals’, Lucian III obligated all his patriarchs, archbishops and bishops to re-announce these rules and the excommunication on certain feast days and holidays. If they didn’t do this for three consecutive years, they were stripped of their offices. They were furthermore obligated to seek out heretics in their bi-annual or tri-annual rounds of their dioceses, by visiting places rumored to harbor heretics and questioning people about heretical activities in the area.

Those they questioned were required to swear their testimonies of anything they knew about heretical activity under an oath. If they were later found to have been lying in any way, they too were considered sympathizers and condemned as heretics. If those found guilty were landed persons, their lands were seized by the Church. In this way, the Church became wealthy in lands and fiefs. Any ecclesiastic who did not turn up a heretic now and then became suspect himself, so it was to their benefit to find one or two on occasion. This wasn’t the official beginning of the Inquisition, but it set the stage for it and for the Fourth Crusade, also known as the Albigensian Crusade.

There were several specific sects mentioned in the Ad abolendam – among them were the Cathars, the Humiliati, the Waldensians, the Arnoldists and the Josephines. In 1211, under the pontificate of Innocent III, more than 80 Waldensians were burned as heretics at Strasbourg. It was a specter of things to come.

Continued in Part II