Arcadia Discussion Zone

Yes, of course. But my point is that one slip-up could invalidate not only one's own consolamentum, but those of everyone one has consoled, and everyone they've consoled, etc., etc., in one fell swoop. It wasn't like the Catholic priesthood in that respect, wherein a priest could transgress, confess, do penance and never cease being a priest. Given the time span from 1244 until today, how likely is it that any surviving Cathar perfecti lineages would have made it for nearly eight centuries without a single instance of backsliding into "error"? IMHO, not very likely. Not impossible, but not very likely. One night of illicit sex, or a single instance of drunkenness, or even a bite of meat could un-consecrate potentially thousands of people in a split second.

TCP

A question regarding this un-consecration and departure of the consolamentum.

Is it a loss of some sort of expanded consciousness, knowledge, power even?

Or is it just the mundane loss of being recognized as a perfecti?

To be accurate once more ... : There ain't no German verb "lollen". LOL.

But there exists a similar one: "lallen" meaning "babble".

Maybe.
Perhaps a conflation is understandable given this crown as part of Blanche's dowry?

http://www.residenz-muenchen.de/englisc ... /pic11.htm

TD

Very nice, but I don't think Blanche ever made it quite as far east as Bohemia.

TCP

It existed in Middle English, Middle Dutch, and Middle Low German - relates to the current English word "lull." It meant mumbling, or chanting that soothes and causes one to doze.

Okay. Thanx. You're in the know. Me no.

Good question, I'd say it was certainly the latter but the reasoning behind it could have been the former. I'm afraid there isn't anything evidential to confirm or deny it, however. For whatever reason, to the cathars salvation wasn't considered permanent as long as one still occupied this plane of existence. That's possibly a reason so many put it off until they were on their deathbeds.

TCP

@ Eginolf,

Originally the word seems to have been a colloquial name for a group of the "harmless" buriers of the dead during the Black Death, in the 14th century, known as Alexians, Alexian Brothers or Cellites. These were known colloquially as lollebroeders, 'mumbling brothers', or "Lollhorden", from Old German: lollon, meaning "to sing softly," from their chants for the dead.

...either that, or we're going to have to go down the ryegrass/vetch route.

available for a price.

Roger, What i dont understand regarding all this 'stuff' about how really bad the Cathars were etc etc - is this - you accentuate 'for a price' as if it is something so horrendous that the Cathars were doing. Although i personally dont agree with these interpretations ...... i dont believe it is as black and white as that .... these same issues affected the Catholic church too.

The times the Cathars lived in - the Middle Ages - there was a massive revolt by the populace against the Catholic church - who could be bought for a price. Selling bishops seats, charging and buying your way out of hell via 'indulgences'. Which of course many years later led to the Reformation. And a whole host of other problems.

More importantly there was a violent reaction againt the Catholic church at the time - corrupt, not true to the ideals of the teachings of Jesus as perceived and taught to the faithful - (poor carpenter who advocated communal ownership and turning the other cheek ...) what the populace saw was a decadent, corrupt, materialistic, political, greedy, intolerant Church.

And to be honest (apart from the obvious 'there are some good Christians who have done good things') this is kind of how the Catholic Church is seen today. Except today, the priests are peadophiles, but perhaps even the worse thing is the Catholic heirarchy covering it up and protecting the priests.

So why do you interpret these terrible Cathars, in light of the Catholic church?
Why are the Cathars attracting such disdain - when you know the situation is never as black and white as that????
And the Catholic church, as an Institution, like the Cathars - is/was just as bad?

Obviously the Cathar movement has gone now .... but still ....

Im not getting at Christians, but the institution of the Vatican and Catholic heirarchy?

Well...it's not like I knew that off the top of my head...

Hey! I randomly figured out who your avatar is the other day. Very cool.

Sandy, you're reversing the process. I harbour absolutely no illusions about the integrity of the Roman Church, particularly in past centuries. But the Cathars were just as bad if not worse in many ways, and I find it particularly hypocritical that the new ager "Neo-Cathars" would have one believe that these were pure souls and actually the "original true christians" when they weren't christian in the least. Many of their practices were at the very least as disgusting as anything the Roman Church ever invented, and the majority of their aristocratic backers were abysmal hypocrites who were merely politically motivated. I really have a hard time tolerating this reinvention of the Cathars as noble-spirited and virtuous characters. Particularly from Church hating hypocrites (you know the ones I mean)

Thanks for that Roger.

And i do understand what you mean.

But perhaps the aristocratic leadership of the Cathars who were corrupt and hypocrites, were just as well pitched as the corrupt and hypocritical leaders of the Church. The issue here, is that they sold the 'dumb faithful' - stories about Jesus and the fate of their souls after death. They manipulated and fed off the fears of the faithful.

But on both sides, there must have been good people who sincerely believed in the message of the historical Jesus, and really wanted to attain a saintly life, or follow in the lead of Jesus.

I dont agree that 'many practices' of the Cathars were disguisting.

I understand that you have no time for those 're-inventing' the Cathar "as noble-spirited and virtuous characters". Especially when they have not delved into the possible negative sides of Cathar heirarchy, and neither the age that they lived in and what their real lives were about.

The same as there have been some good Popes, i believe there must have been good Cathars too.

Sandy, to what extent should we consider that the Catholic priests and bishops weren't the "dumb faithful" themselves? They were the products of their times like everyone else. It doesn't excuse the excesses, but I don't believe the clergy were any less superstitious than laymen, irregardless of social and economic status.



OK, but let's back up here. To the dualist Cathars, the historical flesh-and-blood Jesus was evil and corrupt, the son of "Rex Mundi", the Demiurge (i.e. Satan). Their "good" Jesus was pure spirit, had never become flesh, and never walked the earth. To them, there was nothing saintly about matter, and never could be. Anything that had material form was intrinsically evil, even their own bodies. They rejected the message of the historical Jesus and the very idea that Jesus died for the salvation of mortal flesh.

TCP

They rejected the message of the historical Jesus and the very idea that Jesus died for the salvation of mortal flesh.

TCP,

Shouldnt we really wait until a cache of Cathar documents are found, by the Cathars themselves, that give us a fuller picture of their beliefs?

Instead of relying on those accounts of the Inquisition?

I dont care what anyone has to say, but what the Catholic church did to the Cathars should never be justified - and a more hilsitic view of the Cathars will never be found in the reports from the Albigensian Crusade.

I don't think it's absolutely necessary, given that their lines of spiritual authority, their Ordos, were headed by Bogomil bishops and there is plenty of historical documentation from Bogomil sources on what their beliefs were. The information gleaned from Catholic sources on what the Cathars believed is a very good match with what the Bogomils wrote about themselves. It shouldn't be too great of a stretch of logic to conclude that Bogomil bishops were consecrating Cathar bishops because they shared a common dogma.



I don't think anyone is justifying anything, certainly not me. And while it's safe to assume that one wouldn't expect to find sympathetic words for the Cathars in Catholic accounts of their destruction, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Catholics were lying about the root causes of their condemnation. Particularly not if sympathetic sources from outside the Catholic sphere exist that corroborate those root causes, at least where dogma is concerned. I don't think that anyone can really argue that both Catholics and Cathars viewed the other's beliefs as heresy.

It's one of many tragedies of history, and I feel perfectly comfortable taking the view that man's inhumanity to man is never justifiable. But neither do I take sides, given the fact that I think religion is a a pretty poor excuse for it.

TCP

...and the existence of older Christian heresies in the Bulgarian lands like Manichaeism and Paulicianism influenced the Bogomil movement, did they not.....and as you no doubt know, Manichaeism’s origin is related to Zoroastrianism....i believe we've been here before.

from Bogomil sources

I do wonder, when this Bogomil source is touted all the time

Yes.

TCP

You wonder about what?

TCP

This discussion is ironically way off beam.

The point is not about the qualities of competing religions.

The Roman Church conspired with French nobility to annihilate 100,000s of people - didn't the Templars even get in for their chop also.

Yes, and yes.

TCP

I came across a Master's Thesis on "Beyond Dualism: The Cathar ritual of the Consolament for the dying as a visionary ritual"

http://digital.collection.marylhurst.ed ... =504&REC=1

Haven't read it yet but it could be of interest to some...
I'll post again when I've read it, with comments.