[journeyman]

As smarter people than I identify the heresy . . . ("I can guess that heresy in two quotes, one quote, four words, a letter"), I will be going to look it up and find out what the heck it is or was about. Answers will come from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917 - on line at newadvent) unless I can't find it . . . in which case google searches

[journeyman]

Albigenses
(From Albi, Lat. Albiga, the present capital of the Department of Tarn).
A neo-Manichæan sect that flourished in southern France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The name Albigenses, given them by the Council of Tours (1163) prevailed towards the end of the twelfth century and was for a long time applied to all the heretics of the south of France. They were also called Catharists (katharos, pure), though in reality they were only a branch of the Catharistic movement. The rise and spread of the new doctrine in southern France was favoured by various circumstances, among which may be mentioned: the fascination exercised by the readily-grasped dualistic principle; the remnant of Jewish and Mohammedan doctrinal elements; the wealth, leisure, and imaginative mind of the inhabitants of Languedoc; their contempt for the Catholic clergy, caused by the ignorance and the worldly, too frequently scandalous, lives of the latter; the protection of an overwhelming majority of the nobility, and the intimate local blending of national aspirations and religious sentiment.
I. PRINCIPLES
(a) Doctrinal
The Albigenses asserted the co-existence of two mutually opposed principles, one good, the other evil. The former is the creator of the spiritual, the latter of the material world. The bad principle is the source of all evil; natural phenomena, either ordinary like the growth of plants, or extraordinary as earthquakes, likewise moral disorders (war), must be attributed to him. He created the human body and is the author of sin, which springs from matter and not from the spirit. The Old Testament must be either partly or entirely ascribed to him; whereas the New Testament is the revelation of the beneficent God. The latter is the creator of human souls, which the bad principle imprisoned in material bodies after he had deceived them into leaving the kingdom of light. This earth is a place of punishment, the only hell that exists for the human soul. Punishment, however, is not everlasting; for all souls, being Divine in nature, must eventually be liberated. To accomplish this deliverance God sent upon earth Jesus Christ, who, although very perfect, like the Holy Ghost, is still a mere creature. The Redeemer could not take on a genuine human body, because he would thereby have come under the control of the evil principle. His body was, therefore, of celestial essence, and with it He penetrated the ear of Mary. It was only apparently that He was born from her and only apparently that He suffered. His redemption was not operative, but solely instructive. To enjoy its benefits, one must become a member of the Church of Christ (the Albigenses). Here below, it is not the Catholic sacraments but the peculiar ceremony of the Albigenses known as the consolamentum, or "consolation," that purifies the soul from all sin and ensures its immediate return to heaven. The resurrection of the body will not take place, since by its nature all flesh is evil.
(b) Moral
The dualism of the Albigenses was also the basis of their moral teaching. Man, they taught, is a living contradiction. Hence, the liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Generation was abhorred by the Albigenses even in the animal kingdom. Consequently, abstention from all animal food, except fish, was enjoined. Their belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls, the result of their logical rejection of purgatory, furnishes another explanation for the same abstinence. To this practice they added long and rigorous fasts. The necessity of absolute fidelity to the sect was strongly inculcated. War and capital punishment were absolutely condemned.
II. ORIGIN AND HISTORY
The contact of Christianity with the Oriental mind and Oriental religions had produced several sects (Gnostics, Manichæans, Paulicians, Bogomilae) whose doctrines were akin to the tenets of the Albigenses. But the historical connection between the new heretics and their predecessors cannot be clearly traced. In France, where they were probably introduced by a woman from Italy, the Neo-Manichæan doctrines were secretly diffused for several years before they appeared, almost simultaneously, near Toulouse and at the Synod of Orléans (1022). Those who proposed them were even made to suffer the extreme penalty of death. The Council of Arras (1025), Charroux, Dep. of Vienne (c. 1028), and of Reims (1049) had to deal with the heresy. At that of Beauvais (1114) the case of Neo-Manichæans in the Diocese of Soissons was brought up, but was referred to the council shortly to be held in the latter city. Petrobrusianism now familiarized the South with some of the tenets of the Albigenses. Its condemnation by the Council of Toulouse (1119) did not prevent the evil from spreading. Pope Eugene III (1145-53) sent a legate, Cardinal Alberic of Ostia, to Languedoc (1145), and St. Bernard seconded the legate's efforts. But their preaching produced no lasting effect. The Council of Reims (1148) excommunicated the protectors "of the heretics of Gascony and Provence." That of Tours (1163) decreed that the Albigenses should be imprisoned and their property confiscated. A religious disputation was held (1165) at Lombez, with the usual unsatisfactory result of such conferences. Two years later, the Albigenses held a general council at Toulouse, their chief centre of activity. The Cardinal-Legate Peter made another attempt at peaceful settlement (1178), but he was received with derision. The Third General Council of the Lateran (1179) renewed the previous severe measures and issued a summons to use force against the heretics, who were plundering and devastating Albi, Toulouse, and the vicinity. At the death (1194) of the Catholic Count of Toulouse, Raymond V, his succession fell to Raymond VI (1194-1222) who favoured the heresy. With the accession of Innocent III (1198) the work of conversion and repression was taken up vigorously. In 1205-6 three events augured well for the success of the efforts made in that direction. Raymond VI, in face of the threatening military operations urged by Innocent against him, promised under oath to banish the dissidents from his dominions. The monk Fulco of Marseilles, formerly a troubadour, now became Archbishop of Toulouse (1205-31). Two Spaniards, Diego, Bishop of Osma and his companion, Dominic Guzman (St. Dominic), returning from Rome, visited the papal legates at Montpellier. By their advice, the excessive outward splendour of Catholic preachers, which offended the heretics, was replaced by apostolical austerity. Religious disputations were renewed. St. Dominic, perceiving the great advantages derived by his opponents from the cooperation of women, founded (1206) at Pouille near Carcassonne a religious congregation for women, whose object was the education of the poorer girls of the nobility. Not long after this he laid the foundation of the Dominican Order. Innocent III, in view of the immense spread of the heresy, which infected over 1000 cities or towns, called (1207) upon the King of France, as Suzerain of the County of Toulouse, to use force. He renewed his appeal on receiving news of the assassination of his legate, Peter of Castelnau, a Cistercian monk (1208), which judging by appearances, he attributed to Raymond VI. Numerous barons of northern France, Germany, and Belgium joined the crusade, and papal legates were put at the head of the expedition, Arnold, Abbot of Citeaux, and two bishops. Raymond VI, still under the ban of excommunication pronounced against him by Peter of Castelnau, now offered to submit, was reconciled with the Church, and took the field against his former friends. Roger, Viscount of Béziers, was first attacked, and his principal fortresses, Béziers and Carcassonne, were taken (1209). The monstrous words: "Slay all; God will know His own," alleged to have been uttered at the capture of Béziers, by the papal legate, were never pronounced (Tamizey de Larroque, "Rev. des quest. hist." 1866, I, 168-91). Simon of Monfort, Earl of Leicester, was given control of the conquered territory and became the military leader of the crusade. At the Council of Avignon (1209) Raymond VI was again excommunicated for not fulfilling the conditions of ecclesiastical reconciliation. He went in person to Rome, and the Pope ordered an investigation. After fruitless attempts in the Council of Arles (1211) at an agreement between the papal legates and the Count of Toulouse, the latter left the council and prepared to resist. He was declared an enemy of the Church and his possessions were forfeited to whoever would conquer them. Lavaur, Dep. of Tarn, fell in 1211, amid dreadful carnage, into the hands of the crusaders. The latter, exasperated by the reported massacre of 6,000 of their followers, spared neither age nor sex. The crusade now degenerated into a war of conquest, and Innocent III, in spite of his efforts, was powerless to bring the undertaking back to its original purpose. Peter of Aragon, Raymond's brother-in-law, interposed to obtain his forgiveness, but without success. He then took up arms to defend him. The troops of Peter and of Simon of Montfort met at Muret (1213). Peter was defeated and killed. The allies of the fallen king were now so weakened that they offered to submit. The Pope sent as his representative the Cardinal-Deacon Peter of Santa Maria in Aquiro, who carried out only part of his instructions, receiving indeed Raymond, the inhabitants of Toulouse, and others back into the Church, but furthering at the same time Simon's plans of conquest. This commander continued the war and was appointed by the Council of Montpellier (1215) lord over all the acquired territory. The Pope, informed that it was the only effectual means of crushing the heresy, approved the choice. At the death of Simon (1218), his son Amalric inherited his rights and continued the war with but little success. The territory was ultimately ceded almost entirely by both Amalric and Raymond VII to the King of France, while the Council of Toulouse (1229) entrusted the Inquisition, which soon passed into the hands of the Dominicans (1233), with the repression of Albigensianism. The heresy disappeared about the end of the fourteenth century.
III. ORGANIZATION AND LITURGY
The members of the sect were divided into two classes: The "perfect" (perfecti) and the mere "believers" (credentes). The "perfect" were those who had submitted to the initiation-rite (consolamentum). They were few in number and were alone bound to the observance of the above-described rigid moral law. While the female members of this class did not travel, the men went, by twos, from place to place, performing the ceremony of initiation. The only bond that attached the "believers" to Albigensianism was the promise to receive the consolamentum before death. They were very numerous, could marry, wage war, etc., and generally observed the ten commandments. Many remained "believers" for years and were only initiated on their deathbed. If the illness did not end fatally, starvation or poison prevented rather frequently subsequent moral transgressions. In some instances the reconsolatio was administered to those who, after initiation, had relapsed into sin. The hierarchy consisted of bishops and deacons. The existence of an Albigensian Pope is not universally admitted. The bishops were chosen from among the "perfect." They had two assistants, the older and the younger son (filius major and filius minor), and were generally succeeded by the former. The consolamentum, or ceremony of initiation, was a sort of spiritual baptism, analogous in rite and equivalent in significance to several of the Catholic sacraments (Baptism, Penance, Order). Its reception, from which children were debarred, was, if possible, preceded by careful religious study and penitential practices. In this period of preparation, the candidates used ceremonies that bore a striking resemblance to the ancient Christian catechumenate. The essential rite of the consolamentum was the imposition of hands. The engagement which the "believers" took to be initiated before death was known as the convenenza (promise).
IV. ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH
Properly speaking, Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy but an extra-Christian religion. Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess. Simon of Montfort intended well at first, but later used the pretext of religion to usurp the territory of the Counts of Toulouse. The death penalty was, indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses, but it must be remembered that the penal code of the time was considerably more rigorous than ours, and the excesses were sometimes provoked. Raymond VI and his successor, Raymond VII, were, when in distress, ever ready to promise, but never to earnestly amend. Pope Innocent III was justified in saying that the Albigenses were "worse than the Saracens"; and still he counselled moderation and disapproved of the selfish policy adopted by Simon of Montfort. What the Church combated was principles that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very extinction of the human race.

[journeyman]

Bogomilism

http://www.macedonia...ion/bogomil.asp

Bogomilism in Macedonia

It is said that at the dawn of mediaeval Macedonian history two great men arose: Clement of Ohrid and the priest Bogomil. The first one was an educator and writer, whose distinguished personality and work are the pride both of Macedonians and of all Slavs: the second was an idealist, whose heretical theory became a rallying cry for the oppressed throughout Europe in the Middle Ages.
According to its context, Bogomilism is a religious heresy, but according to its content, it is a social movement conditioned by the economic and political circumstances in the country where it emerged. It is beyond doubt that Bogomilism emerged in Macedonia. At that time, a large part of Macedonia was under Bulgarian authority. The aim of the conquerors was clear: to incorporate Macedonia within the framework of the military and administrative regime of the Bulgarian state in a speedy and painless way, thus breaking up the clan-tribal system of the Macedonian principalities. Bulgarian rulers achieved their aim, the tribal rule of the Macedonian Slavs weakened, and new feudal relations gained ground. The independent traditions of the Macedonian Slavs gave way to feudal exploitation. Wars became frequent, taxes higher, robberies and violence common, and natural disasters an additional punishment for the common people. Villages grew poorer, peasants lost their properties and means of production. Many of them were taken prisoners, and the majority of them became serfs, slaves to the land they cultivated, owing to actions by King Simeon. Simeon began to replace tribal ownership of land with feudal ownership, whereby the peasant was fully dependent on the feudal lord. "In order to satisfy his soldiers and officers, Simeon had to rob the defeated. And as the Macedonian Slavs were those who were defeated and conquered, he robbed their properties." Romanus I Lecapenus informed King Simeon in a letter that 20,000 people from Macedonia had escaped to Byzantium; they had fled "because of the violence and intent of the Bulgarian armies." Some historians argue that the visit of Clement of Ohrid to the Bulgarian capital and his resignation of the office of bishop a few months before his death was a response to the violence and devastation wrought by the conquerors on the territory of the Bishopric of Velika.
If some clergy in the Bulgarian Empire were privileged, not all of them enjoyed wealth and favour — the lower clergy drawn from the peasantry, serving as village and town priests, received low wages and were burdened by taxes and dues. Under such living conditions, aggravated further when King Petar increased the exploitation in order to sustain his vast military, government and church apparatus, indignation and dissatisfaction were inevitable and had an anti-church and anti-feudal character.
This was the reasons why the restless masses accepted "the newly-emerged heresy", as Kosma would say, and priest Bogomil as founder of the movement. Dragan Tashkovski goes a step further. He claims that Bogomil was a disciple of Clement, accepting the Glagolitic as Clement of Ohrid did. He taught people "not to submit themselves to the boyars and to have in mind that those who serve the king are repulsive to God, and to order every servant not to work for his master." But Aleksandar Matkovski argues that there is no proof that Bogomil existed at all. He bases his statement on the fact that Ephymius and Anna Comnena, who wrote about the Bogomils, give no mention of the priest, instead naming Churilo and the physician Vasilij as the founders of the sect. Matkovski points out that the Slavonic word bogomil simply means "dear to God", and does not refer to its founder.
Bogomil cosmology and mythology about the creation and destruction of the world possessed logic in a popular form. It could be understood by the masses of the Middle Ages, and they could thus be encouraged to take an active part in resolving the social conflicts imposed by feudalism. The Bogomils taught that there are two gods: a god of good and a god of evil. The god of evil created the material world and humanity, while the god of good created the human soul. The Bogomils denied all prayers except "Our Father, the Lord" and did not respect the cross, icons or churches. They prayed at home and made mutual confessions, denying bishops' authority over believers. They denied the authority the Old Testament and recognised the New Testament only. Believers were encouraged to rebellion and resistance to authorities, with poverty as a virtue and material wealth and those who possessed it preached as an evil.
The anti-feudal essence of Bogomilism is reflected in its social and political viewpoints and in the framework of its mystic and religious conceptions. By preaching equality in poverty, a modest, simple life and disobedience to authorities, Bogomilism contained a strong anti-feudal note and instigated people to rebellion and indignation.
A more detailed analysis of the character of Bogomilism leads to the significant conclusion that, in turning against the king and the boyars, against the ruling nomenclature which first and foremost consisted of Bulgarians, it had a liberating character for the Macedonian Slavs. N.P. Blagoev notes that Macedonia was a centre of opposition against King Petar, both because he was an usurper but also because Bogomilism at that time was a strong, militant movement. The churches of Draguvit and Melnik were representative of the extreme opposition, unlike the Bulgarian Bogomilian church which tended to be more peaceful and moderate. That Bogomilism had distinct features of a liberation movement is supported by the fact that the komitopulis David, Moses, Aaron and Samuil, sons of the Komitadji Nikola, accepted Bogomilism and began a rebellion in 869 resulting in breaking Macedonia away from the Bulgarian Empire, establishing the first Slavonic-Macedonian state.
After the victory of the komitopulis and the establishment of a Macedonian kingdom, the Bogomils ceased to verbally attack the upper classes — the king, royal officials and high clergy — and allied with them, although Samuil's state was as feudal as those of Boris and Petar. There is a simple explanation for the sympathy of Tsar Samuil for the Bogomils and their participation in his rebellion: the Bogomils were the only organised anti-Byzantine party in Macedonia with a clear Slavonic orientation. It is interesting that the rebellion of the Macedonian Slavs broke out in the region where Bogomilism was strongest, in the territory defined by the triangle of the Vardar River, Ohrid and Mt. Shar. The measures taken by Byzantium and Bulgaria against this "evil" were severe. Constantinople Patriarch Theophylast advised Tsar Petar: "Those who will remain in evil, sick from non-repentance, will be cut out of God's church as rotten and malignant parts and will be delivered for eternal damnation... The social laws of Christianity prescribe death for them, especially when it is apparent that the evil drags even deeper, progresses and kills many people." Nevertheless, Bogomilism spread first throughout Bulgaria and Bosnia, then to Italy and southern France; a movement which was to influence the course of history.

From Macedonia Yesterday and Today by Jovan Pavlovski & Mishel Pavlovski
Translated by: Zaharija Pavlovska

[journeyman]

Cathari
(From the Greek katharos, pure), literally "puritans", a name specifically applied to, or used by, several sects at various periods. The Novatians of the third century were frequently known as Cathari, and the term was also used by the Manichæans. In its more usual sense, Cathari was a general designation for the dualistic sects of the later Midde Ages. Numerous other names were in vogue to denominate these heretics. Without speaking of the corrupted forms of "Cazzari", "Gazzari", in Italy, and "Ketzer" in Germany, we find the following appellations: "Piphili", "Piphles", in Northern France and Flanders; "Arians", "Manichæans", and "Patareni", owing to real or alleged doctrinal similarity; "Tesserants", "Textores" (Weavers), from the trade which many of the members followed. Sometimes they were erroneously styled "Waldenses" by their contemporaries. From the demagogue Arnold of Brescia and the heretical bishop Robert de Sperone, they were called "Arnoldistæ" and "Speronistæ". To their geographical distribution they owed the names of "Cathari of Desenzano" or "Albanenses" (from Desenzano, between Brescia and Verona, or from Alba in Piedmont, Albano, or perhaps from the provinces of Albania); "Bajolenses" or "Bagnolenses" (from Bagnolo in Italy); "Concorrezenses" (probably from Concorrezo in Lombardy); "Tolosani" (from Toulouse); and especially "Albigenses" (from Albi). The designations "Pauliciani", of which "Publicani", "Poplicani", were probably corruptions, and "Bulgari", "Bugri", "Bougres", point to their probable Oriental origin.
Among recent historians there is a pronounced tendency to look upon the Cathari as the lineal descendants of the Manichæans. The doctrine, organization, and liturgy of the former, in many points, reproduce the doctrine, organization, and liturgy of the early disciples of Manes. The successive appearance of the Priscillianists, the Paulicians, and the Bogomili, representatives to some extent of similar principles, fairly establishes the historical continuity between the two extreme links of the chain -- the Manichæans of the third, and the Cathari of the eleventh, century. In the present state of our knowledge, however, conclusive proofs in favour of the genetical dependence of the Cathari on the Manichæans are lacking. Some differences between the two religious systems are too radical to find a sufficient explanation in the appeal to the evolution of human thought. Among the Cathari we look in vain for that astronomical mythology, that pagan symbolism, and the worship of the memory of Manes, which were important characteristics of Manichæism. However attractive it may be to trace the origin of the Cathari to the first centuries of Christianity, we must be cautious not to accept as a certain historical fact what, up to the present, is only a probable conclusion.
I. CATHARIST PRINCIPLES
The essential characteristic of the Catharist faith was Dualism, i.e. the belief in a good and an evil principle, of whom the former created the invisible and spiritual universe, while the latter was the author of the material world. A difference of opinion existed as to the nature of these two principles. Their perfect equality was admitted by the absolute Dualists, whereas in the mitigated form of Dualism the beneficent principle alone was eternal and supreme, the evil principle being inferior to him and a mere creature. In the the East and the West these two different interpretations of Dualism coexisted. The Bogomili in the East professed it in its modified form. In the West, the Albanenses in Italy and almost all the non-Italian Cathari were rigid Dualists; mitigated Dualism prevailed among the Bagnolenses and Concorrezenses, who were more numerous than the Albanenses in Italy, though but little represented abroad. (For an exposition of absolute Dualism, see ALBIGENSES; on the mitigated form, see BOGOMILI.) Not only were the Albanenses and Concorrezenses opposed to each other to the extent of indulging in mutual condemnations, but there was division among the Albanenses themselves. John of Lugio, or of Bergamo, introduced innovations into the traditional doctrinal system, which was defended by his (perhaps only spiritual) father Balasinansa, or Belesmagra, the Catharist Bishop of Verona. Towards the year 1230 John became the leader of a new party composed of the younger and more independent elements of the sect. In the two coeternal principles of good and evil he sees two contending gods, who limit each other's liberty. Infinite perfection is no attribute even of the good principle; owing to the genius of evil infused into all its creatures, it can produce only imperfect beings. The Bagnolenses and Concorrezenses also differed on some doctrinal questions. The former maintained that human souls were created and had sinned before the world was formed. The Concorrezenses taught that Satan infused into the body of the first man, his handiwork, an angel who had been guilty of a slight transgression and from whom, by way of generation, all human souls are derived. The moral system, organization, and liturgy of absolute and mitigated Dualism exhibit no substantial difference, and have been treated in the article on the Albigenses.
II. HISTORY
France, Belgium and Spain
Although there is no historical foundation for the legend that the Manichæan Fontanus, one of St. Augustine's opponents, came to the castle of Montwimer (Montaimé in the Diocese of Châlons-sur-Marne) and there spread dualistic principles, yet Montwimer was perhaps the oldest Catharist centre in France and certainly the principal one in the country north of the Loire. It is in the central part of France that we come upon the first important manifestation of Catharism. At a council held in 1022 at Orléans in presence of King Robert the Pious, thirteen Cathari were condemned to be burned. Ten of these were canons of the church of the Holy Cross and another had been confessor to Queen Constance. About the same time (1025), heretics of similar tenets, who acknowledged that they were disciples of the Italian Gundulf, appeared at Liège and Arras. Upon their recantation, perhaps more apparent than real, they were left unmolested. The sectarians appeared again at Châlons under Bishop Roger II (1043-65), who in 1045 applied to his fellow-bishop, Wazo of Liège, for advice regarding their treatment. The latter advised indulgence. No manifestation of the heresy in North France is recorded during the second half of the eleventh century; its secret existence, however, cannot be doubted.
A new outbreak of the evil occurred in the twelfth century both in France and Belgium. In 1114 several heretics who had been captured in the Diocese of Soissons were seized and burned by the populace while their case was under discussion at the Council of Beauvais. Others were either threatened with, or actually met a similar fate at Liège in 1144; some of them were spared owing only to the energetic intervention of the local bishop, Adalbero II. During the rest of the twelfth century, Cathari appeared in rapid succession in different places. In 1162 Henry, Archbishop of Reims, while on a visit to Flanders, found them widely spread in that part of his ecclesiastical province. Upon his refusal of a bribe of six hundred marks, which they are said to have offered him for toleration, the heretics appealed to the pope, Alexander III, who was inclined to mercy in spite of King Louis VII's advocacy of rigorous measures. At Vézelay in Burgundy seven heretics were burned in 1167. Towards the end of the century the Count of Flanders, Phililp I, was remarkable for his severity towards them, and the Archbishop of Reims, Guillaume de Champagne (1176-1202), vigorously seconded his efforts. Confiscation, exile, and death were the penalties inflicted upon them by Hugues, Bishop of Auxerre (1183-1206). The execution of about one hundred and eighty heretics at Montwimer in May, 1239, was the death-blow of Catharism in those countries. Southern France, where its adherents were known as Albigenses, was its principal stronghold in Western Europe. Thence the Cathari penetrated into the northern provinces of Spain: Catalonia, Aragon, Navarre, and Leon. Partisans of the heresy existed in the peninsula about 1159. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, King Pedro II of Aragon personally led his troops to the assistance of Raymond VI of Toulouse against the Catholic Crusaders, and fell at the battle of Muret in 1213. During that century a few sporadic manifestations of the heresy took place, at Castelbo in 1225 and again in 1234, at Leon in 1232. The Cathari however never gained a firm foothold in the country and are not mentioned after 1292.
Italy
Upper Italy was, after Southern France, the principal seat of the heresy. Between 1030-1040 an important Catharist community was discovered at the castle of Monteforte near Asti in Piedmont. Some of the members were seized by the Bishop of Asti and a number of noblemen of the neighbourhood, and, on their refusal to retract, were burned. Others, by order of thc Archbishop of Milan, Eriberto, were brought to his archiepiscopal city, where he hoped to convert them. They answered his fruitless efforts by attempts to make proselytes; whereupon the civil magistrates gave them the choice between the Cross and the stake. For the most part, they preferred death to conversion. In the twelfth century, when, after prolonged silence, historical records again speak of Catharism, it exhibits itself as strongly organized. We find it very powerful in 1125 at Orvieto, a city of the Papal States, which, in spite of the stringent measures taken to suppress the heresy, was for many subsequent years deeply infected. Milan was the great heretical capital; but there was hardly a part of Italy where the heresy was not represented. It penetrated into Calabria, Sicily, and Sardinia, and appeared even in Rome. The prohibitions and penalties enacted by the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of the thirteenth century could not crush the evil, although the merciless Frederick II occupied the imperial throne and Popes Innocent III, Honorius III, and Gregory IX were not remiss in their efforts to suppress it. To prevent the enforcement of the punishment decreed against them, the members of the sect, on a few occasions, resorted to assassination, as is proved by the deaths of St. Peter Parenzo (1199) and St. Peter of Verona (1252); or, like Pungilovo, who after his death (1269) was temporarily honoured as a saint by the local Catholic population, they outwardly observed Catholic practices while remaining faithful Catharists. According to the Dominican inquisitor, Rainier Sacconi, himself a former adherent of the heresy, there were in the middle of the thirteenth century about 4000 perfected Cathari in the world. Of these there were in Lombardy and the Marches, 500 of the Albanensian sect, about 200 Bagnolenses, 1500 Concorrezenses, and 150 French refugees; at Vicenza 100, and as many at Florence and Spoleto. Although the increase in the number of "Believers" was very probably not proportionate to that of the "Perfecti", in consequence of the arrival of refugees from France, yet the Cathari of the northern half of Italy formed at this time over three-fifths of the total membership. The heresy, however, could not hold its own during the second half of the thirteenth century, and although it continued in existence in the fourteenth, it gradually disappeared from the cities and took refuge in less accessible places. St. Vincent Ferrer still discovered and converted some Cathari in 1403 in Lombardy and also in Piedmont, where in 1412 several of them, already deceased, were executed in effigy. No definite reference to their existence is found at a subsequent date.
Germany and England
Catharism was comparatively unimportant in Germany and England. In Germany it appeared principally in the Rhine lands. Some members were apprehended in 1052 at Goslar in Hanover and hanged by order of the emperor, Henry III. About 1110 some heretics, probably Cathari, and among them two priests, appeared at Trier, but do not seem to have been subjected to any penalty. Some years later (c. 1143) Cathari were discovered at Cologne. Some of them retracted; but the bishop of the sect and his socius (companion), not so ready to change their faith, were cited before an ecclesiastico-lay tribunal. During the trial they were, against the will of the judges, carried off by the people and burned. The heretical Church must have been completely organized in this part of Germany, as the presence of the bishop seems to prove. To these events we owe the refutation of the heresy written by St. Bernard at the request of Everwin, Abbot of Steinfeld. In 1163 the Rhenish city witnessed another execution, and a similar scene was almost simultaneously enacted at Bonn. Other districts, Bavaria, Suabia, and Switzerland, were infected, but the heresy did not gain a firm foothold. It disappeared almost completely in the thirteenth century.
About 1159, thirty Cathari, German in race and speech, left an unknown place, perhaps Flanders, to seek refuge in England. Their proselytizing efforts were rewarded by the temporary conversion of one woman. They were detected in 1166 and handed over to the secular power by the bishops of the Council of Oxford. Henry II ordered them to be scourged, branded on the forehead, and cast adrift in the cold of winter, and forbade any of his subjects to shelter or succour them. They all perished from hunger or exposure.
The Balkan States
Eastern Europe seems to have been, in point of date, the first country in which Catharism manifested itself, and it certainly was the last to be freed from it. The Bogomili, who were representatives of the heresy in its milder dualistic form, perhaps existed as early as the tenth century and, at a later date, were found in large numbers in Bulgaria. Bosnia was another Catharist centre. Some recent writers make no distinction between the heretics found there and the Bogomili, whereas others rank them with the rigid Dualists. In the Western contemporary documents they are usually called "Patareni", the designation then applied to the Cathari in Italy. At the end of the twelfth century, Kulin, the ban or civil ruler of Bosnia (1168-1204) embraced the heresy, and 10,000 of his subjects followed his example. The efforts made on the Catholic side, under the direction of Popes Innocent III, Honorius III, and Gregory IX, to eradicate the evil, were not productive of any permanent success. Noble work was accomplished by Franciscan missionaires sent to Bosnia by Pope Nicholas IV (1288-92). But though arms and persuasion were used against the heresy, it continued to flourish. As the country was for a long time a Hungarian dependency, Hungary was conspicuous in its resistance to the new faith. This situation developed into a source of weakness on the Catholic side, as the Cathari identified their religious cause with that of national independence. When, in the fifteenth century, the Bosnian king, Thomas, was converted to the Catholic Faith, the severe edicts which he issued against his former coreligionists were powerless against the evil. The Cathari, 40,000 in number, left Bosnia and passed into Herzegovina (1446). The heresy disappeared only after the conquest of these provinces by the Turks in the second half of the fifteenth century. Several thousand of its members joined the Orthodox Church, while many more embraced Islam.
III. THE CATHARI AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable. The assertion of some writers, like Charles Molinier, that Catholic and Catharist teaching respecting marriage are identical, is an erroneous interpretation of Catholic doctrine and pratice. Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage. Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: "However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience' sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous." (See Lea, Inquisition, I, 106.)

[journeyman]

Socinianism
The body of doctrine held by one of the numerous Antitrinitarian sects to which the Reformation gave birth. The Socinians derive their name from two natives of Siena, Lelio Sozzini (1525-62) and his nephew Fausto Sozzini (1539-1604). The surname is variously given, but its Latin form, Socinus, is that currently used. It is to Fausto, or Faustus Socinus, that the sect owes its individuality, but it arose before he came into contact with it. In 1546 a secret society held meetings at Vicenza in the Diocese of Venice to discuss, among other points, the doctrine of the Trinity. Among the members of this society were Blandrata, a well-known physician, Alciatus, Gentilis, and Lelio, or Laelius Socinus. The last-named, a priest of Siena, was the intimate friend of Bullinger, Calvin, and Melanchthon. The object of the society was the advocacy not precisely of what were afterwards known as Socinian principles, but of Antitrinitarianism. The Nominalists, represented by Abelard, were the real progenitors of the Antitrinitarians of the Reformation period, but while many of the Nominalists ultimately became Tritheists, the term Antitrinitarian means expressly one who denies the distinction of persons in the Godhead. The Antitrinitarians are thus the later representatives of the Sabellians, Macedonians, and Arians of an earlier period. The secret society which met at Vicenza was broken up, and most of its members fled to Poland. Laelius, indeed, seems to have lived most at Zurich, but he was the mainspring of the society, which continued to hold meetings at Cracow for the discussion of religious questions. He died in 1562 and a stormy period began for the members of the party.
The inevitable effect of the principles of the Reformation was soon felt, and schism made its appearance in the ranks of the Antitrinitarians--for so we must call them all indiscriminately at this time. In 1570 the Socinians separated, and, through the influence of the Antitrinitarian John Sigismund, established themselves at Racow. Meanwhile, Faustus Socinus had obtained possession of his uncle's papers and in 1579 came to Poland. He found the various bodies of the sect divided, and he was at first refused admission because he refused to submit to a second baptism. In 1574 the Socinians had issued a "Catechism of the Unitarians", in which, while much was said about the nature and perfection of the Godhead, silence was observed regarding those Divine attributes which are mysterious. Christ was the Promised Man; He was the Mediator of Creation, i. e., of Regeneration. It was shortly after the appearance of this catechism that Faustus arrived on the scene and, in spite of initial opposition, he succeeded in attaching all parties to himself and thus securing for them a degree of unity which they had not hitherto enjoyed. Once in possession of power, his action was high-handed. He had been invited to Siebenburg in order to counteract the influence of the Antitrinitarian bishop Francis David (1510-79). David, having refused to accept the peculiarly Socinian tenet that Christ, though not God, was to be adored, was thrown into prison, where he died. Budnaeus, who adhered to David's views, was degraded and excommunicated in 1584. The old catechism was not suppressed and a new one published under the title of the "Catechism of Racow". Though drawn up by Socinus, it was not published until 1605, a year after his death; it first appeared in Polish, then in Latin in 1609.
Meanwhile the Socinians had flourished; they had established colleges, they held synods, and they had a printing press whence they issued an immense amount of religious literature in support of their views; this was collected, under the title "Bibliotheca Antitrinitarianorum", by Sandius. In 1638 the Catholics in Poland insisted on the banishment of the Socinians, who were in consequence dispersed. It is evident from the pages of Bayle that the sect was dreaded in Europe; many of the princes were said to favour it secretly, and it was predicted that Socinianism would overrun Europe. Bayle, however, endeavours to dispel these fears by dwelling upon the vigorous measures taken to prevent its spread in Holland. Thus, in 1639, at the suggestion of the British Ambassador, all the states of Holland were advised of the probable arrival of the Socinians after their expulsion from Poland; while in 1653 very stringent decrees were passed against them. The sect never had a great vogue in England; it was distasteful to Protestants who, less logical, perhaps, but more conservative in their views, were not prepared to go to the lengths of the Continental Reformers. In 1612 we find the names of Leggatt and Wightman mentioned as condemned to death for denying the Divinity of Christ. Under the Commonwealth, John Biddle was prominent as an upholder of Socinian principles; Cromwell banished him to the Scilly Isles, but he returned under a writ of habeas corpus and became minister of an Independent church in London. After the Restoration, however, Biddle was cast again into prison, where he died in 1662. The Unitarians are frequently identified with the Socinians, but there are fundamental differences between their doctrines.
Fundamental Doctrines
These may be gathered from the "Catechism of Racow", mentioned above and from the writings of Socinus himself, which are collected in the "Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum". The basis was, of course, private judgment; the Socinians rejected authority and insisted on the free use of reason, but they did not reject revelation. Socinus, in his work "De Auctoritate Scripturae Sacrae", went so far as to reject all purely natural religion. Thus for him the Bible was everything, but it had to be interpreted by the light of reason. Hence he and his followers thrust aside all mysteries; as the Socinian John Crell (d. 1633) says in his "De Deo et ejus Attributis", "Mysteries are indeed exalted above reason, but they do not overturn it; they by no means extinguish its light, but only perfect it". This would be quite true for a Catholic, but in the mouth of Socinian it meant that only those mysteries which reason can grasp are to be accepted. Thus both in the Racovian Catechism and in Socinus's "Institutiones Religionis Christianae", only the unity, eternity, omnipotence, justice, and wisdom of God are insisted on, since we could be convinced of these; His immensity, infinity, and omnipresence are regarded as beyond human comprehension, and therefore unnecessary for salvation. Original justice meant for Socinus merely that Adam was free from sin as a fact, not that he was endowed with peculiar gifts; hence Socinus denied the doctrine of original sin entirely. Since, too, faith was for him but trust in God, he was obliged to deny the doctrine of justification in the Catholic sense; it was nothing but a judicial act on the part of God. There were only two sacraments, and, as these were held to be mere incentives to faith, they had no intrinsic efficacy. Infant baptism was of course rejected. There was no hell; the wicked were annihilated.
Christology
This point was particularly interesting, as on it the whole of Socinianism turns. God, the Socinians maintained, and rightly, is absolutely simple; but distinction of persons is destructive of such simplicity; therefore, they concluded the doctrine of the Trinity is unsound. Further, there can be no proportion between the finite and the infinite, hence there can be no incarnation, of the Deity, since that would demand some such proportion. But if, by an impossibility, there were distinction of persons in the Deity, no Divine person could be united to a human person, since there can by no unity between two individualities. These arguments are of course puerile and nothing but ignorance of Catholic teaching can explain the hold which such views obtained in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As against the first argument, see St. Thomas, (Summa I:12:1, ad 4); for the solution of the others see Petavius. But the Socinians did not become Arians, as did Campanus and Gentilis. The latter was one of the original society which held its meetings at Vicenza; he was beheaded at Berne in 1566. They did not become Tritheists, as Gentilis himself was supposed by some to be. Nor did they become Unitarians, as might have been expected. Socinus had indeed many affinities with Paul of Samosata and Sabellius; with them he regarded the Holy Spirit as merely an operation of God, a power for sanctification. But his teaching concerning the person of Christ differed in some respects from theirs. For Socinus, Christ was the Logos, but he denied His pre-existence; He was the Word of God as being His interpreter (interpres divinae voluntatis). The passages from St. John which present the Word as the medium of creation were explained by Socinus of regeneration only. At the same time Christ was miraculously begotten: He was a perfect man, He was the appointed mediator, but He was not God, only deified man. In this sense He was to be adored; and it is here precisely that we have the dividing line between Socinianism and Unitarianism, for the latter system denied the miraculous birth of Christ and refused Him adoration. It must be confessed that, on their principles, the Unitarians were much more logical.
Redemption and Sacraments
Socinus's views regarding the person of Christ necessarily affected his teaching on the office of Christ as Redeemer, and consequently on the efficacy of the sacraments. Being purely man, Christ did not work out our redemption in the sense of satisfying for our sins; and consequently we cannot regard the sacraments as instruments whereby the fruits of that redemption are applied to man. Hence Socinus taught that the Passion of Christ was merely an example to us and a pledge of our forgiveness. All this teaching is syncretized in the Socinian doctrine regarding the Last Supper; it was not even commemorative of Christ's Passion, it was rather an act of thanksgiving for it.
The Church and Socianism
Needless to say, the tenets of the Socinians have been repeatedly condemned by the Church. As antitrinitarianists, they are opposed to the express teaching of the first six councils; their view of the person of Christ is in contradiction to the same councils, especially that of Chalcedon and the famous "Tome" (Ep. xxviii) of St. Leo the Great (cf. Denzinger, no. 143). For its peculiar views regarding the adoration of Christ, cf. can. ix of the fifth Ecumenical Synod (Denz., 221). It is opposed, too, to the various creeds, more especially to that of St. Athanasius. It has also many affinities with the Adoptionist heresy condemned in the Plenary Council of Frankfort, in 794, and in the second letter of Pope Hadrian I to the bishops of Spain (cf. Denz., 309-314). Its denial of the Atonement is in opposition to the decrees against Gotteschalk promulgated in 849 (cf. Denz., 319), and also to the definition of the Fourth Lateran Council against the Albigensians (Denz., 428; cf. also Conc. Trid., Sess. xxii., cap. i. de Sacrificio Missae, in Denz., 938). The condemned propositions of Abelard (1140) might equally well stand for those of the Socinians (cf. Denz., 368 sqq.). The same must be said of the Waldensian heresy: the Profession of Faith drawn up against them by Innocent III might be taken as a summary of Socinian errors. The formal condemnation of Socinianism appeared first in the Constitution of Paul IV, "Cum quorundam:, 1555 (Denz., 993); this was confirmed in 1603 by Clement VIII, or "Dominici gregis", but it is to be noted that both of these condemnations appeared before the publication of the "Catechism of Racow" in 1605, hence they do not adequately reflect the formal doctrines of Socinianism. At the same time it is to be remarked, that according to many, this catechism itself does not reflect the doctrines really held by the leaders of the party; it was intended for the laity alone. From the decree it would appear that in 1555 and again in 1603 the Socinians held:
• that there was no Trinity,
• that Christ was not consubstantial with the Father and Holy Spirit,
• that He was not conceived of the Holy Spirit, but begotten by St. Joseph,
• that His Death and Passion were not undergone to bring about our redemption,
• that finally the Blessed Virgin was not the Mother of God, neither did she retain her virginity.
It would seem from the Catechism that the Socinians of 1605 held that Christ was at least miraculously conceived, though in what sense they held this is not clear.

[journeyman]

too lame for open mic?

needs to be moved to some "serious" forum?

[KizlarAgha]

I like this. Nice work, journeyman. I should have thought to include this in my thread but I think you should keep it going. Hopefully, by the time people get bored of the game (I doubt we'll run out of heresies) people will have learned a bit about heresy and how to spot them and how to defend against them.

Good work.

[journeyman]

Thanks, I'll try

Now I'm trying to decide if I should leave it at right answers, or all guesses

(one of the guesses came up as an order which redeemed captives, so I need to do some more work on that one)

[journeyman]

Kenosis
A term derived from the discussion as to the real meaning of Phil. 2:6 sqq.: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied [ekenosen] himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as man."
Protestant opinions
The early Reformers, not satisfied with the teaching of Catholic theology on this point, professed to a deeper meaning in St. Paul's words, but Luther and a Melanchton failed in their speculations. John Brenz (d. 10 September, 1570), of Tübingen, maintained that as the Word assumed Christ's human nature, so His human nature not only possessed the Divinity, but also had the power to make use of the Divinity, though it freely abstained from such a use. Chemnitz differed from this view. He denied that Jesus Christ possessed the Divinity in such a way as to have a right to its use. The kenosis, or the exinanition, of His Divine attributes was, therefore, a free act of Christ, according to Brenz; it was the connatural consequence of the Incarnation, according to Chemnitz.
Among modern Protestants the following opinons have been the most prevalent:
• Thomasius, Delitzcsh, and Kahnis regard the Incarnation as a self-emptying of the Divine manner of existence, as a self-limitation of the Word's omniscience, omnipresence, etc.
• Gess, Reuss, and Godet contend that the Incarnation implies a real depotentation of the Word; the Word became, rather than assumed, the human soul of Christ.
• Ebrard holds that the Divine properties in Christ appeared under the Kantian time-form appropriate to man; his kenosis consists in an exchange of the eternal for a time-form of existence.
• Martensen and perhaps Hutton distingusih a double life of the Word: In the Man-Christ they see a kenosis and a real depotentiation of the Word; in the world the purely Divine Word carries the work of mediator and revealer. According to Godet, and probably also Gore, the Word in His kenosis strips Himself even of His immutable holiness, His infinite love, and His personal consciousness, so as to enter into a human development similar to ours.
Catholic teaching
According to Catholic theology, the abasement of the Word consists in the assumption of humanity and the simultaneous occultation of the Divinity. Christ's abasement is seen first in His subjecting Himself to the laws of human birth and growth and to the lowliness of fallen human nature. His likeness, in His abasement, to the fallen nature does not compromise the actual loss of justice and sanctity, but only the pains and penalties attached to the loss. These fall partly on the body, partly on the soul, and consist in liability to suffering from internal and external causes.
As to the body, Christ's dignity excludes some bodily pains and states. God's all-preserving power inhabiting the body of Jesus did not allow any corruption; it also prevented disease or the beginning of corruption. Christ's holiness was not compatible with decomposition after death, which is the image of the destroying power of sin. In fact, Christ had the right to be free from all bodily pain, and His human will had the power to remove or suspend the action of the causes of pain. But He freely subjected Himself to most of the pains resulting from bodily exertion and adverse external influences, e.g. fatigue, hunger, wounds, etc. As these pains had their sufficient reason in the nature of Christ's body, they were natural to Him.
Christ retained in Him also the weaknesses of the soul, the passions of His rational and sensitive appetites, but with the following restrictions: (a) Inordinate and sinful motions are incompatible with Christ's holiness. Only morally blameless passions and affections, e.g. fear, sadness, the share of the soul in the sufferings of the body, were compatible with His Divinity and His spiritual perfection. (b) The origin, intensity, and duration of even these emotions were subject to Christ's free choice. Besides, He could prevent their disturbing the actions of His soul and His peace of mind.
To complete His abasement, Christ was subject to His Mother and St. Joseph, to the laws of the State and the positive laws of God; He shared the hardships and privations of the poor and the lowly. (See COMMUNICATO IDIOMATUM.)