medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

From: Andrew Larsen <[log in to unmask]>

> For Innocent, it [the Albigensian Crusade] is clearly about combating
heresy. 

one of the *key* elements of this "heresy" (which i know as "Manichean,"
following Runciman) as i dimly understand it was that the whole of the
"catholic" church was the instrument of the very same demigod who created this
particular planet (the O.T. "god" Yahweh), including (particularly) its
Hierarchy, which was headed by the Bishop of Rome.  (did they think of him as
the Whore of Babylon, btw?)

so, for Innocent, this *particular* "heresy" was especially threatening --as
threatening as the Russian Revolution of 1917 was to the Capitalist/Imperial
system which, spreading from Europe, had a good bit of the planet By the
Throat.

the proper definition of "heresy" is "an idea which threatens my own position
in the world."

though, i'll grant, "Innocent" might not have (consciously) thought of it in
just that way.

but, the Albi guys would agree with me, i think.

>For Simon and the French Crown, it was about conquest. 

absolutely.

conquest, and the establishment --by whatever barbarous means-- of their own
Property Rights in the region, which establishment was aided, and abetted in
no small part by the enabling collusion of Innocent's Holy Mother Church, just
as it had been in the North for over 1,000 years.

pretending that "Innocent"'s (sorry, i have just always *loved* the supreme
Irony of that name) motives were (somehow) "pure" and "spiritual" in this
particular instance is a Dog which Will Not Hunt, here in the bucolic hills of
Southern Indianer.

>That was exactly my point. 

then we agree.

Progress.

Perseverance Furthers.

No Blame.

>So saying that it was "ostensibly" about Catharism is just admitting that the
men fighting this war didn't march in step with Innocent's goal. 

well, it was ostensibly about Catharism (among other things, yes) and the men
fighting the war (including the frocked soldiers of The Vicar of Christ on
Earth) were in step with Innocent's goal, which just happened to co-in-side so
perfectly with their own.

>>>[A.L.] Simon and the French Crown transformed the Crusade into a war of
conquest 

>>[me] i really take issue with "transformed" there.
 
> Why?  

because it *was* clearly a "war of conquest" from the get-go.

how can you combat "heresy" without conquesting it over the heretics who hold
the heretical view that you, personally, are the Whore of Babylon Incarnate?

Holy Mother Church, as always, needs the Secular Arm to do whatever is
necessary to accomplish all that messy [spiritual] conquesting stuff.

>>[me] what more could have been done to "advance the Papacy's goals"?

>[A.L.] Actually fighting heretics instead of the Count of Toulouse, perhaps?

butbut, what if Ray Toulouse was *harboring* the "heretics" --what then is a
poor (unarmed) Pope to do??

>>>[A.L.] The establishment of inquisitors of heresy in the 1230s demonstrates
that the Crusade didn't meet papal goals. 

>> or, perhaps it demonstrates that the crusade failed for about the same
reason that the "real" crusades in the H.L. failed --because the foreign
invader was rejected by the mass of the population and lacked sufficient
numbers of B-52s to bring them to Heel.

> If you're a Pluralist, 

i most certainly am *not*!

i'm a rabid Heterosexual.

and Proud of It.

>as most American crusade scholars are, 

who, me?

a "crusade scholar"??

what about my continual protestations of near-utter ignorance of the subject?


what are they, Chopped Liver??

>the Albigensian Crusade was as real (meaning legitimate) as the First
Crusade. 

i don't think that i ever hinted that i didn't think it weren't "real"
--"legitimate" (unlike Reality) is a relative term.

and, i might add, one that is defined by the Victors.

>Your Vietnam comparison falls down here, since both the First Crusade and the
Albigensian one were successful in that they resulted in conquest. 

the First was a "temporary" success, from any sort of Long Range viewpoint, a
mere Flash in the historical Pan.

the Albi one was, i'll grant you, a bit more long lasting, thanks to 
the success of the Secular Arm --not at all to the moral or spritual
superiority of Innocent's frocked minions.


>Provence was not 'lost' to the natives, 

no, i suppose not.

though i've always wondered whether just a *bit* of that markéd Provencal
antipathy towards Paris & the North which i saw Back in The Day might not be
some distant echo of 13th c. events.

>so perhaps we can drop this metaphor before it gets more tortured. 

brother, i've been trying to drop that particular metaphor for many decades.

happy to do so now.

Good Riddance.

glad *that's* over with.

>The Albigensian Crusade was a success from a French royal perspective, but a
failure from a papal perspective. 

what?

Rome did not enjoy recognition in the region for the next 700 years (until the
utter collapse of the Church all over Western Europe in the closing decades of
the last century of the last millennium)?

when, eggsactly, was the Cathare Heresy resurgent in the region?

i must have missed that particular Movie.

>They did not have the same goals and only one of them succeeded. 

well, either that, or they had precisely the same goals and both of them
succeeded.

take your pick.

c

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html