The Cathar heresy

[Ursa major]

Seph, I realise that. It's just that I found it odd that the Cathars saw existence coming out of nothing, independent of Good, just as our view of the universe is that it was a seemingly random occurence (however we view the sub-microscopic detail). And, of course, while there is no zero as such, there was no time, so some might argue that the non-zeroness is almost moot, while, on the other hand, vital.

 

[Sephiroth]

I take your point.

This is a sentence that struck me (from Ed Witten, IIRC):

Geometry is a low-energy approximation of some concept we do not yet understand.

The same goes for time, quite possibly. The horizon we see as a 'beginning' might be nothing of the kind.

But anyway. Sorry for rambling off-topic.


I have to say, I wasn't aware of this aspect of the Cathars' dualism, either.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

Don't materialists think that bacteriae spring out of inorganic matter, as some product of evolution?

As the materia is created, it is attracted towards the Below, charging itself in gross and thick substance; therefore, it can also be attracted towards gross and thick behaviour, they thought.

I'm afraid that scientific reasoning doesn't apply here.

Theology might.

 

[Sephiroth]

Yes, but life from organic molecules which emerged gradually out of inorganic ones is a comprehensible process, not like something from nothing.

But no, you're right. Scientific reasoning is out of place, here.

 

[Ursa major]

Yes, Seph, but Giometry is a low-understanding approximation of some person we do not yet know.

Now back to topic. You're right, Gio, that scientific reasoning doesn't apply; and yes, there have been many wild and woolly explanations of where certain matter comes from; on a grand scale, though, I've never heard of the idea the Cathars had: complete physical creation independent of a god or gods. (But then my knowledge of the world's creation theories is minimal, so there's no reason I should have.)

 

[Sephiroth]

I've heard of creation myths without a first actor, but not this particular explanation of evil.

The Norse creation myth springs to mind. The merging of the primeval heat and cold create the first being, the frost giant Ymir.

 

[Ursa major]

Even there, though, there is a merging, not a spontaneous appearance. And with heat and cold, we have already met a metaphor for duality. (Definitely not scientific, though!)

 

[Sephiroth]

Yes, no primeval gods, though.

But it isn't so surprising that spontaneous appearances are rare, since they tend to be counter-intuitive.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

I'm not expressing this idea clearly enough.

God herself has created Matter, but, once created, this matter can play in the sandbox without God permission, otherwise there would be no fun. Well... But it is true that, along this line of reasoning, the matter tends to become more "physical", and getting more and more different from God.

One could say that God could have foreseen this and avoid the advent of Evil. Of course she did, but creating things that evolve from chunks of clay into Japanese anime makers is exciting. If I were God, I'd do just that. It's about knowing oneself. How do you know yourself if you are everything and perfect and with no needs?

As soon as you create Materia, you can observe it. Inventing limitations out of a limitless power, now that's fun.

 

[Ursa major]

Thinking about it, I'm not sure that there were gods, as such, at the very start of the Ancient Egyptian creation myth; and now I can't find the book that would remind me.

(Shame: I thought I'd weaned myself off Wiki - out of the frying pan a bit, though, with the Chrons....)

 

[Sephiroth]

And then resolving not to interfere, Giovanna? Or lacking the power, thereafter, to do so?

The latter, by my reading of what you said above?



Wiki's fine as long as you use other sources to back it up, though.

Uhh....hang on..........where did I put my notes, are they on this computer?

*goes to see*

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

Deciding not to interfere, that would be an anthropomorphic point of you.

My metaphors were very anthropomorphic.


The Cathars would say that God can't fight Evil without losing her nature (i.e. becoming Evil).

She could, because she can do anything, but she would become Un-Good.

There's already this question of matter making bad choices, remember, so I, a bonnefemme, don't see why God should become Matter as well.

 

[Sephiroth]

I find the very concept of God to be anthropomorphic, though.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

The longer God's beard is, the more anthropomorphic he is.

But in the Cathars' system of beliefs, God (Senior) is something less describable and tangible than in the Catholic tradition.

I mean, can the Eternal Good grow a beard?

 

[Sephiroth]

No, of course not, I see what you mean. It is something more comparable to Plato's world of forms, isn't it?

Of course, Christian doctrine in general was heavily influenced by him, so one shouldn't be surprised.



If God is 'merely' the 'Wellspring of Good', where does consciousness come into It?

The idea of God as the Creator, but also as the helpless endurer of a Universe of Evil, is a strange contraction (to my materialist mind).

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

[QUOTE=Sephiroth;966106]No, of course not, I see what you mean. It is something more comparable to Plato's world of forms, isn't it?

For Plato there is no proper "God", only a Demiurge (the Architect of the universe, the one we meet in the Matrix 3...), while the Cathars are Christians, their Good engenders Jesus, after all.

Of course, Christian doctrine in general was heavily influenced by him, so one shouldn't be surprised.

To answer that, I'll post an "episode” on the origins of Catharism.

If God is 'merely' the 'Wellspring of Good', where does consciousness come into It?

God doesn’t get consciousness. God is total, infinite consciousness. All that is created possesses more or less consciousness. Angels are more conscious than humans are. Humans are better at mathematics than asparaguses.
See the Great Chain of Beings, in which the supernatural is not—in essence—different from the natural; it is only super-ior (above it), perching on some of the higher rungs in that cosmic ladder.

The idea of God as the Creator, but also as the helpless endurer of a Universe of Evil, is a strange contraction (to my materialist mind).

God as a helpless endurer of Evil resembles Captain Nemo looking through a porthole and watching a herring strike an attack at the Nautilus.

 

[Sephiroth]

Well, I wasn't saying that Catharism was Platonism, just that the abstract nature of their God brought to mind an ideal of Good, rather than a supreme being.

I get the all things are conscious bit, I feel something similar, to a degree (and it reminds me of Shintoism, and kami), but the extrapolation to the superior, the supernatural, I have difficulty with.

What I really have difficulty with is this: if God is 'perfection', why create imperfection? Why create, why not just exist, perfectly?




I look forward to your episode.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

Was Manichaeism a Satanic doctrine?

THE ORIGIN OF CATHARISM

​

Episode 1

​

Dualist? Did You Say Dualist?​

Rome's strongest accusation against the Cathars is that of being Manichaeist.

The historians think differently.

Was Manichaeism a Satanic doctrine?

Manichaeism is founded by Persian Mani in the third century. A religion of universalistic ambition, it develops an culture of aesthetic and an exemplary spiritualism. Very soon, Manichaeism competes with Zoroastrism, Buddhism, and the Christian Church of Rome. The Roman emperor forbids it. In 443, Pope Leo the Great defines "the Manichean folly" as "Satan's fortress".

All to the contrary, the new religion positions itself on the side of Light, whose antagonist, Darkness, is led by Satan, the one who swallowed Light into a world of matter. Here below, the Light is imprisoned within Evil since the creation of the world. And, since its creation—a cosmic catastrophe—this world is nothing but impure mélange.

Particle Filters and Lifts to Heaven

The Manichaeist religion aims at liberating the Light, giving it back to the kingdom of Heaven. This is done particle by particle, thanks to a filtering process and the Column of Glory. Light is present in every animated and non-animated thing, and must be liberated through patient filtering.

The Column of Glory is a kind of cosmic lift that propels the filtered particles of Light to the world of the Moon, then the world of the Sun, and finally up into the Kingdom of eternal Life. Mani's religion possesses a canon of scriptures and a structure of churches. The church, through asceticism, is part of the force that participates in liberating and projecting the moths of Light towards their celestial abode.

How happened that every heretic became Manichaeist

Manichaeism is the object of virulent attacks and a campaign launched by Rome tries, and succeeds, in discrediting the new religion. To the Acts of Archelaus published in 345, Augustine adds his "Against Faustus", around 400. These are two of the numerous summae of refutation.

Miraculously, the religion is "reduced", in the words of the historian Jean-Michel Dubois, "to a Christian heresy".

This is the origin of the caricature of Manichaeism as a simplistic system of opposition between legions of black and armies of white.

During the 11th century, the accusation of Manichaeism becomes the "quintessence of all heresies" (Madeleine Scopello). In 1018, Adémar de Chabanne denounces the peasants of Aquitaine "contemptors of the sacraments". In 1022, the scholars from Orleans are burnt at the stake. All are promoted Manichaeists and sorcerers for the occasion.

From A.D. 1000 on, the idea of the Great Combat triumphs with the Gregorian reform and the spirit of the crusades. The Roman orthodoxy denounces, along with the Saracens, the heretics, agents of Evil.


Was Rome's orthodoxy… Manichaeist?

As Georges Duby points out, all Christendom is Manichaeist at the turn of the first millennium. On one side is God, on the other, the Devil.

As Robert Moore says, we see the advent of the "society of persecution", where the monastic order of Cluny and, later on, Citeaux confronts the legions of the Devil, that old serpent and prince of Hell. It is an allegory of the combat between virtue and temptation in the heart of men, for eternal salvation or damnation.

The denunciation of heresy goes hand in hand with the growing importance of the Prince of Evil. In the 12th century, the heretics of Rhineland are accused of adoring the Devil under the form of a white cat, hence the popular term "Ketzer", in French "catier" or "chatiste", the adorer of the cat, a name that will be used to qualify the Cathars.

In fact, these diabolic heretics are communities of religious dissidents, like the Poor of Lyon, the Waldesians, all inspired by the will of reforming the Church, and whom the intransigence of Rome will transform into schismatic. Among the dissidents, a well-defined current is little by little identified with the movement of Catharism.

Differences in Dualism

The Roman orthodoxy accuses the Cathars of giving Evil too great a function in their cosmogony. And yet, the Christian culture sees the world as the field where the forces of God and the legions of Evil fight, the Devil being the prince of the material world, even the creator of the "things that are visible and corruptible".

But, in contrast with Manichaeism, Catharism emerges from within the Christian culture. The Cathar dualism is the result of research and analysis of the scriptures, although, it ultimately aims at clearing the divinity of all Evil, for he, the loving God announced by Jesus Christ, cannot know taint of death, corruption, suffering and violence.

To be continued

Illustration from a Mani book of prayers

Spread of Manichaeism

Adoration of the Dragon from the Christian Book of Revelation, or Apocalypse (Spain, c.a 800)

The Mani Wheel


​

 

[Sephiroth]

Fascinating, thank you. (You made us wait for this one!)

Interesting that Manichaeism did not in fact have Zoroastrian roots.

Of course, I know that Augustine was a Manichean in his youth, and that is thought partially to account for his zeal in suppressing the 'heresy' thereafter.


The Cathars were always doomed, I suppose, given that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches had little tolerance even for less different sects, such as the Arians or Nestorians.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

Thank you, Aluminous,

But are you saying that Arianism was less different than Catharism, compared with Roman orthodoxy?