Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Peter, Paul and Mary! pt7

Expand Messages
  • ErnstStrohregenmantelrad
    >>>Cathars came from Bogimils, as far as I know no one has ever disputed that (though I m sure some one could). Bogimils, it is generally thought,
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>Cathars came from Bogimils, as far as
      I know no one has ever disputed that (though I'm
      sure some one could). Bogimils, it is generally
      thought, either came from the Paulicians or the
      Manicheans. More sholors believe it was the Paulicians,
      however it is also generally accepted that the Paulicians
      themselves where heavily influenced by the
      Manicheans.<<<<br><br>I am sorry to say that this paragraph is full of
      speculations and wrong information. It is true that Bogomilism
      is the bases for what is commonly termed as the
      Cather. There are several indication this. (See, "The
      Cathers: Medieval Gnostics?" by van den Broek in _Gnosis
      and Hermeticism_, p.87-108) In the article by van den
      Boek, he indicates that the Cathar ritual of
      _consolamentum_ can be traced from Messalians. Bogomils are said
      by Byzantine heresiologists as the mixture of
      Paulicians and Messalians (p.99). The thing about Paulicians
      are that many scholars (wrongly) considered them to
      be the dualists thus derived from Manichaeism. This
      is also the labling of Byzantine heresiologists as
      calling (wrongly) Paulicians = Manichaeans. In the book,
      _Paulician Heresy_ by Nina Garso�an, the author speaks of
      the ignorence of Armenian Paulician materials by
      scholars. The conclusion that Paulicians are dualists comes
      from only the Byzantine polemical material totally
      ignoring the Armenian polemical material and the most
      importantly the sole Paulician document, _The Key of Truth_.
      Basing upon all documents Garso�an came to conclusion
      that Paulicians are Adoptionalists (or originally to
      be so) that docetic-dualists tendency didn't
      manifested in Paulicians till later and ONLY in Byzantian
      lands (not in Armenia). This docetic-dualists tendency
      *might* been brought in by external influence of Gnostic
      sects or Marcionites but it is better to base it on the
      internal development based upon the extreme form of
      Iconoclasm (Paulicians were Iconoclast as well) which
      thought anything physical was of evil. Garso�an goes on
      to states that Paulician origin and its
      Adoptionalism are from Syrian church and state in
      conclusion:<br><br>"Interesting though the docetic-dualistic form of Paulicianism
      may be, particularly as a possible explnation of the
      double doctrinal tradition long observed in the Bogomil
      church of Balkans, it is both a late development and a
      profound mutation of the original Paulician dogma. The
      basic doctrine was clearly Adoptionist and exhibited no
      docetism or dualism. For this reason true Paulicianism
      CANNOT IN ANY REAL SENSE BE CONSIDERED AS THE PURVEYOR
      OF MANICHEAN BELIEF TO THE MEDIEVAL WORLD. (emphasis
      mine) Nor does it seem to be the link between the
      dualist heresies of late antiquity and those of western
      Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries."
      (p.233).<br><br>The problem is that you seems to think these groups
      whether Paulicians, Marcionites, Manichaeism as
      monlithic, static entities. One must remember that there are
      variations based upon geography (East amd West) and
      chronology and these variations can be vasttly different
      from each other.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.