The Albigensians/Cathars

The Albigensians were a medieval religious sect that broke away from Catholicism. Their beliefs were an awkward merger between Satanic Manichaeism and Catholic Christianity. While they worshiped Jehovah and Christ on paper, they were also dualists like the Manicheans. In that regard, they believed in two gods. One was the incarnation of good, while the other was the incarnation of evil. Already, the dualistic heresy qualified them as heretics with a religion incompatible with Christianity. A fundamental Christian belief is that Jehovah God is the only god, and there are no other gods besides Him. To say that another evil god exists with equal power and authority is a blatant perversion of the Bible. 

To make matters worse, they also believed the good god was purely spiritual and the evil god was fleshly. That error had serious ramifications regarding Christ’s incarnation. They acknowledged Jesus as the good god’s Son but rejected His humanity. To the Albigensians, the good god is spiritual and forsakes all worldly pleasures and fleshly bodies. As a result, they lived very modest lives, trying to forsake all luxury. But Christianity does not believe creation is of itself wicked. It became tainted through sin, but it is good in itself. God declared all creation good in Genesis after He made it. However, that was not what the Albigensians believed. To them, the creation was evil in and of itself. Not only is that contrary to what God Himself stated in Genesis, but it affected their perception of Jesus. Christ needed to take on a human body to act as a proper mediator between God and man. Salvation depended on a man keeping God’s law perfectly, dying unjustly, and paying the price for all sins. But the Albigensians had a misconstrued understanding of all men being “born into sin.” As already stated, to them, that made all creation sinful, not because of their actions, but sinful in essence. Human bodies are sinful in nature in that they inherently lean towards sinning, but they are not sinful in essence. With the misunderstanding that creation has a sinful essence, the Albigensians subscribed to the heretical belief that Jesus did not incarnate into a man because He was a perfect deity. Since the body itself was sinful, Jesus would have sinned by taking on a human body. But He could not have interceded to pay for the remission of sins if He had not become a man. The entire Albigensian philosophy is full of hypocritical inconsistencies. 

The final ramification of accepting the inherent wickedness of material creation was that they rejected the sacraments, which were material signs and seals of God’s invisible grace. For example, the Eucharist had physical wine and bread. Since the wine and bread were themselves evil, it was wrong for the Albigensians, who longed to separate themselves from the material world, to eat it. The same was true of every other sacrament. Properly signifying an invisible and immaterial grace was impossible with the inherently wicked, material, and worldly elements, according to the Albigensians. 

In conclusion, the Albigensians were a dualistic religion that broke away from the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. They avoided everything material, calling it inherently sinful. The entire religion was heretical and not Christian, but they grew in popularity because of their pious lives. They appeared to live more biblically contrasted with the bishops who basked in luxury. Saint Dominic attempted to convert the Albigensians. The measure of his success is disputed. Eventually, Pope Innocent Ⅲ called Philip Augustus on a crusade against the Albigensians to convert them through military force. Thus, the Albigensians dissolved following the Albigensian Crusade.


8 thoughts on “The Albigensians/Cathars

  1. It will never not be weird to me how some people claim to believe in Jehovah, yet also believe in other gods/deities, despite monotheism and God’s omnipotence being staples of Christianity.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yep. I think part of the problem comes from a misunderstanding of the Trinity. For people who interpret the members of the Trinity as independent (i.e., as three gods, as opposed to three “Godheads” in one God), it can become easy for them to embrace the existence as other deities. With a faulty misunderstanding of the Trinity, Christians wind up embracing polytheism. That is why my pastor says heretical errors compound. One major error always leads to many unfolding errors.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah, that makes sense. In their defense, the Trinity is a difficult concept to wrap your head around 😂

        Like

  2. I do not think it would be accurate to say about the Cathars that “they believed in two gods’. Rather that they recognized, and logically explained, that the world has two origins, or principles. However, they never worshipped the evil principle as god.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank you for the response!

        There is not much left of authentic Cathar theological texts for the obvious reason, but there is one we have. It’s called “The book of the Two principles”, and in brief, it states that indeed the world is born of two principles, which are ontologically different. However, they never worshipped evil principle as some sort of a deity. Their main prayer was called “Pater noster” and it appeared to the God-Father.

        They just used Aristotle’s logic and inferred that since the God is utterly good, there is no possibility how the evil principle have originated from God. Rest is just development of this understanding.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. That makes sense. In that case, the Cathars and I share the opinion that evil was not an invention of God.

        Where we disagree is that evil is somehow a sentient principle. Since God is omnipotent, He defines natural law and the standards for good and evil. God then calls all creation to act in a good manner. Since God defines what is good, and He calls us to do what is good, it logically follows that goodness is defined as following God’s will. Evil is nothing more than doing what is contrary to God’s will, i.e., rebelling.

        Even though I personally disagree with them on that point, I do understand what they’re saying.

        Like

      3. The point here is that the principle of God’s omnipotence and the origin of evil. Even if evil is defined as “absence of going good”, there is no explanation of the origins of these desires to nod to good. Unless one accepts the premise that God from the very beginning created a flawed creature with a proclivity for wrong doing. Even if one accepts the concept of free will, there is still no explanation on where the evil desires, which the creation willingly follows, come from.

        There is another major problem, which is that if one accepts that God possesses universal knowledge and their is nothing out of God’s control, then it’s not possible to do evil without God, or aside from God. Because if something can be without God or aside from God, then God isn’t pantocrator.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Asher Sisneros Cancel reply