One God or Two?

The Cathars are believed to be Christian dualists who threatened the stability of the

Catholic Church until their extermination following the Albigensian Crusade and the subsequent

Inquisition. Church officials found Catharism, not only within southern France but also within

Italy. What is the connection between the French and Italian Cathars? Were these groups linked

or was the connection between them a fabrication of Church officials?

Arguing about possible links between French and Italian Cathars based on similar beliefs

or use of similar texts fails to address the background of the communities themselves. Looking at

the origins of these heresies in the West may provide proof of a possible link. According to

Malcolm Barber, the testimony of the French peasant Leutard is the “first sign of dualist belief in

the West.”1 Leutard had a dream one night about a swarm of bees attacking his groin and

entering his body. The dream motivated him to go to church the next day, break the Cross and

leave his wife. Sean Martin also relates the story of Leutard while also providing two other

possible proofs of dualist belief. In his disposition from 991, Pope Sylvester II claimed to

“believe in a spirit less than God that was chosen to be evil.”2 The third possible proof of dualism

was Vilgard, a scholar from Ravenna who saw demons and whose teaching spread throughout

Italy. Each of these instances shows that heretical belief was known to the West before the

Bogomils and Cathars became a problem for the Church.

The first mention of Cathars is in a letter to Bernard of Clairvaux. Two heretical groups

had been discovered, that denied the sacraments and the clergy’s ability to deliver them because

the clergy were impure. As Martin notes, it is important to understand that these groups were not

just involved with the anticlericalism that already existed in the twelfth century and earlier, but

1 Barber, Malcolm. The Cathars. Harlow, England New York: Pearson Education, 2000. 282 Martin, Sean. The Cathars. Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books, 2006. 42

Hoss 2

were directly opposing the Catholic Church.3 More about these groups were recorded in

Eckbert’s Sermones contra Catharos. Eckbert claimed that the heretics were called Cathars

because the Greek word for pure was Katharos. This designation of the Cathars as the pure ones

in contrast to the impurity of the Catholic Church inadvertently supported the heretical claims.4

William of Pularuens blamed “the spread of Catharism upon the count of Toulouse”

while Count William felt that “the task of combatting heresy fell first and foremost upon the

clergy, and in particularly upon the episcopate.”5 This conflict helps explain why the nobility

were so lax about heresy within the Languedoc. Martin provides a related reason, when heretics

were brought before a group of clergymen, the heretics were condemned to be burnt. Martin

writes that with “anticlericalism running at an all-time high in the Languedoc, there were no

doubt many people at Lombers that day who, while not necessarily supporting the Cathars in

their beliefs, were unwilling to see them burnt. Such apparent toleration of heresy did not go

unnoticed.”6 The clergy showed zeal in attempting to eliminate heresy that was not matched by

the laypeople, which was seen as a sign of heresy in and of itself. The failure of the lords to

suppress the heresy within the Languedoc was the reason given for the Albigensian Crusade.

No southern ruler was safe from heresy. Pedro II of Aragon “had never been associated

with heretics before the Albigensian Crusade; indeed, in 1204, he was crowned by Innocent III.”7

Regardless, Pedro was considered a heretic because the king had heretics serving under him and

he failed to deal with them to the satisfaction of the clergy. His sister’s marriage to Raimond VI

of Toulouse, who had also been accused of heresy, likely did not help the king’s standing.

A source of disagreement among the scholars reviewed is the existence of a link between

3 Ibid. 474 Ibid. 515 Barber 586 Martin 617 Barber 53

Hoss 3

the Bogomils and the Cathar communities of France and Italy. The Bogomils were a Gnostic

Christian group from the Byzantine Empire. The Bogomils’ dualism, their belief in two opposing

gods, is the reason that the Bogomils were considered heretical by the Church. A Bogomil

connection is suggested by several historians because texts such as the Vision of Isaiah, the Book

of John the Evangelist and the similarities between the Bogomil Ritual and the Cathar

Consolamentum. This hypothesis is supported by the Council of St. Felix, a Cathar gathering

where a Bogomil priest converted the assembled Cathars from their previous moderate dualist

belief to absolute dualism. However, disagreement exists over the authenticity of the records.

Many historians have researched the Cathars, using many different approaches and a full

listing of the methods used or the specific assertions of even the five authors mentioned within

this paper goes beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, each author has been examined to

determine his or her views on the dualist nature of the Cathars, a potential link to Bogomilism

and whether a link between the French and Italian Cathars existed.

Malcolm Barber, Malcolm Lambert and Bernard Hamilton all accept the existence of a

council at St. Felix-de-Caraman. They accept Guillaume Besse’s records of a Bogomil priest,

papa Nicetas, arriving at St. Felix with a group of Italian Cathars. Nicetas proceeded to tell the

assembled believers that the order they had been consecrated in was false and those assembled

were consecrated within the ordo Drugunthia.

St. Felix is considered important by Barber, Lambert and Hamilton because those

assembled were originally consecrated within the ordo Bulgarie. Nicetas; however, consecrated

those assembled in the ordo Drugunthia. Bulgarie and Drugunthia are the names of two different

dualist churches. The difference between the two being that Bulgarie followed moderate dualism

while Drugunthia followed absolute dualism.8 The fact that a Bogomil preacher was the person

8 Absolute dualism refers to a cosmic order accepting two gods, one good and one evil, with no other force or form

Hoss 4

who performed the consecration is considered proof by Barber, Lambert and Hamilton that a link

existed between the Bogomils and the Cathars. Accepting St. Felix, the connection between the

two groups likely existed earlier because Nicetas had knowledge of the man who performed the

original ceremony and it seems unlikely that those assembled at St. Felix would accept a

Bogomil preacher’s word or his consecration without some sort of previous background. Despite

believing that St. Felix occurred, Hamilton acknowledges that ordo Bulgariae known to have

existed but that the only record of ordo Drugunthia is St. Felix.9

Carol Lansing focuses on Catharism in Italy. St. Felix-de-Caraman does not play a role in

Lansing’s work because St. Felix is not the foundation of her research. Rejecting St. Felix draws

into question the effect of Bogomilism on the Cathars, but the effect of Bogomilism on the

Cathars is dualism. The Italian Cathars, despite being prone to schisms, are not doubted to have

been dualist by the authors researched.

Mark Pegg argues that the term ‘Cathar’ should not be used because the term was

invented by the Church rather than used by any community.10 Instead, the community in the

Languedoc was composed of good men and women, who were Christian, not dualist. Pegg

specifically mentions the term Cathar; however, when discussing Italy.11 Pegg also believes that

there is no record of Bogomilism in France and the records from St. Felix are a forgery. The

claim that St. Felix did not occur answers the question of a France-Italy link.

existing before them. Moderate dualism refers to a cosmic order accepting one good god and one evil god, but believing that the one of the gods came from the other.9 [Ordo Bulgarie] presents no problem: it is obviously identical with the moderate dualist movement founded in Bulgaria by Pop Bogomil. [Ordo Drugunthiae] is more difficult to establish. It is mentioned in no Byzantine Greek or Old Slavonic sources but is recorded solely by Western writers. Hamilton, Bernard. Monastic Reform, Catharism, and the Crusades, (900-1300). London: Variorum Reprints, 1979. VII. 11510 Agreeing with Pegg on the nomenclature, the term Cathar will only be used in future points in reference to the religious communities of Italy or when it is used by the primary sources or historians cited.11 In this schema it was logical that the heretics of Milan or Verona were connected (and always had been) to the heretics of Toulouse or Carcassonne. Although these heretics were relentlessly sectarian, always fomenting schisms amongst themselves, they had a cogent identity as “Cathars. Pegg, Mark, “On Cathars, Albigenses, and good men of Languedoc,” Journal of Medieval History, 27 (2001) 181–195 accessed: 10 February 2013 doi: 10.1016/S0304-4181(01)00008-2

Hoss 5

Pegg argues against the traditional view of heresy, claiming that Biller and others

misunderstand those accused of heresy and simplify the true nature of the situation. Pegg writes

“what supposedly makes a heresy or religion, and so what makes someone heretical or religious,

is solely defined by doctrines, philosophies, and ideals. Scriptural consistency and theological

cogency are what makes heresies or religions, not poorly articulated thoughts or anomalous

habits.” Pegg continues, claiming that by removing the background of the beliefs in accused of

heresy, Peter Biller, and by extension Hamilton, Barber and Lambert, are distilling the accused’s

beliefs and claiming that similarities to an unrelated group must mean relation. But Pegg argues

that similarity means little and connections can be seen anywhere.

Barber, Lambert and Hamilton all published their works before Pegg. As such, while

these historians serve as a counterpoint to Pegg, their views on Pegg are not known. Zdenko

Zlatar challenges Pegg’s claims in his article.12 Zlatar brings up the testimony of Guilhelm

Garcias, who claimed his cousin Piere believed that there were “two gods, one good and one

bad” and that “the law of Moses was nothing but shadow and vanity; and the god who gave that

law was a bastard.”13 Pegg believes that, since the testimony of Piere’s words was so lucid, the

confession was the “creation of four heresiologically learned mendicants trying to make sense of

what they thought a credens had actually said, or, rather, what a heretic should have said.”14

Zlatar also calls attention to Piere’s reinterpretation of Colossians, that the true

interpretation of the line “in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible

and invisible” is “visible to the heart, and invisible to the eyes of the flesh.”15 16 While this line

12 Zlatar, Zdenko. “What’s in a Name? A Critical Examination of Published and Website Sources on the Dualism of the Cathars in Languedoc,” Journal of Religious History. Vol. 35, No. 4, (2011), accessed March 12, 2013, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9809.2011.01142.x13 Pegg, Corruption of Angels 5314 Ibid. 5615 Colossians 1:16 King James Version16 Pegg, Corruption of Angels 53

Hoss 6

can be interpreted to support a dualistic world view, Piere’s interpretation can just as easily be an

expression of faith, (that one does not need physical proof of God’s existence but that feeling the

Holy Spirit is proof enough). I agree with Pegg’s claim Piere was interpreted by his cousin and

the eavesdropping friars as being dualist because that conclusion supported their goals.

Confirmation bias explains why those men may have believed Piere to be dualist.

Pegg argued against the view that the good men were dualists based on inquisitorial

records. It is along this vein that this paper will follow, seeking to disprove the link between the

good men and the Italian dualists based on a careful reading of the religious texts used and the

beliefs espoused. The sources used in this paper are translations of religious debates and clerical

letters provided by Walter Wakefield and Austin Evans that concern the good men and the

Cathars. Wakefield and Evans also provide translations of religious texts that are believed to be

used by these groups.

In addition to these sources, Mark Pegg’s translations of Manuscript 609 will be used

regarding the 1245-46 inquisition of the good men. MS 609 is the collection of the remaining

fragments of a reproduction of the original records. The Manuscript was copied from the original

after the conclusion of the investigation but “no later than August 1263”.17 The confessions were

heard in the vernacular of the region, a variant of Occitan, and “instantaneously translated from

the vernacular into Latin.”18 The instantaneous transcription is an issue because the scribes did

not translate word for word. Instead they used “a style of rapid writing whereby the scribe

quickly selected, abstracted, and translated from the testimony those words and phrases he

thought essential.”19 A question arises at this point, what can be considered essential? Therefore,

the records had three sources of bias or error: the questions asked by the inquisitors may have

17 Ibid. 2018 Ibid. 5719 Ibid. 57

Hoss 7

been too focused, those questioned may have lied or hidden information for fear of punishment

or to protect those being looked for (as some did), and the scribes may not have accurately

recorded what was told. The scribes may not have accurately recorded because of the language

barriers, translating from Occitan to Latin instantly. More importantly, “the church was keen to

paint heretics of all denominations in the blackest possible colours, in doing so they frequently

resorted to cliché and outright fabrication.”20 This desire to see heresy was reflected in the

Inquisition itself.

Carol Lansing’s translation of Italian sources will provide a counterpoint for Pegg’s

translation. In choosing her sources, Lansing “sought to avoid reliance on the systematizations of

Cathar doctrine written by inquisitors […] with their emphasis on organized Cathar churches and

the theological differences among them” because she feels those differences “may have been of

more concern to Catholic scholars than they were to many Cathar believers.”21 The earliest

testimony Lansing provides is a translation of a statement made by two former Cathars before

pope Gregory IX.22

The first method to determine a possible link between the Bogomils, the good men and

the Cathars is through records of each group’s beliefs. One record provided by Wakefield and

Evans is the debate between the bons omes and Catholics in 1165. The Bishop of Lodève asked

the good men whether they accepted the Bible or the sacraments. Those assembled answered that

they only accepted the “Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, the seven canonical Epistles, and Acts of

the Apostles, and the Apocalypse.”23 On the other questions, they provided partial information

20 Martin 5221 Lansing, Carol. Power and Purity: Cathar Heresy in Medieval Italy. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. 8222 Ibid. 8623 Bouquet, Martin, et al., Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France. Paris, 1904, XIV, 431-34. qtd in. Wakefield, Walter L., and Austin P. Evans. Heresies of the High Middle Ages. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. 190

Hoss 8

and refused to elaborate. The fact that the good men believed the New Testament demonstrates

why they believed themselves to be Christians. Their insistence on not divulging more about

their faith is based on Jesus’s warning to “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in

sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”24 They explained more to the Bishop

on threat of excommunication. The theology explained at Lombers does not differ from the

orthodoxy and the reason the good men were declared heretics was because of their “wrong

opinions in the matter of oath-taking.”25

The next source examined is a section of a manifesto that was originally thought to be

written by Ermengaud of Béziers, “[h]owever, because of the author’s concluding remarks on the

need to use force against the heretics,” Wakefield and Evans suggest an earlier author more

chronologically close to the Albigensian Crusade. 26 The manifesto claims that Albigenses

believed that world is “wholly seated in wickedness” and that two gods exist, one good and one

evil.27 The evil god created bodies and spirits but the good god took the spirit from the evil one.

Despite that, Mary and Jesus were pure because they were “not of this world.”28

The manifesto makes numerous claims to the existence “secret meetings” held by heretic

elders but gives no explanation of how the author learned about these meetings.29 It is impossible

to tell from the text if the author learned about these meetings from a former heretic or if the

author simply fabricated their existence. The author apparently contradicts himself writing that

the heretics claimed biblical justification for arguing both for and against marriage.

This manifesto is not completely reliable as a source because of the concluding remarks.

24 Matthew 7:15, KJV25 “Durand de Huesca et la Polémique anti-cathare” Archivum fratrum praedicatorum, XX1X (1959), 268-271. qtd in. Wakefield and Evans 23126 Ibid. 23027 Ibid. 23128 Ibid. 23129 Ibid. 231

Hoss 9

The unknown cleric called for a use of force against the heretics. The mention of Waldensians

both in the manifesto and Pegg demonstrates that the Church was actively looking for heretics.

This shows a mindset more concerned with both heresy and cementing of Church authority and

therefore one that is more likely to conflate a religious community with heresy. If the unknown

author’s claims were supported by others then the source would be more credible, but the claims

lack backing.

The beliefs of the good men closely match those of the Bogomils, but not perfectly. Both

the Bogomils and the good men accepted the New Testament, but the Bogomils also accepted the

Psalms. This is a minor deviation, considering the Psalms do not say much specific to one

religion and can be used to show a non-denominational relationship with God. That the good

men did not read the Psalms, while the Bogomils did, shows another difference between the two

groups. Hamilton and others might argue that the Bogomils influenced the good men but they

then decided to reject the Psalms, but given the nonspecific spirituality of the Psalms, that the

good men would reject the Psalms with both Catholics and Bogomils reading them shows an

independence that previous historians did not into account.

The good men held different views on marriage than the Bogomils. The Bogomils did not

believe in marriage while the good men claimed that marriage was meant to prevent fornication.

But marriage itself did not seem to be bad, according to the good men. Good women stopped

being pure once they became of marriageable age but they could then become pure again once

they went beyond childbearing age. This view shows that marriage was not an impediment to

holiness. The good men treat marriage as a necessary evil, much like the Catholic Church, which

goes against the Bogomil belief.

Further, the debate makes no mention of dualism. It seems likely that if the good men

Hoss 10

were arguing against a Catholic bishop and were dualist, that they would confront the bishop

with their beliefs. It could be argued that the good men’s reluctance to explain more about their

beliefs is proof that they were hiding dualism but it is just as possible that they felt the bishop to

be unholy or annoying and did not want to talk to him. Without a source from amongst the good

men, it is impossible to determine what was meant.

Zlatar notes that, within the inquisition records, “many sources do not actually state the

belief in two gods, the belief in God not being the architect of the universe is very widespread.”

This widespread belief is understandable, considering that the good men rejected the Old

Testament and needed some force to create the universe. Considering the devil the universe’s

creator is not the only belief within dualism. Except for Piere Garcias’s “confession” nothing is

known about the supposed dualist philosophy. An entire cosmology and theology needs to be

explained but all that is presented in the Garcias testimony is a second-hand discussion.

The question of the good men’s dualism is important because of what their dualism is

believed to represent. Barber, Malcolm and Hamilton all believe in the good men’s dualism in

relation to the connection to the Council of St. Felix and the Bogomils. By showing that the

evidence does not support dualism in the Languedoc, the Council is brought into question.

Italians are believed to have attended along with pap Nicetas. Therefore, arguing against the

good men as dualists argues against a link between Italy and France.

While Pegg specifically dismisses the possibility of any international link with regard to

the good men, I do not feel that his rejection suffices in terms of this paper.30 His rejection is

based on an inquisition that had a flaw in execution. The two inquisitors summoned the villagers

30 “No international heretical organization was discovered by the two [inquisitors], nor, no matter how many times Manuscript 609 is read, will a 'Cathar Church' be found by modern historians—on the contrary, an intimate, intensely local and deliberately unadorned way of living with the holy will be discerned." Pegg, Corruption of Angels 130

Hoss 11

through their parish priests and the good men and good women had their own facilities.31 The

vast majority of those interrogated were ordinary Catholics. A portion of those questioned were

credens, people who sympathized with or believed in the holiness of the good men but were not

members of good men’s community. No bon ome was questioned.

Sean Martin writes that the “Cathars were dived into three classes: Listeners, Believers

and Perfect.”32 The Believers were bound to the “Cathar church” but “were generally not

exposed to dualist doctrine, which was nearly always reserved for the ears of the Perfect alone.”33

Martin’s explanation for the lack of dualism found by the inquisitors would be that the Perfects

were not questioned and they alone were exposed to dualism. But this claim can be reversed; that

only the Perfects were exposed to the full cosmology of the good men and people such as Peire

Garcias created their own cosmologies that differed from the community based on the

incomplete information they had been given.

The final source to look at with regards to a Bogomil connection is the Council of St-

Felix de Caraman. The records of the council are the work of Guillaume Besse. Besse is

considered a forger by some historians because his sources were never found. At the Council,

Nicetas was carried into the room by some of the Italians he travelled with. Why was Nicetas

being carried? It cannot have been because of his age because, despite his age, Nicetas was able

to travel from Constantinople to Lombardy and then to Toulouse. It could have been a symbol of

respect, but even the pope is not carried by Catholics. Nicetas being carried seems to be an

invention of a clergyman attempting to paint a religious community as worse than it was and

manufacture heresy. Nicetas proceeded to console those assembled into the ordo Drugunthia and

absolute dualism. However, no other records of an ordo Drugunthia exist besides Besse’s

31 Called a domus hereticorum within the inquisition records.32 Martin 5333 Ibid. 54

Hoss 12

records. The lack of collaborating sources and the strangeness surrounding Nicetas’s arrival

makes the Council’s existence unlikely.

The main source of the Cathar beliefs is the statement made by Bonacursus, a former

Cathar who converted to Catholicism. Bonacursus is interesting as a source because he is a

former Cathar and therefore had experience with their beliefs. At the same time, Bonacursus is

attempting to lay out the Cathar beliefs in order to refute them. Further, Wakefield and Evans

acknowledge that “other materials were soon added, probably by other hands”34 These two points

raise the question of statement accuracy and whether it can be used as evidence. It is impossible

to know how much of the statement is Bonacursus’s original work and how much of it is a latter

addition by other theologians.

Bonacursus details how the heretics believe “all things that have been made-in the air, in

the sea, and on the earth, such as men and animate and inanimate things-were made by the

devil.”35 Most significantly, they “do not think the Son equal to the Father” and “the Cross is the

sign of the beast”36 Bonacursus expands on Cathar beliefs; they do not believe in baptism or

communion and that eating meat is a sin.

As mentioned by both Hamilton and Lansing, and corroborated by Wakefield and Evans,

the heretics in Italy were prone to schism. The beliefs mentioned are those from Bonacursus’s

own sect and likely do not reflect every sect within Italy. As noted within Wakefield and Evans’s

“Catalogue of Heretical Tenets”, the Cathars examined also believed that confession was

unnecessary, original sin does not exist, Hell does not exist, that priests should not be in charge

of the lay people and that the Church should not have money or lands, among others.37 Not only

were the heretics challenging Church theology with their disbelief in hell and original sin; they 34 Migne, Jacques-Paul, Patrologia latina, CCIV, 775-77. qtd. in Wakefield and Evans. 17035 Ibid. 17236 Ibid. 17237 Wakefield and Evans 358-361.

Hoss 13

are directly challenging the Church’s authority and wealth.

The claim that original sin and hell do not exist is a direct challenge to Christian

theology. The line about Jesus being less than God is based on John 14:28.38 The usage of the

Bible to justify their unorthodox beliefs shows that, despite the changes, the Cathars still have

some link to Christianity. At the same time, the prohibition against eating meat is based on the

view that the flesh is created by the Devil and consuming it would make a person sinful. Dualism

mixes with Christianity, to create what Mark Pegg a “cogent identity” that can be considered

Cathar.

Despite the similarities between the French and Italian groups, significant differences

exist between the two communities. Both the good men and the Cathars accepted the New

Testament. Both groups held views that can be considered anti-sacramental and anti-clerical,

though the exact nature of these views cannot be determined because it is impossible to tell how

much of the criticism stems from a genuine anti-sacramental and anti-clerical beliefs and how

much stems from a dislike of the Church. The Cathars’ view of hell is perhaps the one easiest to

compare to the good men’s view. The only mention of Hell within MS 609 is Piere Garcias’s

claim that “Christ led no one out of Hell.”39 Garcias’s claims seem to go against the faith

described during the debate in 1165, where the good men claimed that Christ “descended into

Hell.”40 As mentioned before, the beliefs espoused by the good men did not seem radical and it

was only after the declaration of heresy that author of the anonymous manifesto and Peter de

Vaux-de-Cernay wrote on the good men.

The other avenue to determine a possible link between the Bogomils, good men and

38 Ye have heard how I said unto you, ‘I go away and come again unto you.’ If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice because I said, ‘I go unto the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I. John 14:28 KJV39 Pegg, Corruption of Angels 5540 Bouquet, Martin, et al. Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France. Paris, 1904, XIV, 431-34. qtd in. Wakefield, Walter L., and Austin P. Evans. Heresies of the High Middle Ages. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. 193.

Hoss 14

Cathars is to look at the rituals and texts that historians use to link the groups. The Vision is an

apocryphal work written in late 1st century work written by an unknown Christian or Christians.41

The Vision recounts Isaiah’s journey through Heaven, Isaiah seeing God and then seeing Jesus’s

death, his journey through Hell and then his ascension to Heaven. Hamilton, Barber and

Malcolm all agree that this Vision supported dualism; however, Anne Bradford Townsend

disagrees. Townsend writes that the Vision shows that “the journey to heaven is the path to

salvation and there is a place for the righteous in the seventh heaven. This practice was a part in

Judaic tradition and was passed on to early Christianity.”42 For Townsend, the use of the Vision

shows the influence of Judaism on the good men. She writes that “[w]hen the Vision is viewed as

ascension literature; the Cathars must be seen as holders of an early Christian tradition of ascent

that had its roots in Judaism.”43 The view that the good men were holders of “early Christian

tradition” is one this paper cannot begin to argue but Townsend does offer a way of interpreting

the Isaiah explains the use of the work without relying on dualism.

The Secret Supper or the Book of John the Evangelist is another Bogomil text believed to

be adapted by the good men. It details the moment when Satan “took clay of the earth and made

man like unto himself” and later took “the form of the serpent [and] stated his lust on [Eve].”44

The works appears to be dualist; however, it cannot be linked to the good men. The translation

claims to be “the Secret of the heretics of Concorrezzo, brought from Bulgaria.”45 A copy of the

book was previously located in France, but in the possession of the Inquisition. That inquisitors

held the copy does not mean that the good men used The Secret Supper. Inquisitors may have

held the heretical work in order to refute it or may have brought it from elsewhere. Historians

41 Wakefield and Evans 44742 Townsend 15743 Ibid. 16044 Reitzenstein, Richard, Die Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe, Leipzig and Berlin: Verlag Und Drunk Von B. G. Teubner, 1929 297-311. qtd in. Wakefield and Evans 46045 Ibid. 465

Hoss 15

could claim usage of The Secret Supper because it is a dualist work written by Bogomils that was

transferred to France. Malcolm Barber uses three sources outside the Church to comment on The

Secret Supper. He quotes “mid- and late-thirteenth-century Italians, Rainier Sacconi, Moneta of

Cremona, and Anselm of Alessandria.”46 As said before, the Italians were not doubted to be

dualist but these men cannot be used as proof of dualism in France. Likewise, the Book of Two

Principles must also be looked at in this way.

The consolamentum is another supposed link between the Bogomils, the good men and

the Cathars. The consolamentum was a baptism performed by the perfects that served as the

dividing line between the credens and the bons omes. It would be administered to a creden who

had been “properly instructed” and undergone “three fasts, each lasting forty days.”47 After the

administering of the consolamentum, the creden would become a bon ome. The consolamentum

could also be administered at the deathbed of a creden to ensure that he went to Heaven.

Despite the supposedly dualist nature of the good men, no mention of dualism can be

found in the ritual. It mentions adoring “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and “the law

given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”48 This points to the ritual being a variant

of Christian baptism rather than one received from eastern dualists. Hamilton feels that despite

the consolamentum not being “the work of a medieval dualist sect” the “Bogomils and the

Cathars may have emended this liturgy by omitting certain rites which did not accord with their

teachings.”49 Hamilton’s provides no background or support for this argument, still attempting to

link the two groups without providing plausible reasons for contradictions. He does attempt to

link the ritual to the Paulicians before discarding the Paulicians as a possible method of

46 Barber 8547 Pegg 10248 Clédat, Léon. Le Nouveau Testament traduit au XIIIe siècle en langue provençale, suivi d’un rituel cathare. Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1968. qtd in. Wakefield and Evans483 – 484.49 Hamilton VII 118

Hoss 16

transmission. Regardless of how Hamilton believes the ritual entered the good men’s theology,

he does admit that it is not the work of a dualist sect.

Mentions of the consolamentum or Isaiah are not found within either Lasing’s or

Wakefield and Evans’s translations of Cathar beliefs. The lack of Consolamentum references is

is likely because the Cathars rejected baptism by water, which is the type prescribed within the

consolamentum. The fact that parts of the ritual would need ignored suggests that if there was a

version of the consolamentum used in Italy, it would be quite different than the one performed in

France. The lack of references to Isaiah, despite the supposedly dualist nature of the work, poses

a problem to the possible link between France and Italy. Townsend would likely argue that these

omissions are because Isaiah is not used by the Church the Italians were not surrounded by a

community that has ascension literature. Regardless of the reason, the lack of Isaiah and the

differences in opinion on baptism shows that the Cathars and the good men were not linked.

The existence of a link between France and Italy is easy to judge. No link exists between

the Bogomils and the good men. The only record that details such a link was the work of a

forger. The differing beliefs of the Bogomils and the good men would require that the good men

ignore entire portions of Bogomil texts to reconcile them with the good men’s ideology. It is

possible that good men ignored Bogomil doctrine when it didn’t fit their ideology, but if the

ideologies were so incompatible, why accept the flawed texts? Why accept the Bogomils?

Based on the different views on Hell, baptism and marriage, the good men and the

Cathars held different beliefs. The lack of mentions of the Vision of Isaiah and a baptism similar

to the consolamentum further demonstrates that no link exists between the good men and

Cathars. Given the medieval church’s habit of conflating multiple heresies together, it seems

likely that the link between the good men and Cathars was church invention and did not exist.

Hoss 17

Hoss 18

Works Cited

Barber, Malcolm. The Cathars. Harlow, England New York: Pearson Education, 2000.

Hamilton, Bernard. Monastic Reform, Catharism, and the Crusades, (900-1300. London:

Variorum Reprints, 1979.

Lambert, Malcolm. The Cathars. Oxford. UK Malden, Mass., USA: Blackwell Publishers, 1998.

Lansing, Carol. Power and Purity: Cathar Heresy in Medieval Italy. New York Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2001.

Martin, Sean. The Cathars: The Most Successful Heresy of the Middle Ages. Edison, NJ:

Chartwell Books, 2006.

Pegg, Mark G. The Corruption of Angels: the Great Inquisition of 1245-1246. Princeton N.J:

Princeton University Press, 2001.

Pegg, Mark, “On Cathars, Albigenses, and good men of Languedoc,” Journal of Medieval

History 27 (2001) 181–195 accessed: 10 February 2013 doi: 10.1016/S0304-

4181(01)00008-2

Townsend, Anne Bradford. “The Cathars of Languedoc as Heretics: From the Perspectives of

Five Contemporary Scholars” (PhD diss., Union Institute and University, 2007).