#Albigenses

[geohistoarte]

Cátaros

[brucedinsman]

Fox's Book of Martyrs

https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/foxs-book-of-martyrs/ Edited by William Byron Forbush This is a book that will never die — one of the great English classics. . . . Reprinted here in its most complete form, it brings to life the days when “a noble army, men and boys, the matron and the maid,” “climbed the steep ascent of heaven, ‘mid peril, toil, and pain.” “After the Bible itself, no…

[dailyanarchistposts]

Pacifism

Thou shalt not kill was a religious command, and pacifism began as a religious or quasi-religious doctrine. The condemnation of individual retaliation appears in most “higher” religions and philosophies — so that the submissive non-resistance of Christianity is closely analogous to the non-violence of Indian religion, the non-assertion of Chinese Taoism, and the defiant non-resistance of Socrates and many of his successors. The power of non-violence over violence, of apparent weakness over apparent strength, of right over might, is illustrated in every mythology — Jack the Giant-Killer, David and Goliath and Daniel in the Lions’ Den, Rama and Ravan and Gautama and Mara, the Battle of Marathon or the Battle of Britain, Horatius on the Bridge or the schoolboy’s voice saying Play up, play up, mid play the game, or Thurber’s Termite. The difference is that Jesus and Gautama and Mahavira and Lao-tse and Socrates have ordered non-retaliation as a moral imperative rather than merely pointing it as a moral to a story. But it was only individual non-retaliation — the State still had to punish offenders at home and fight enemies abroad. And there were several personal inconsistencies — Jesus told us not to resist evil, but he drove the money-changers from the Temple by force; Socrates would not resist the Athenian state, but he fought bravely enough in the Athenian army; Marcus Aurelius as a philosopher was a convinced Stoic, but as a Roman Emperor he persecuted Christians and fought barbarians vigorously; Asoka was converted to Buddhism and renounced war, but he kept his conquests and ruled as firmly as ever.

The contradiction between the known wrongness and the continued use of violence has usually been rationalised by the assertion that life in this world is either evil or illusory, so that either you have to do bad things for good reasons or else it doesn’t really matter what you do anyway. Followers of theoretically non-violent systems have in practice tended to make life tolerable by treating the more difficult doctrines as counsels of perfection or to withdraw from it into asceticism or quietism or both. This tendency is of course greatly reinforced when a religion or philosophy becomes established by the State. “Every Church,” said Tolstoy, “excludes the doctrine of Christ.” The story of pacifism is ini fact the story of the way monks and heretics preserved the doctrine of Christ despite its rejection by the Churches.

The early Christians, who were heretics themselves, often took non-resistance seriously. It is well known that many of them refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods and were martyred; it is less well known that many of them similarly refused to bear arms in the Roman legions and were also martyred. Many writers, such as Origen and Lactantius, made uncomplimentary remarks about war; Tertullian’s De Corona condemned it out of hand. The change came at the beginning of the 4th century, naturally enough, when Christianity was made the state religion of the Roman Empire— when, according to the Spanish humanist, Luis Vives, “Constantine entered the house of Christ with the Devil by his side.” This was when the revolting doctrine of the “just war” was invented, though to see it at its best you must read Augustine or Aquinas, The Czech theologian, Petr Chelcicky wrote a book called The Net of Faith (1521), which described how the net had been strong enough to hold little fish like the early Christians but was broken by big fish like Constantine, so that they nearly all got away. But not quite all. The doctrine of non-resistance was held by early heretical sects like the Montanists and Marcionists, and later ones like the Albigenses and Waldenses always tended to condemn war (and, as often as not, the Warfare State as well). The same was true of 16th century humanists like Erasmus and Vives. But modern pacifism began with the followers of Wyclif, the Lollards, and of Hus. When the extreme Hussites—Taborites— were routed in 1434 by their moderate enemies— Calixtines— after twenty years of bitter war, the survivors became non-resistants under their new name of Bohemian Brethren; the Moravians were a later branch who emigrated to America. Many “anabaptist” (i.e. extreme Protestant) sects followed the same pattern of pacifism following disaster after the fall of Minister in 1535. The Dutch Mennonites and Collegiants, the German Schwenkfelders and Dunkers, and the English Brownists and Baptists, were only a few of the unknown number of anabaptist sects who turned towards anarchist pacifism in the 16th and 17th centuries, when it became clear that the Kingdom of Heaven was not of this world.

But the best known of all the peace sects is the Society of Friends* which has been chiefly responsible for keeping Christian pacifism alive during the last three hundred years. There have been many later sects —the French Camisards, the Russian Molokans and Dukhobors, the AngloAmerican Shakers, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses— but the Quakers have had the greatest influence, because they have taken the maximum part in conventional life with the minimum compromise of their principles, and because they have been so much more tolerant than most other religious groups. The Quaker “peace testimony” appeared as early as George Fox’s reply to Cromwell’s Army Commissioners in 1651 and James Naylor’s last words in 1660, and it was formally stated in the ofl&cial declaration of the Society in January 1661 : “We certainly know and do testify to the world that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the Kingdom of Christ nor for the kingdoms of this world .. When we have been wronged we have not sought to revenge ourselves. Never shall we lift up hand against any that thus use us, but desire the Lord may have mercy upon them, that they may consider what they have done.” This is a perfect formulation of the doctrine of non-resistance (and is exactly what Winstanley had been saying ten years earlier — how many disappointed Diggers became Quakers?). The remarkable thing is that the Quakers have never wavered from their first position.[2] Penn’s “Holy Experiment” of Pennsylvania was from its foundation in 1682 to the fall of the Quaker regime in 1756 the nearest to a non-violent state in history. Robert Barclay said in his Apologia (1676): “It is not lawful for Christians to resist evil or to war or fight in any cause.” Johnathan Dymond said in his Essay on War (1829): “Either we must refuse to fight or we must abandon Christianity.” This is still the Quaker view, and Quakers have always taken the lead in both the official peace movement and the unofficial pacifist movement. When A. C. F. Beales set out to write his History of Peace (1931), he was “surprised to find that every single idea current today about peace and war was being preached by organised bodies over a century ago, and that the world-wide ramifications of the presentday peace movement can be traced back in unbroken continuity to a handful of forgotten Quakers in England and America at the close of the Napoleonic Wars.” Thus it was quaker initiative that led to the formation of the British Peace Society in 1816 and of the National Peace Council in 1905, and Quakers have always been active in warrelief work (which has twice won them the Nobel Peace Prize). More important, it was Quakers who bore the brunt of resistance to the demands of the Militia Acts between 1757 and 1860, both by public protest and by individual conscientious objection. So they tried to prevent war happening and resisted when it did.

The point is that Quakers don’t actually follow the doctrine of non-resistance at all. Fox told Cromwell in 1654, “My weapons are not carnal but spiritual,” but they were highly effective weapons for all that. (“The armed prophet triumphs,” said Machiavelli, “the unarmed prophet perishes.” Fox’s soul goes marching on, but where is Cromwell’s?) Quakers have never been reluctant to protest against social injustice. Elizabeth Fry’s prison work is hardly “non-resistance”. It was Quakers who led the campaign against slavery, from the early protest of the German Friends in Pennsylvania in 1688 to the formation of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787, and right on to the end. In fact one of the most interesting things in the history of modern dissent is the close connection between professed nonresistance to evil and sustained resistance to racial oppression. William Lloyd Garrison, the American Abolitionist leader, wasn’t a Quaker because he wasn’t a Christian, but he was a total non-resistant, and so were many of his colleagues — such as Whittier, Ballou and Musser. Indeed he symbolises in his own career this curious connection, for he was not only the founder of the New England and American AntiSlavery Societies and editor of the Liberator but also the founder of the New England Non-Resistance Society and editor of the NonResistor,

One day it might be worth making a detailed examination of the Boston Peace Convention of 1838, where the Non-Resistance Societywas formed. It passed a resolution “that no man, no government, has a right to take the life of man, on any pretext, according to the gospel of Christ,” and issued a Declaration of Sentiments, including the following: “We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government . , . Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind [this was the motto of the Liberator] ... We repudiate all human politics, worldly honours and stations of authority ... We cordially adopt the nonresistance principle.” Here is pure Christian anarchism, derived from 17th century Puritanism— no wonder it excited Tolstoy so much. But these gentle unworldly pacifists were right in the front of the campaign against slavery, and Garrison was notorious for his language about the American slave-owners, which was no less violent than Bertrand Russell’s about the present rulers of the world. Non-resistance indeed!

The fact is that theoretical non-resistance only means non-resistance in practice when it remains silent. The mere declaration of conscientious objection to violence is a form of resistance, since it involves nonco-operation with the State’s key functions of oppression and war. The State can tolerate the abolition of slavery, but not the abolition of war as well. When Jesus abrogated the traditional talion law he was unwittingly challenging his State. When Dymond said in 1826, “Now is the time for anti-slavery exertion; the time will come for anti-war exertion,” he was similarly threatening his State and ours. As Bourne said in 1918, “We cannot crusade against war without crusading implicitly against the State.” It is because most pacifists never realise this that they are constantly surprised by the hostility their behavour provokes. Most pacifists are really sentimentalists— hoping to get rid of war without changing anything else, so you can bully people as long as you don’t actually kill them. It was because the greatest of all pacifists— Tolstoy— saw through this sentimentalism that he became an anarchist after 1878 as well as a pacifist. He never called himself one, since he used the word to describe those who relied on violence, but his eloquent and unequivocal condemnation of the State makes him one of the greatest of all anarchists too. His remark that “the most frightful robber-band is not as frightful as the State,” is simply an echo from Augustine’s City of God without Augustine’s pious reservation: “Without justice, what are States but great robber-bands.” And because Tolstoy utterly denied the justice of the State’s authority, he had to proclaim the duty of total resistance to the State’s totalitarian demands. It is ironical that he derived the right of resistance to the State from the same source that Augustine derived the right of oppression by the State— God.

“The clear and simple question is that,” he said in his Letter to the Russian Conscientious Objectors (1909): “Which law do you consider to be binding for yourself—the law of God, which is your conscience; or the law of man, which is the State?” The answer is in no doubt. “Do not resist evil,” he said in his Letter to a Hindu (1908), “but do not participate in evil either.” The doctrine is non-resistance, but the implication is obstinate resistance. He had already said in his Letter to the Swedish Peace Party (1899): “Those in power neither can nor will abolish their armies.” And the solution? “The people must take the matter into their own hands.” Here we see how religious pacifism and political anti-militarism came to the same conclusion before the Great War, for what Tolstoy was advocating was in fact a non-violent general strike, individual civil disobedience on such a scale that it became direct action, a revolutionary technique similar to those proposed by William Godwin, Pierre Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker, an anarcho-syndicalist insurrection without the insistence on violence that disfigured the thought of Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta. But how can such a strike be organised? In the event the pacifists were shown to suffer from the same false optimism as the anti-militarists, for when the Great War came their non- violent general strike turned out to be just as much of a myth as the industrial; general strike; and they were reduced to individual conscientious objection when they were called up.

It is often thought that military conscription was unknown in this country until the Great War, but as well as the old Militia Acts there were the press-gangs and the most efficient recruiting sergeant of all, hunger; Professor Coulton’s reference to “hunger-conscripts under the name of volunteers” was no exaggeration, and it was hunger that kept the British Army going until war became too professional and too efficient in killing people. Conscription in its modern form appeared on the horizon only when the weakness of British military preparations was revealed by the Boer War (the first serious war for half a century), and the foundation of the National Service League in 1902 began a long campaign for compulsory military service. Even when the Great War came the Government delayed as long as possible, hoping that Alfred Leete’s picture of Kitchener saying Your Country needs You would be enough. But within the first year the failure of voluntary recruiting led to National Registration (of all men and women between 15 and 75!), and this showed that two million men of military age had decided not to fight for their King and Country. After this the process was fairly rapid, with “attestation” in October 1915, conscription for single men in January and married men in May 1916, and further extensions in March and May 1917 and again in January and April 1918. Conscription didn’t come to an end until August 1921.[3]

Nothing is more instructive than the way the leaders of the Labour Movement rejected every stage in this process before it happened and then accepted it afterwards, condemning the principle of conscription all the time they were collaborating with it. In the same way they managed between the Wars to oppose pacifism and unilateral disarmament on one side and conscription and rearmament on the other, and once again they accepted the fact of conscription when it returned in April 1939; after the last War, of course, it was the Labour Government that extended conscription in 1947 and also decided to manufacture and test the British Bomb. All with the best intentions. In much the same way the Official peace movement — the conference and arbitration people — which had been trying to build igloos in the Sahara for a century, collapsed as ignominiously as the Second International in 1914 and offered even less resistance in 1939. On both occasions the only people who stood firmly and unwaveringly against all war were the extreme pacifists and the extreme socialists (including many anarchists). Here we come up against the really crucial problem, which consists of two questions — Who are the real war-resisters? and How can the warresisters really resist war?

The answer to the first question was given in the Great War, when the Labour and peace movements utterly failed to resist, when the “conscientious objectors” were found to have political as well as religious principles, when the people who formed the No Conscription Fellowship in November 1914 and began going to jail just over a year later turned out to be mostly Quakers and members of the ILP. Real pacifism and real anti-militarism were the same thing, though some people followed one rather than the other, since they persuaded the same end by the same means. Religious people had to have political feelings to make the public protest, and political people had to have religious feelings to take the punishment. Remember how unpleasant it was to be a “conchie” in the Great War.

It is estimated that 6,000 men went to prison, and the common sentence was two years; worse, you could be arrested immediately after release ,if they wanted to play cat-and-mouse with you. More than 650 people were imprisoned twice, and three were actually put inside six times. Arthur Creech Jones, later a Labour Colonial Secretary, was sentenced in succession to 6 months, 12 months, 2 years and 2 years again; Fenner Brockway, founder of the NCF and later of the Movement for Colonial Freedom, got 6 months, 12 months and 2 years. (Notice how both of them were strong anti-racialists as well as anti-militarists.) At least 34 men were taken over to France in May 1916 and sentenced to be shot, though Asquith stopped any of the sentences being carried out; and more than twice that number died as a direct result of brutal treatment they received in custody, which was quite normal. It is a valid criticism of individual passive resistance to war to point out that it is ineffective, but critics must admit that it demanded considerable courage and determination. The obvious corollary is that this determination should somehow be employed more effectively, and the obvious hope between the Wars was that it would be properly organised.

But that hope was false. The NCF was dissolved in November 1919, though it was revived in February 1921 as the No More Wat Movement; in February 1937 this was absorbed by the Peace Pledge Union, which had been formed after Dick Sheppard’s famous letter of October 1934. (It is odd how Arthur Ponsonby’s similar declaration of December 1927 has been forgotten, while the Peace Pledge has become part of the national memory, along with the irrelevant Peace Ballot of 1934–35 and the unimportant Oxford Union resolution of February 1933). The result was in effect to dissolve the alliance between the religious and the political war-resisters, and this couldn’t be restored by the War Resisters’ International (which was formed in Holland in 1921) because its British section was the predominantly religious PPU. It is true that the PPU kept the faith alive and got well over 100,000 members by 1939, but it was passivist as well as pacifist, and when the war against Fascism came and thousands of men broke their pledges, it was reduced to publishing literature and counting up the numbers of COs in the registrations (seldom more than 2% and usually less than 1%). So after 1945 the situation was far more hopeless than it had been before 1914, because the war-resisters had failed miserably twice-over, and far more urgent too, because the Bomb meant that the next war really would be the war to end war, and everything else with it. The first question had been answered, but there was stili no answer to the second one — How can war-resisters really resist war? Perhaps it was just because everything had become so hopeless and so urgent that the answer came at last

[thepastisalreadywritten]

SAINT OF THE DAY (November 7)

St. Engelbert was born in Berg around the year 1185 to Engelbert, Count of Berg, and Margaret, daughter of the Count of Gelderland.

He studied at the cathedral school of Cologne.

While still a boy, he was made provost of the churches of St. George and St. Severin at Cologne and of St. Mary's at Aachen, as it was a common abuse in the Church at the time to appoint the children of nobles to such positions.

In 1199, he was elected provost of the cathedral at Cologne.

He led a worldly life. During a conflict between two Archbishops, Adolf and Bruno, he sided with his cousin Adolf and waged war for him.

Consequently, he was excommunicated by the Pope along with his cousin.

After his submission, he was reinstated in 1208. To atone for his sin, he joined the crusade against the Albigenses in 1212.

On 29 February 1216, the chapter of the cathedral elected him archbishop by a unanimous vote.

The mendicant orders of the Franciscans and the Dominicans settled in his realm while he was Archbishop.

He was well disposed towards the monasteries and insisted on strict religious observance in them.

Ecclesiastical affairs were regulated in provincial synods. He was considered a friend of the clergy and a helper of the poor.

Engelbert exerted a strong influence in the affairs of the empire.

Emperor Frederick II, who had taken up his residence permanently in Sicily, gave Germany to his son, Henry VII, then still a minor.

In 1221, he appointed Engelbert as guardian of the king and administrator of the empire.

When the young king reached the age of twelve, he was crowned at Aachen by Engelbert, who loved him as his own son and honoured him as his sovereign.

Engelbert watched over the young king's education and governed the empire in his name, careful to secure peace both within and without of the realm.

Engelbert's devotion to duty, and his obedience to the pope and to the emperor, were eventually the cause of his ruin.

Many of the nobility feared rather than loved him, and he was obliged to surround himself with bodyguards.

The greatest danger came from his relatives.

His cousin, Count Frederick of Isenberg, the secular administrator for the nuns of Essen, had grievously oppressed that abbey.

Honorius III and the emperor urged Engelbert to protect the nuns and their rights.

Frederick wished to forestall the archbishop, and his wife incited him to murder.

On 7 November 1225, as he was journeying from Soest to Schwelm to consecrate a church, Engelbert was attacked on a dark evening by Frederick and his associates, was wounded in the thigh, torn from his horse and killed.

His body was covered with forty-seven wounds. It was placed on a dung-cart and brought to Cologne four days later.

King Henry wept bitterly over the remains, put Frederick under the ban of the empire, and saw him broken on the wheel a year later at Cologne.

Frederick died contrite, having acknowledged and confessed his guilt.

Engelbert's body was placed in the old cathedral of Cologne on 24 February 1226 by Cardinal Conrad von Urach.

The latter also declared him a martyr, though a formal canonization did not take place.

In the martyrology, Engelbert is commemorated on November 7 as a martyr.

A convent for nuns was erected at the place of his death.

[nossasenhoraaparecida]

🙏✝️SANTO DO DIA✝️🙏

🙏✝️13 DE JUNHO✝️🙏

🙏✝️Santo Antônio, franciscano e doutor da Igreja✝️🙏

Lisboa ou Pádua?

Celebramos a memória do popular santo — doutor da Igreja — que nasceu em Lisboa, no ano de 1195, e morreu nas vizinhanças da cidade de Pádua, na Itália, em 1231. Por isso, é conhecido como Santo Antônio de Lisboa ou de Pádua. O seu nome de batismo era Fernando de Bulhões y Taveira de Azevedo.

Agostinianos ou franciscanos?

Com 15 anos, entrou para a Ordem dos Cônegos Regulares de Santo Agostinho e foi ordenado sacerdote, com 24 anos de idade, encaminhado à carreira de filósofo e teólogo. Mas, ao conhecer a família dos franciscanos, que não só o encantou pelo testemunho dos mártires em Marrocos, como também o arrastou para a vida itinerante na santa pobreza, uma vez que também queria testemunhar Jesus com todas as forças, o santo decidiu-se por seguir os passos de Francisco e deixou a ordem de Agostinho.

Antônio, missionário e pregador

Escolheu ser chamado de Antônio em veneração a Santo Antão — anacoreta, no Egito. Logo que entrou na Ordem Franciscana, foi enviado para Marrocos. Ali, Antônio ficou tão doente, que teve de voltar, mas, providencialmente, porque foi ao encontro do “Pobre de Assis”, o qual lhe autorizou a ensinar aos frades as ciências que não atrapalhassem os irmãos de viverem o Santo Evangelho.

Nesse sentido, Santo Antônio não fez muito, pois seu maior destaque foi na vivência e pregação do Evangelho, o que era confirmado por muitos milagres, além de auxiliar no combate à Seita dos Cátaros e Albigenses, os quais isoladamente viviam uma falsa doutrina e pobreza. Ele atraía grandes multidões com as suas pregações, passava diversas horas no confessionário e reservava, para si, momentos de retiro em solidão.

Páscoa

Continuou vivendo para a pregação da palavra de Cristo, servindo à sua família franciscana por meio da ocupação de altos cargos de serviço na Ordem, isso até morrer com 36 anos para esta vida e entrar para a Vida Eterna, em 13 de junho de 1231.

O santo, muito querido, amado e venerado já em vida, foi sepultado no quinto dia após sua morte, depois de uma longa decisão de onde seu corpo seria encerrado. Foi carregado em grande procissão até a Igreja de Santa Maria em Pádua.

Popularidade

Sua popularidade era tamanha, que, imediatamente, o seu sepulcro tornou-se meta de peregrinações que duram até nossos dias. São milhares os relatos de milagres e graças alcançadas rogando seu nome. Ele foi canonizado no ano seguinte ao de sua morte pelo Papa Gregório IX.

Reconhecido pela influência de Santo Agostinho, Antônio conjugou, de modo original, mente e coração, pesquisa teórica, prática das virtudes, estudo e oração.

A minha oração

Querido Santo Antônio, fostes um exímio pregador e servo do Senhor. Ensina-me a ser também uma serva fiel e entregue aos desígnios de Deus para a minha vida. Quero conseguir também viver conjugando mente e coração, estudo e oração. Amém!

Santo Antônio, rogai por nós!

[cruger2984]

THE DESCRIPTION OF SAINT DOMINIC Patron Saint of Astronomers and Astronomy Feast Day: August 8

"One day, through the Rosary and the Scapular, Our Lady will save the world."

Dominic de Guzmán (Domingo Félix de Guzmán), the founder of the Ordo Praedicatorum (Order of Preachers aka Dominicans), was born in Caleruega, Kingdom of Castile (present-day Castile-Leon, Spain), on August 8, 1170.

In the earliest narrative source, by Jordan of Saxony, Dominic's parents are not named. The story is told that before his birth, his barren mother, Joan of Aza (Juana de Aza), made a pilgrimage to the Abbey at Silos, and dreamt that a dog leapt from her womb carrying a flaming torch in its mouth, and seemed to set the earth on fire. This story is likely to have emerged when his order became known, after his name, as the Dominican order, Dominicanus in Latin and a play on words interpreted as Domini canis: 'Dog of the Lord.'

Joan of Aza was beatified by Pope Leo XII in 1829.

After his ordination, he was assigned to the Burgo de Osma Cathedral, where he followed the Rule of St. Augustine. In 1204, as he was on his way to Denmark, he converted the owner of a hotel in Toulouse. This event made him realize that preaching was his special charism (or spiritual gift). Afterwards, he was sent by the Pope to convert the French Albigenses, and after a few years of intense preaching, accompanied by the example of a holy life, many people returned to the Catholic church.

To the monks of Cîteaux, whose efforts against the heretics were fruitless, he said: 'Arm yourself with prayer, rather than a sword; wear humility rather than fine clothes.'

One day, when being asked in what book he studied his beautiful sermons, he answered: 'In no other than the book of love.'

Together with a few missionary companions, he founded in Toulouse the Ordo Praedicatorum, or 'the Order of Preachers', whose members were dedicated to sacred studies and preaching.

They received official approval in 1216. Dominic advised his brothers in these words: 'Speak only of God, or with God.'

One day, he had a vision of the Virgin Mary, who instructed him to propagate the prayer of the Holy Rosary throughout the world.

On the feast of the Assumption in 1217, he sent the Dominicans in all directions, saying: 'We must sow the seed, not hoard it.'

Dominic spent a couple of years in Rome before taking up permanent residence in Bologna (present-day Emilia-Romagna, Italy). There, he died on the Feast of the Lord's Transfiguration - August 6, 1221, at the age of 50, worn out by a life of an intense apostolate.

[hereje-dino]

@nahual-vagabund0

HEREJE (nombre común)

1. Cristiano que defiende o sostiene una herejía.

-"los herejes albigenses"

2. Persona descreída.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

A HOWLING MOB rampaged through Béziers, killing men, women and children indiscriminately. Pope Innocent III had launched a crusade against the French city.

Béziers, a city of Southern France near the Mediterranean, was boiling with movements opposed to Catholicism. Especially strong were the Cathars (also known as Albigenses because Albi was their principle city). According to their opponents, the Cathars held a corrupt form of Christianity; they are said to have equated the God of the Old Testament with Satan (a Gnostic idea) and to have…

[jgmail]

Lucifer, Apolo y la visión cátara de la luz en el pensamiento de Otto Rahn

por Dmitry Moiseev

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

Dmitry Moiseev explora la audaz reinterpretación de Otto Rahn de Lucifer y Apolo como símbolos de la luz y la divinidad dentro de la espiritualidad cátara, contrastándolos con las narrativas cristianas tradicionales y vinculándolos a las tradiciones metafísicas de la Provenza medieval, desvelando en última instancia una visión panteísta enraizada en la naturaleza, la pureza y el autoconocimiento.

Tras considerar en nuestro anterior artículo para Arktos Journal el significado esotérico de Minne como «recuerdo amoroso» en el esoterismo cátaro de la Provenza medieval, nos detuvimos en el hecho de que uno de los aspectos importantes de esta enseñanza espiritual es un esfuerzo meritocrático hacia arriba, accesible a pocos, y que en este camino una persona necesita una luz que le guíe y un ejemplo. En este ensayo, referido a la obra de Otto Rahn La corte de Lucifer (1937), revelaremos la interpretación que Rahn hace de lo divino, y qué representación simbólica de ello ofrece. Hablando del asedio de los cruzados a Montségur, una de las fortalezas clave de Provenza, durante la cruzada contra los albigenses, Otto Rahn escribe: «En mi habitación hasta ahora colgaba un cuadro de colores chillones representando a Jesucristo en el Monte de los Olivos. Un ángel alado sobresale de la mitad de una nube ofreciendo al orante un cáliz semejante a una custodia. Quité el cuadro y lo reemplacé por una hoja de mi mejor papel de carta, sobre la que, lo más cuidadosa y más bellamente que pude, escribí algunos versos de Wolfram von Eschenbach. Dicen así: Desde la Provenza hasta tierra alemana Nos fue enviada la leyenda auténtica. Lucifer se perdió al bajar Con su rebaño al infierno, Entonces el hombre nació. ¡Pensad lo que Lucifer obtuvo Junto a los camaradas de lucha! Ellos eran inocentes y puros... Quisiera creer que fueron las huestes de Satán y no las de Lucifer las que se apostaron frente al Montségur para obtener el Grial caído de la corona del portador de la luz, Lucifer, y guardada por los Puros. Puros eran los cátaros, pero no los frailucos y aventureros que con la cruz al pecho querían preparar la Provenza a favor de una nueva estirpe: su propia estirpe».

Este fragmento nos obliga a volver a la idea expresada en el primer artículo de esta serie: que el Grial, según la interpretación de Rahn, no es el cáliz de Jesús de Nazaret, sino la piedra que cayó de la corona de Lucifer, que da la inmortalidad a quienes la contemplan. En la interpretación de Rahn, los verdaderos servidores del diablo son los cristianos que cometieron genocidio contra el pueblo provenzal y su refinada espiritualidad, y no los albigenses en absoluto. Así, la imagen de Lucifer, a quien la tradición cristiana retrata como un ángel caído que se rebeló contra Dios, tiene un significado completamente distinto del convencional en la obra del medievalista alemán. En su libro, Otto Rahn recuerda una conversación que mantuvo con una dama de familia herética durante un viaje a la región de Toulouse. Ella le dijo: «La gran Esclarmonde es de mi sangre. Me siento orgullosa de ello. A menudo suelo verla en espíritu sobre la plataforma reclinada en el torreón y en la paz de Montségur, leyendo los astros. Los herejes amaban el firmamento, creían firmemente que después de la muerte tendrían que ir acercándose a la divinidad de estrella en estrella, cumpliendo las etapas de deificación. Por la mañana rezaban hacia el sol del levante; al ocaso dirigían su mirada, devotamente, hacia el sol del poniente. Por la noche se dirigían a la argéntea luna o al norte, porque el Norte les era sagrado. En cambio, consideraban al sur como una morada de Satán. Satán no es Lucifer, pues Lucifer significa portador de luz. Los cátaros tenían otro nombre para él: Luzbel».

En otras palabras, según Rahn, Lucifer aparece como una deidad, que puede mostrarse como una constelación, al igual que el Sol y la Luna, de hecho, una personificación del esplendor abstracto de la naturaleza y de la vida misma. La expresión más brillante y deslumbrante de este esplendor es el Sol. El medievalista alemán califica la representación de esta entidad como un «antidios» de sustitución llevada a cabo por los cristianos. Además, continuando su explicación, llega a la siguiente identificación, que puede parecer paradójica a primera vista: «No soy experto en la Biblia y tampoco pretendo serio. De todos modos, mantengo que el Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento hablan de dos “antidioses” diferentes, pero piensan en uno y el mismo. El Antiguo Testamento anatematizó la “hermosa estrella matutina”; el Nuevo Testamento, en cambio, revela en el Apocalipsis según san Juan que un determinado “rey y Ángel del Abismo” tiene en griego el nombre de “Apolión”. Apolión, Ángel de los Abismos y Príncipe de este mundo, es el ¡Apolo luminoso! Mi afirmación de que la Estrella Matutina del Antiguo Testamento y el Apolión del Nuevo Testamento son uno solo se apoya en el hecho de que en el espacio griego a la Estrella Matutina Fósforos (esta palabra también significa portador de luz) se la considera la acompañante permanente, anunciadora y representante del dios Apolo, máximo portador de la luz, y que al propio Apolo se le tiene como la bella “estrella de la montaña”, el Sol… El día del solsticio de primavera fue celebrado en el país de los griegos como el día de la festividad suprema. Apolo era el sol con sus leyes del naciente y del poniente, como también la naturaleza luminosa dominante y eterna, inmutable. Sólo en épocas más tardías fue adorado como dios principal el solar Helios en lugar de Apolo. Al comienzo, Helios sólo había sido venerado en la isla de Rodas, en el mar de Asia Menor, o ambos considerados lo mismo».

«Cuando apareció Apolo, se dice que la Tierra se echó a reír. ¿Sabía ella que se le concedería una ciencia alegre?», se pregunta Otto Rahn, mencionando el nombre alegórico del arte poético de los trovadores provenzales (gai saber, ciencia alegre o gaya ciencia). Rahn analiza sistemáticamente el simbolismo de Pitia y sus profecías, señalando que es en Delfos donde se origina la «fuente castaliana de las musas y la fuente de la necesaria catarsis (κάθαρσις), purificación para la conversación con Dios»; luego escribe sobre Artemisa, Deméter, y llega a la siguiente afirmación: «En la época del florecimiento del catarismo vivió en Sicilia un prestigioso eremita de nombre Joaquín Flora. Pasaba por ser el mejor comentador del Apocalipsis según san Juan. Como las langostas de las que habla el capítulo noveno del Apocalipsis, debió de haber considerado a los cátaros, “que con la fuerza de los escorpiones salen de las profundidades sin fondo al abismo”. Ellos serán, arguyó Joaquín, en secreto, el mismísimo Anticristo, su poder aumentará y su rey ya está elegido. En griego su nombre es ¡Apolión! Apolo no puede ser otro más que Lucifer, a quien los herejes provenzales llamaron Luzbel y a quien, como ellos creyeron, no se le hizo justicia. Los cátaros interpretaron la “caída” de Lucifer como la “suplantación ilegítima del hijo primogénito, Lucifer, por el Nazareno”».

Así, para el escritor alemán, la antigua imagen griega del dios solar Apolo y la reconstruida imagen cátara de Lucifer, guía del Espíritu Puro, se funden en una sola. Antes de continuar siguiendo la línea de pensamiento de Rahn, volvamos a las importantes explicaciones sobre la imagen mitológica de Apolo que da su compatriota y contemporáneo Friedrich Georg Jünger (1898-1977) en su obra Mitos griegos (1947): «El ámbito que preside el dios es ancho y luminoso. Luminoso como el propio Apolo, a quien nada permanece oculto, nada del presente y nada del futuro. Es, como lo define Esquilo, el profeta del padre Zeus cuya voluntad comunica en el santuario de Dodona. De Zeus obtuvo el don del presagio y de él, en cuanto dios présago, depende el oráculo de Delfos. Transferirá este don del presagio a Hermes. De Apolo irradia una luz que difunde su claridad en la oscuridad y que por esta claridad instaura orden. Por este orden las cosas no sólo se separan, de forma que adquieren nitidez y destacan vigorosamente unas de otras; bajo esta luz resaltan también los límites y las medidas. No es la luz de Helio, que aparece girando sobre a tierra, que desaparece y regresa; es una luz que irrumpe desde dentro del dios y que promulga leyes. Es enemigo de lo turbio, lo sordo, lo confuso; al indeciso, al ambiguo y vacilante le sale al encuentro como dios de la decisión. En él se encuentra el hilo conductor del conocimiento. Su poder anula el peso de la oposición desidiosa y pesada, su orden consiste también en hacer transparentes las condiciones difíciles y opresivas que advienen al hombre. El dios comunica a sus favoritos su propia ligereza y su aplomo, la fuerza en suspenso de su pie destinado a la danza».

Friedrich Jünger llama nuestra atención sobre el hecho de que Apolo, en primer lugar, simboliza la claridad, la determinación, la concreción, la confianza, pero al mismo tiempo la ligereza que confiere a músicos y poetas. Apolo es una constancia serena y luminosa; es una imagen de la perfección divina encarnada, que, al mismo tiempo, es un límite y una medida. Apolo es el «presente infinito», el dios del instante, que se opone a los engaños, cuya clave es el propio tiempo. Su armonía es sinónimo de todo lo bello, cuya expresión, a su vez, es el arte. Jünger añade: «Apolo comunica a sus favoritos su propia claridad ordenadora, la claridad cristalina del espíritu que engendra formas y así mismo lo vivo y melodioso que es inherente a las figuras. Abre la mirada. En el reino de Apolo Licio no hay nada inerte o rígido, todo está vivo, toda vida es consciente y toda conciencia se eleva hacia un conocimiento placentero… Es el dios de la juventud, el dios bello y juvenil. Su figura es un arquetipo de la belleza y los artistas plásticos, que tanto tienen que agradecerle, compiten por representar esta hermosura. No lo representan en posición sedente ni yacente; el dios es más bello de pie y desnudo, pues así resplandece la perfección de sus formas».        

Recordemos también a este respecto que el tradicionalista italiano Julius Evola (1898-1974), hablando del Norte y del Sur en su obra Rebelión contra el mundo moderno (1934) indica que «la etapa hiperbórea puede caracterizarse como aquella en la que el principio luminoso presenta las características de inmutabilidad y de centralismo, que son, por así decirlo, típicamente “olímpicas”. Son las mismas características propias del dios hiperbóreo Apolo que, a diferencia de Helios, no representa al sol siguiendo sus pautas de ascenso y descenso sobre el horizonte, sino que es el sol mismo, la fuente de luz dominante e inmutable». En la interpretación tradicionalista de Evola, el sol aparece como «luz pura» y «valor incorpóreo», a los que se asocian los mitos heroicos. El sol es también «un símbolo de la naturaleza suprema, triunfante cada mañana sobre la oscuridad», y un símbolo de la dignidad real. El pensador italiano cita una antigua fuente egipcia: «He decretado que debes alzarte eternamente como rey del Norte y del Sur en la sede de Horus, como el sol», y señala también que Mitra era llamado particeps siderum y «Señor de la paz, salvación de la humanidad, hombre eterno, vencedor que se alza en compañía del sol».

La vinculación de la antigua imagen mitológica griega del radiante y bello Apolo, personificación del sol, y el Lucifer cátaro, «que sufrió la injusticia», emprendida por Otto Rahn, puede sorprendernos en un primer momento. Al mismo tiempo, este movimiento audaz y aparentemente inesperado esconde una posición espiritual sólida y coherente, que Rahn deduce sobre la base de su estudio de toda la vida de la metafísica cátara y expone coherentemente en La corte de Lucifer: «La piedra fundamental de la cristiandad eclesiástica es la doctrina de Dios personal y de Jesús, el Hijo de Dios hecho hombre. A este respecto, caen en profundas contradicciones las representaciones de Dios de los cátaros. Decían: nosotros, herejes, no somos teólogos, sino filósofos que primero buscamos la sabiduría y la verdad. Reconocemos que Dios es Luz, Espíritu y Fuerza. Si bien la tierra es manantial, sin embargo, permanece ligada a Dios. Por medio de la Luz, el Espíritu y la Fuerza, ¿cómo podríamos el mundo y nosotros vivir, si el Sol no nos diera vida? ¿Cómo podríamos pensar y conocer, si no estuviera obrando dentro de nosotros nada espiritual? ¿Cómo podríamos buscar la verdad y la sabiduría, que son tan difíciles de encontrar, y empeñarnos en seguir buscándolas pese a todos los obstáculos, si no hubiese fuerza en nosotros? Dios es Luz, Espíritu y Fuerza. Y obra en nosotros. No decimos que el Sol o uno de los astros sea el propio Dios. Ellos son anunciadores de Dios y portadores de Dios. La divinidad es múltiple, pero no hay dioses, como se nos reprocha por doctrina. Con nuestros sentidos sólo podemos concebir una parte: la naturaleza. Esta se compone de nosotros mismos, ya que somos materia perecedera; provenientes del mundo mil veces diferente, en el que tenemos que cursar nuestra carrera de vida; provenientes del cielo estrellado, el del día y el de la noche. La naturaleza no es Dios Padre, por lo tanto, absolutamente Luz, Espíritu y Fuerza. Ella es Hija de Dios, una criatura de la Luz, del Espíritu y de la Fuerza. Ella se rige sólo por la Ley dada por el Dios Padre… La naturaleza no es Dios, sino divina. Ella no es la Luz sin más ni más, sino portadora de Luz. Ella no es la Fuerza sin más, sino fortalecedora. Ella no es Espíritu sin más ni más, sino que proporciona al espíritu activo, desde nuestro nacimiento, la ley del conocimiento que conduce a la contemplación de Dios. Ésta es la única y verdadera “redención”. Nuestro portador de Luz supremo es el Sol; él es el dirigente de los ejércitos celestiales a los que se les llama ángeles, que no son otra cosa que las estrellas, todas ellas sujetas a la Ley también vigente en la Tierra. También nosotros, los seres humanos, podemos conocer las leyes si buscamos consecuentemente y observamos atentamente el cielo, podemos conocer aquella ley divina que rige allá en lo alto y que también organiza de tal modo nuestra vida que nosotros tampoco podemos infringirla, sino cumplirla. ¡Tenemos que ser hijos del Sol portador de la Luz!»

En relación con las interpretaciones de Rahn, observemos que tanto Friedrich Jünger como Julius Evola señalaron la «permanencia solar» y la «estabilidad de la luz» como los aspectos más importantes de Apolo. Otto Rahn sitúa al Sol en el centro de su sistema espiritual neocátaro. Al mismo tiempo, el Sol también forma parte de la Naturaleza. Deificando decididamente la Naturaleza («La Naturaleza es divina»), el pensador alemán da otro paso hacia el panteísmo. Desde el punto de vista de la filosofía académica, en la ontología expuesta por Rahn podemos ver referencias tanto al antiguo monismo panteísta griego como a algunas formas más cercanas a nosotros en el tiempo (como las formuladas por Bruno y Spinoza). Al mismo tiempo, nos vemos obligados de nuevo a volver a la idea de que la fuente espiritual y filosófica más cercana a Rahn (a la que se refiere ocasionalmente en sus obras) es Meister Eckhart y su doctrina de lo divino, que se manifiesta incluso en los argumentos del medievalista alemán sobre la trinidad de lo divino, que en el modelo de Rahn es «Luz, Espíritu y Fuerza».

A continuación, Rahn vincula su idea panteísta de los «hijos del sol» con el simbolismo de Minne, «recuerdo amoroso», sobre el que escribimos en nuestro último artículo. Llama la atención sobre el hecho de que «los minnesinger rechazaron abruptamente todos los conceptos, términos, enseñanzas y leyendas teológicas católicas. No cantaban a Jehová ni a Jesús de Nazaret, sino a su héroe Heracles o al dios Amor. Y este dios era profundamente odiado por la vanidosa Iglesia romana, que era rechazada por los cátaros como «sinagoga de Satanás» y «basílica del diablo». En otra parte del libro, señala: «Dios-Amor es el dios de la primavera, y Apolo es este dios. Por lo tanto, tanto Amor como Apolo son el dios de la primavera. El que devuelve la luz del sol de la primavera a la tierra es, por lo tanto, un portador de luz, un Lucifer».

Una vez más, debemos subrayar que, según Rahn y su interpretación de la fe cátara, la verdadera divinidad no se revela a todo el mundo. Como ya hemos señalado en artículos anteriores, esta apertura requiere un cierto nivel de correspondencia existencial, que en las enseñanzas del pensador alemán se identifica con la «pureza» y la «fuerza». Entonces aparece en el camino de una persona un auténtico guía que le mostrará el «Sendero Rosa» o el camino hacia la Luz. Rahn escribe en La Corte de Lucifer: «El dios Amor puede ser visto en el mundo, opina el famoso trovador Peire Cardinal, por un espíritu fuerte al que la creencia le aclare el ojo. Desde luego que puede ser así, canta el no menos conocido Peire Vidal, pero el dios sólo se muestra en primavera, y para verlo, sigue diciendo, hay que ir a la Casa de Dios, la que precisamente entonces despierta Naturaleza. Dios tiene él aspecto dé un caballero, de cabellera rubia, y cabalga un corcel mitad negro como la noche y mitad blanco deslumbrante. Un carbúnculo en la rienda brilla cual sol. En su séquito hay también un paladín. Su nombre es fidelidad».

La metáfora de Rahn «Dios tiene aspecto de caballero» es un tema para otro debate. Por ahora, nos basta con señalar que la imagen de un caballero-Dios rubio sobre un caballo, que es mitad blanco y mitad negro, completa nuestra discusión sobre las manifestaciones simbólicas de lo divino según Otto Rahn. Deberíamos concluir esta parte de nuestra historia sobre el sistema espiritual de Rahn con la siguiente cita de La Corte de Lucifer, que describe una visión que experimentó en Ginebra: «Encantamiento de mediodía... Lucifer, desde el bosque alemán, llegó a mi cuarto. No puedo verlo, pero siento su presencia. Solamente puede ser él quien alza el trozo de friso del templo de mi escritorio; bajo él crecen columnas y a éste con otros escombros lo hace unirse en friso y techo. La casa délfica de Apolo se levanta de repente frente a mí en esta casta belleza. Desde la sagrada oscuridad de los olivos y laureles me contempla la frase: “Conócete a ti mismo”».

La frase «conócete a ti mismo», o «γνῶθι σεαυτόν» (gnothi seauton), es una referencia a la famosa inscripción en la pared del templo délfico de Apolo; según Platón, se trata del «testamento de los siete grandes sabios» o «mandamiento del oráculo de Delfos». Este pasaje nos remite a una de las ideas más importantes de Rahn: que los cátaros «no eran teólogos, sino filósofos». En última instancia, la búsqueda del autoconocimiento es una de las virtudes más importantes de que disponemos, y sin conciencia de nosotros mismos, de nuestras metas y objetivos en el mundo, es extremadamente difícil dar pasos hacia una vida productiva y consciente, como insinúan el escritor alemán y su guía solar.

Una vez completada la explicación de qué deduce exactamente el científico alemán bajo la imagen del «Lucifer cátaro», en la parte final de nuestra historia sobre la búsqueda espiritual de Otto Rahn, pasaremos a la presentación sistemática de su visión de los principios de la metafísica provenzal medieval.

[irunevenus]

O Massacre de Béziers: Um Capítulo Sombrio da História Religiosa

O Massacre de Béziers, ocorrido em 22 de julho de 1209, é um dos episódios mais infames da história medieval e um marco trágico nas Guerras Albigenses, um conflito que envolveu a Igreja Católica e os cátaros na França. Esse evento violento não apenas simbolizou a brutalidade da repressão religiosa, mas também refletiu o fanatismo que pode surgir em nome da fé. A frase proferida por um dos líderes da Cruzada, Arnaud Amaury, durante o massacre, “Matem todos, Deus reconhecerá os seus” (ou “Kill them all, let God sort them out”), ecoa até os dias de hoje como um lembrete sombrio das consequências do extremismo religioso.

Contexto Histórico: As Guerras Albigenses

As Guerras Albigenses foram um período de intensa luta entre a Igreja Católica e os cátaros, um movimento religioso que se desenvolveu na região do Languedoc, no sul da França. Os cátaros, que promoviam uma visão dualista do mundo e rejeitavam as práticas da Igreja Católica, ganharam seguidores e, consequentemente, despertaram a preocupação da Igreja, que via a heresia como uma ameaça à sua autoridade.

Em resposta ao crescimento do catarismo, o Papa Inocêncio III convocou uma cruzada contra os cátaros em 1209, uma decisão que levou à militarização da luta religiosa. Béziers, uma cidade considerada um bastião dos cátaros, tornou-se o primeiro alvo dessa cruzada.

O Evento: Uma Cidade em Chamas

No dia 22 de julho de 1209, as forças cruzadas cercaram Béziers, iniciando um ataque brutal à cidade. A invasão foi marcada pela violência extrema e pelo assassinato indiscriminado. Os cruzados, motivados por um fervor religioso, atacaram tanto cátaros quanto católicos que não se opuseram ao governo da Igreja. O número exato de mortos nunca será conhecido, mas as estimativas variam de 7.000 a 20.000 vítimas, incluindo homens, mulheres e crianças.

O massacre foi caracterizado por uma completa falta de clemência. As casas foram incendiadas, e a cidade foi reduzida a escombros. Aqueles que buscavam abrigo nas igrejas foram muitas vezes traídos, e muitos foram mortos dentro dos próprios templos. O evento não foi apenas um ato de guerra; foi um genocídio.

A Citação Famosa e Seu Significado

A frase atribuída a Arnaud Amaury, “Matem todos, Deus reconhecerá os seus”, exemplifica o extremismo que permeou a mentalidade dos cruzados. Essa declaração não apenas expressa uma visão distorcida da justiça divina, mas também destaca o desprezo pela vida humana em nome de uma causa religiosa. A ideia de que a divindade separaria os justos dos pecadores após a morte justifica a brutalidade e a violência perpetradas pelos cruzados, refletindo uma lógica que ainda ressoa em conflitos religiosos contemporâneos.

Consequências: A Repressão Religiosa e a Imposição do Poder

O Massacre de Béziers teve consequências profundas e duradouras. A brutalidade do ataque não apenas eliminou uma comunidade, mas também estabeleceu um precedente para a repressão religiosa na França e em outros lugares. As Guerras Albigenses continuaram por mais uma década, mas o massacre de Béziers serviu como um aviso para os cátaros e para todos que se opusessem à Igreja Católica.

A resposta da Igreja à heresia dos cátaros não se limitou apenas a ações militares. O massacre, juntamente com as campanhas subsequentes, solidificou o poder da Inquisição, que foi criada para erradicar a heresia e consolidar a autoridade católica. A brutalidade da cruzada e a declaração de Amaury tornaram-se símbolos de um período de intolerância que buscava a purificação da fé à custa da vida de muitos.

Conclusão: Um Lamento pelo Fanatismo

O Massacre de Béziers é um lembrete sombrio de como a fé pode ser distorcida em nome do poder e da violência. A busca pela verdade e pela justiça, quando corrompida pelo fanatismo, pode levar a atrocidades inimagináveis. A história nos ensina que a intolerância e a crueldade, muitas vezes justificadas por crenças religiosas, podem resultar em tragédias humanas irreparáveis.

Hoje, ao refletirmos sobre esse evento, devemos nos lembrar da importância da tolerância e do diálogo inter-religioso. O massacre é um exemplo trágico de como a falta de compreensão pode levar à destruição, e a frase de Arnaud Amaury continua a ecoar como um aviso sobre os perigos do extremismo religioso. Que possamos aprender com os erros do passado e trabalhar por um futuro onde a diversidade de crenças seja respeitada e celebrada, ao invés de ser motivo para divisão e violência.

[brucedinsman]

Fox's Book of Martyrs

https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/foxs-book-of-martyrs/ Edited by William Byron Forbush This is a book that will never die — one of the great English classics. . . . Reprinted here in its most complete form, it brings to life the days when “a noble army, men and boys, the matron and the maid,” “climbed the steep ascent of heaven, ‘mid peril, toil, and pain.” “After the Bible itself, no…

[jesusagrario]

Los Cataros o albigenses, fuerón un movimiento religioso de carácter gnóstico que se propagó por Europa Occidental a mediados del siglo X, y logró arraigar hacia el siglo XII entre los habitantes del Mediodía francés...

[thepastisalreadywritten]

SAINT OF THE DAY (November 7)

St. Engelbert was born in Berg around the year 1185 to Engelbert, Count of Berg, and Margaret, daughter of the Count of Gelderland.

He studied at the cathedral school of Cologne.

While still a boy, he was made provost of the churches of St. George and St. Severin at Cologne, and of St. Mary's at Aachen, as it was a common abuse in the Church at the time to appoint the children of nobles to such positions.

In 1199, he was elected provost of the cathedral at Cologne. He also led a worldly life.

In the conflict between two archbishops, Adolf and Bruno, he sided with his cousin Adolf and waged war for him.

Consequently, he was excommunicated by the pope along with his cousin. After his submission, he was reinstated in 1208.

To atone for his sin, he joined the crusade against the Albigenses in 1212.

On 29 February 1216, the chapter of the cathedral elected him archbishop by a unanimous vote.

The mendicant orders of the Franciscans and the Dominicans settled in his realm while he was Archbishop.

He was well disposed towards the monasteries and insisted on strict religious observance in them.

Ecclesiastical affairs were regulated in provincial synods. He was considered a friend of the clergy and a helper of the poor.

Engelbert exerted a strong influence in the affairs of the empire.

Emperor Frederick II, who had taken up his residence permanently in Sicily, gave Germany to his son Henry VII, then still a minor.

In 1221, he appointed Engelbert as guardian of the king and administrator of the empire.

When the young king reached the age of twelve, he was crowned at Aachen by Engelbert, who loved him as his own son and honoured him as his sovereign.

Engelbert watched over the young king's education and governed the empire in his name, careful to secure peace both within and without of the realm.

Engelbert's devotion to duty and his obedience to the pope and to the emperor were eventually the cause of his ruin.

Many of the nobility feared rather than loved him, and he was obliged to surround himself with bodyguards. The greatest danger came from his relatives.

His cousin, Count Frederick of Isenberg, the secular administrator for the nuns of Essen, had grievously oppressed that abbey.

Honorius III and the emperor urged Engelbert to protect the nuns and their rights.

Frederick wished to forestall the archbishop, and his wife incited him to murder.

On 7 November 1225, as he was journeying from Soest to Schwelm to consecrate a church, Engelbert was attacked on a dark evening by Frederick and his associates.

He was wounded in the thigh, torn from his horse, and killed. His body was covered with forty-seven wounds.

It was placed on a dung-cart and brought to Cologne four days later.

King Henry wept bitterly over the remains, put Frederick under the ban of the empire, and saw him broken on the wheel a year later at Cologne.

Frederick died contrite, having acknowledged and confessed his guilt.

Engelbert's body was placed in the old cathedral of Cologne on 24 February 1226 by Cardinal Conrad von Urach.

The latter also declared him a martyr, though a formal canonization did not take place.

In the martyrology, Engelbert is commemorated on November 7 as a martyr. A convent for nuns was erected at the place of his death.

[nossasenhoraaparecida]

🙏✝️07 DE OUTUBRO✝️🙏

🙏✝️Nossa Senhora do Rosário, o meio de alcançar almas para Deus✝️🙏

✝️Origens✝️

A origem do Rosário é muito antiga, pois conta-se que os monges anacoretas (eremitas dos primeiros séculos do cristianismo) usavam pedrinhas para contar o número das orações vocais. Dessa forma, nos conventos medievais, os irmãos leigos dispensados da recitação do Saltério (pela pouca familiaridade com o latim), completavam suas práticas de piedade com a recitação de Pai-Nosso e, para a contagem. Doutor da Igreja São Beda, chamado de “o Venerável” (séc. VII-VIII), havia sugerido a adoção de vários grãos enfiados em um barbante.

✝️História do Rosário✝️

O Santo Rosário foi sendo transformado com o decorrer dos anos, porém, no ano de 1214, a Santa Igreja o estabeleceu na forma e método que hoje é usado. Antes, as Ave-Marias não eram como agora, nem mesmo os mistérios contemplados entre outros ingredientes da oração. Sua origem se deu com a revelação divina de Nossa Senhora do Rosário a São Domingos de Gusmão, fundador dos dominicanos (O.P.). Por meio das citações referidas ao Bem-aventurado Alano de La Roche em seu livro “De Dignitate Psalterri”, São Luís Maria Grignion de Montfort relata a origem do Rosário.

✝️São Domingos e o Rosário✝️

A tradição espiritual conta com a revelação. São Domingos se preocupava em converter os albigenses, também conhecidos como cátaros (puros), que eram um grupo de hereges de caráter gnóstico e maniqueísta, sendo até mesmo protegida por bispos e nobres da época. Essa doutrina negava a existência de um único Deus, negava a divindade de Jesus, direcionava a salvação através do conhecimento etc.

Rosário: a chave para alcançar as almas endurecidas

Essas realidades entraram em choque com o catolicismo. Desse modo, o santo procurava converter os heréticos e enfrentava grande resistência. Certa vez, procurou retirar-se em uma floresta para rezar e ali recebeu a orientação da Nossa Senhora do Rosário: “Querido Domingos, você sabe de que arma a Santíssima Trindade quer usar para mudar o mundo? [ … ] a principal peça de combate tem sido sempre o Saltério Angélico que é a pedra fundamental do Novo Testamento. Quero que alcances estas almas endurecidas e as conquiste para Deus, com a oração do meu Saltério” (MONTFORT, 2019, p. 42-43).

✝️Do Saltério Angélico ao Santo Rosário

A propagação do Rosário por São Domingos✝️

A partir dessa situação, São Domingos começou a pregar o Santo Rosário, ou como foi dito, em revelação, “Saltério Angélico”. Assim expresso, pois naquela época poucas pessoas eram alfabetizadas e não conheciam a Sagrada Escritura. Por outro lado, os monges costumavam recitar em oração os 150 Salmos, rezando a “liturgia das horas”. Desse modo, os cristãos poderiam imitar a oração e se aproximar dos mistérios de Deus ao recitar 150 Ave-Marias, conhecida como a saudação angélica já que foi dita pelos Anjos e relatava nas Escrituras. Assim, tornou-se o “Saltério Angélico” (Salmos Angélicos).

✝️Os Mistérios: Gozosos, Dolorosos e Gloriosos✝️

Em um segundo momento, ao esfriar a devoção do Saltério Angélico, em nova aparição, Nossa Senhora do Rosário apareceu ao Beato Alano (1428 – 1475) lhe pedindo que reavivasse a prática. Assim ele formou os agrupamentos de 50 Ave-Marias e seus mistérios, conhecidos como: Gozosos, Dolorosos e Gloriosos. Ela lhe disse que muitas graças e milagres seriam alcançados por meio desse modo e reafirmou os ditos a São Domingos.

✝️A Intercessora pela Igreja do Ocidente✝️

✝️Intercessão de Nossa Senhora do Rosário✝️

Logo após, houve a batalha de Lepanto (Grécia, junto ao porto de Corinto) comandada por João da Áustria, em 7 de Outubro de 1571. O Papa Pio V procurava conter os avanços dos turcos na Europa e, antes disso, convocou os cristãos para que rezassem o rosário através da Carta Breve Consueverunt (1569). Era uma batalha extremamente importante, pois dela dependia a preservação do cristianismo e da cultura ocidental.

✝️Instituição da Festa✝️

Com a vitória adquirida, ele instituiu a festa de Nossa Senhora do Rosário no mesmo dia da batalha e reconheceu que a vitória veio por meio das orações do Rosário. Sendo este Papa da ordem dos dominicanos, por isso, seguiu a inspiração do fundador. O Pontífice instituiu a festa, inicialmente chamada de Santa Maria da Vitória.

✝️Rainha do Sacratíssimo Rosário✝️

✝️Festa Mariana Obrigatória✝️

Em 1573, o Papa Gregório XIII tornou a festa mariana obrigatória para a diocese de Roma e para as Confrarias do Santo Rosário, sob o título de Santíssimo Rosário da Bem-aventurada Virgem Maria. Em 1716, o Papa Clemente XI inscreveu a festa no calendário romano, estendendo-se para toda a Igreja. A celebração ocorria em datas diferentes, conforme os costumes locais. O Papa Leão XIII inscreveu a invocação “Rainha do Sacratíssimo Rosário” na Ladainha Lauretana em 10 de dezembro de 1883. Em 1913, o Papa Pio X fixou a data da celebração da festa em 7 de outubro.

✝️O Quarto Mistério✝️

Por fim, após anos de estímulo e devoção por parte dos papas e dos santos, São João Paulo II, em sua carta “Rosarium Virginis Mariae” (2002), institui o quarto mistério. Foi reconhecido como “luminoso”. Formando, então, o Rosário com quatro terços meditando os mistérios de Cristo. Assim, deu-se o formato daquilo que se conhece atualmente por Santo Rosário.

🙏✝️Minha oração✝️🙏

“Ó Mãe do rosário, consegui junto a Jesus aquilo que não podemos, combatei por nós e consolai-nos das intempéries da vida. Entregamos a nossa existência a Ti e de Ti tudo esperamos. Por Cristo Nosso Senhor. Amém!”

🙏✝️Nossa Senhora do Rosário, rogai por nós!✝️🙏

[armatofu]

La Inquisición española es un tema de gran relevancia en la Historia de España y de Europa en general. Este controvertido período estuvo marcado por una serie de eventos y prácticas que dejaron una profunda huella en la cultura, la religión y la política de la época.

Hoy, aprovechando el estreno de la magnífica publicación de Darío Madrid, que ya hemos tenido el placer de disfrutar, exploraremos en detalle algunas pocas curiosidades sobre la Inquisición. Si quieren saber más, no olviden que tienen a su disposición, desde el día de hoy y en todos los puntos de venta, ‘La Inquisición española. Realidad y procedimiento del Santo Oficio’ publicado por Editorial Edaf. Un obra que desarrolla un análisis exhaustivo y basado en información veraz y contrastada, que arroja luz sobre este capítulo de la historia española, examinando sus causas y motivaciones, así como las implicaciones que tuvo en la vida de las personas que vivieron aquel periodo. La Inquisición española es un tema que sigue siendo objeto de debate y reflexión en la actualidad, y su comprensión es fundamental para entender la evolución de la sociedad y la religión en la Europa de la Edad Moderna.

¿Sabías que la Inquisición española no nació en España?

Contrario a la creencia generalizada, la Inquisición no tuvo su génesis en suelo español, sino que sus raíces se hallan en Francia, concretamente en la región de Languedoc. Su principal cometido consistía en reprimir la herejía cátara o albigense, y esta institución fue concebida por el Vaticano durante el Concilio de Verona en el año 1184. A medida que transcurría su evolución histórica, la Inquisición se propagó por gran parte de Europa, a excepción de algunas áreas como Gran Bretaña, los países escandinavos y Castilla en ese período.

Es fundamental señalar que la asociación predominante de la Inquisición con España, en lugar de su origen francés, es en gran medida el resultado de lo que se conoce como la «leyenda negra antiespañola». Esta narrativa adversa fue promovida principalmente por protestantes alemanes, holandeses e ingleses, y ha llevado a la percepción errónea de que la Inquisición fue exclusivamente española. En realidad, existieron otras inquisiciones en diferentes regiones de Europa que no estaban vinculadas a España e incluso algunas de ellas abrazaron la fe protestante en contraposición a la Iglesia Católica.

¡La Inquisición española no perseguía brujas!

La Inquisición española, en contraste con otros territorios que hoy conforman la actual Alemania, se caracterizó por llevar a cabo un número considerablemente menor de ejecuciones de personas acusadas de brujería, sin llegar siquiera a la cifra de cien. Esta diferencia significativa en la cantidad de ejecuciones se basaba en la perspectiva única del Santo Oficio español, que sostenía que la brujería no tenía fundamento real y que la mayoría de las personas que afirmaban ser brujas eran individuos que, en su mayoría, bien mentían, padecían enfermedades mentales o se encontraban en un estado de desequilibrio psicológico.

En este contexto, resulta notoria la célebre declaración del inquisidor Alonso de Salazar, que resuena en la historia: «No hubo brujos ni embrujados en la región hasta que se comenzó a tratar y hablar de ellos». Esta frase subraya la influencia del contexto cultural y las creencias colectivas en la percepción y la persecución de la brujería en la España de la época. En resumen, mientras en otras partes de Europa se llevaron a cabo ejecuciones masivas por brujería, la Inquisición española se mantuvo relativamente moderada en este aspecto, debido a su enfoque escéptico hacia la existencia misma de la brujería.

No todos los museos dicen la verdad…

En múltiples localidades de España e Hispanoamérica, se encuentran los denominados ‘Museos de la Inquisición’, lugares en los cuales se intenta transmitir la idea de que los objetos en exhibición fueron utilizados por la Inquisición española. Esto genera un gran interés entre turistas nacionales e internacionales, quienes adquieren boletos de entrada atraídos por la morbosa curiosidad que rodea la siniestra leyenda negra que envuelve a la Inquisición.

No obstante, es de suma importancia recalcar que ninguno de los objetos expuestos en estos museos tiene autenticidad histórica. En realidad, todos ellos son groseras falsificaciones que surgieron en el siglo XIX y fueron creadas con el único propósito de ser exhibidas en ferias y eventos de entretenimiento.

En conclusión, este libro sobre la Inquisición española de Darío Madrid, publicado por Editoral Edaf, representa un logro excepcional. La meticulosa labor de investigación llevada a cabo por el autor se traduce en una obra que arroja luz sobre aspectos cruciales de la Inquisición, desmitificando conceptos erróneos y proporcionando una visión más precisa de este período histórico.

Esta obra no solo sirve como una fuente invaluable para comprender la Inquisición española en su contexto completo, sino que también se erige como un referente para futuros académicos interesados en explorar este tema con mayor profundidad. La calidad de la investigación y la exhaustividad con la que se abordan los temas hacen que este libro sea esencial para aquellos que deseen sumergirse en la historia de la Inquisición, así como para quienes buscan desafiar y enriquecer su comprensión de este capítulo fundamental en la historia de España y de Europa.

[10siglosdehistoria]

La Inquisición, conocida también como la Santa Inquisición, fue un conjunto de instituciones judiciales dentro de la Iglesia Católica que se establecieron para combatir y castigar la herejía. Durante la Edad Media y la Edad Moderna, la Inquisición persiguió y condenó a una variedad de grupos y personas que consideraba herejes o disidentes, incluyendo:

- *Cátaros*: También conocidos como albigenses, fueron un grupo cristiano considerado herético por sus creencias dualistas.

- *Valdenses*: Seguidores de Pedro Valdo, quienes promovían una interpretación de la Biblia contraria a la doctrina oficial de la Iglesia.

- *Judíos*: Especialmente durante la Inquisición española, muchos judíos fueron forzados a convertirse al cristianismo y luego perseguidos por supuestamente practicar su fe en secreto.

- *Musulmanes*: Similar a los judíos, los musulmanes en España también fueron objeto de persecución después de ser obligados a convertirse.

- *Brujas*: Acusadas de brujería, muchas mujeres fueron perseguidas y ejecutadas.

- *Reformadores protestantes*: Durante la Contrarreforma, aquellos que desafiaban las enseñanzas de la Iglesia Católica fueron perseguidos.

La Inquisición utilizó métodos como el interrogatorio y la tortura para obtener confesiones y, en muchos casos, las penas incluían la ejecución, a menudo por medio de la quema en la hoguera.

_____________________________

The Inquisition, also known as the Holy Inquisition, was a set of judicial institutions within the Catholic Church that were established to combat and punish heresy. During the Middle Ages and the Modern Age, the Inquisition persecuted and condemned a variety of groups and individuals it considered heretics or dissidents, including:

Cathars: Also known as albigenses, they were a Christian group considered heretical for their dualistic beliefs.

Valdenses: Followers of Pedro Valdo, who promoted an interpretation of the Bible contrary to the official doctrine of the Church.

Jews: Especially during the Spanish Inquisition, many Jews were forced to convert to Christianity and then persecuted for allegedly practicing their faith in secret.

Muslims: Similar to Jews, Muslims in Spain were also persecuted after being forced to convert.

Witches: Accused of witchcraft, many women were persecuted and executed.

Protestant Reformers: During the Counter-Reformation, those who defied the teachings of the Catholic Church were persecuted.

The Inquisition used methods such as interrogation and torture to extract confessions and, in many cases, penalties included execution, often by burning at the stake.