The Dance of the Dissident Horsewoman: Part 2
I need to correct an error in my previous post The Dance of the Dissident Horsewoman. The third paragraph should read--
The Cathars, a medieval Gnostic movement that flourished for a time in the Languedoc region of Southern France, and who were known to their neighbors as the "Bon Hommes," or "Good Men," were the first Christian casualties of the Crusades.
Thanks to Julian the Transylvanian Horseman for pointing out my mistake. Other examples of Christians who were persecuted and killed in the crusades are the Waldensians. The members of the group were declared schismatics in 1184 in France and heretics more widely in 1215 by the Fourth Council of the Lateran's anathema. It wasn't just the Jews and the Muslims and the pagans they were after.
I think it's important to note that the Gnostics had been in the church's crosshairs since the second century, though, with St. Irenaeus of Lyons' five volumes entitled On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis a.k.a. Against Heresies. And until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library (popularly known as The Gnostic Gospels), a collection of early Christian Gnostic texts discovered near the town of Nag Hammadi in 1945, the writings of the Catholic heresiologists comprised the bulk of the information we had about the Gnostics.
I think that what we do know is that Cathars were ascetics with gnostic tendencies.
This excellent paper Christianity and its persecutions of the Cathars, explains a little more fully--
Most of the information about the Cathars has been destroyed, and what we do know has mostly been aduced from Catholic records. This is rather like reconstructing Jewish theology from Nazi records of the holocaust. Records are biased and incomplete.
Cathars regarded themselves as Christians. They used the New Testament, especially the John Gospel, and repeated the Lord's Prayer with the addition of the words "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever" (which the Roman Church regarded as evidence of heresy before it also adopted this ending ). Believers were generally called "Good-men" and "Good-women", or "Good-Christians". The name Cathar had been adopted by the Church originally as an insult, but people tended to assume that the name was derived from the Greek word for "pure", so it stuck.
When Saint Bernard visited the Languedoc in 1145 his main impression seems to have been the shameless corruption in his own Church. Of the Cathars he noted that their morals were pure and that no sermons were more Christian than theirs.
Now I'm not sure how the above fits in exactly with Wilousset's statement below, but I'm sure the good Saint Bernard was entitled to his opinion--
"Gnosticism is first of all a pre-Christian movement which had its roots in itself. It is therefore to be understood... in its own terms, and not as an offshoot or byproduct of the Christian religion."
- Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 1913
Anyway, I find all of that very interesting. I'm no expert here, just a traveler.
The idea about the gnostics thinking that Satan created the world is, I suspect, a bit of a misunderstanding of the gnostic idea of the Demiurge. (Although in the canonical bible Satan is referred to as "the prince of this world" in the Book of John 12:31, 14:30; "the prince of the power of the air" also called Meririm, and "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" in the Book of Ephesians 2:2; and "the god of this world" in 2 Corinthians 4:4. I'm not really much of one for spouting off bible verses anymore, but there you go ...)
The story of the Demiurge and the Archons, Sophia, etc. is mostly viewed by gnostics as a metaphor, a powerful and transformative myth. Gnostics aren't world hating dualists as the Catholic heresiologists liked to portray them. The idea of a lesser god (Demiurge) who created this world with its flaws and suffering is in fact one of the things that drew me to gnosticism. The idea that the world is flawed (and not perfect as they tried to tell me almost every Sunday in my fundamentalist church for years) makes much more sense to me.
Just think of the death, disease and human suffering going on for centuries. I used to ask myself the age-old question--how could a good God do this? (The gnostics have an entirely different take on what the orthodox call The Fall. I don't buy the idea of original sin.) And I never had much use for the mean-spirited, jealous, bloodthirsty, woman-hating Yaweh/Jehovah of the Old Testament, whom one might very well see as an incarnation of the Demiurge. And then to balance out that dark stuff, there's the gnostic idea that the light/the spark of the divine is embedded in this materia too.
Is anyone thinking yin and yang out there? This gnostic idea about our existential situation is a balance I just don't see in orthodoxy.
And again. This is just my very personal, very own path. Gnosticism isn't a belief. It's not faith in someone else's faith or someone else's beliefs, which is what I used to have when I bought my church's party line. (I suspect that most of the people who were sitting in the pew reciting it next to me weren't buying it all hook, line, and sinker either.) I tried that for years, and it was highly unsatisfying to me. Gnosis is not something that someone else can give to you, although there are those who can point you to the path because they've trod it before. It's something you simply ... well ... know. It's written on the inside. Scrawled across your heart. And it also involves your mind.
Reader Jules from Australia (Otterkat) mentioned The Gospel of Thomas in her comments to the first post on this topic. This is the very first gnostic text I read. It's a very good first book in the Nag Hammadi to read, if you are interested. Those expecting the world-hating dualism described by Iraneus and his ilk (I'm surprised at the articles I've seen in modern Catholic publications still branding gnosticism an ancient heresy) will be pleasantly surprised. It's beautiful. Thanks, Jules, for mentioning that. Also, thank you Rose for your lovely comment about Jesus being gnostic. I think so too, girlfriend. You both have given me a lot of encouragement. You too, Julian, with your interest and excellent questions.
This is explained much better than I could ever hope to do here--Gnosticism 101 and 10 Things Religious Pundits Need To Know About Gnosticism. Also The Gnostic Worldview: A Brief Summary of Gnosticism and What is a Gnostic?
I had a few questions about this from readers, so hope this answers them all.
Peace to you.
