Talk:Free Spirit (religious movement)

The Cathars
Factual error: The Cathars were pretty much a done deal as a social movement by the 14th century; their last big hurrah was in the 1240s. See entry on them. I'd edit the page directly, but I don't quite know how to fix the containing sentence if I did. Could someone with more clue about the religious landscape of 14th c. France take a look at this? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.245.97.10 (talk • contribs)


 * I tend to agree that the conglomeration of Free Spirits with Bretheren of the Free Spirits is not correct. I Just listened to Prof. Teofilo Ruiz, chairman of the department of history at UCLA, lecture # 11 "The Birth of the Inquisition" where he discusses the Free Spirits and he doesn't even mention the Brethren of the Free Spirits as one of the groups he mentions.  The term as used by historians is much broader than the Bretheren and by the way does not include the Cathars as part of the movement at all, as the Brethren of the Free Spirit article seems to imply. Ref: The Teaching Company (Audio book) Teofilo Ruiz, UCLA - The Terror of History - Mystics, Heretics, and Withches in the Western Tradition -{{Subst:unsigned|67.161.243.188

Another questionable sentence is the alleged link to early Protestantism in the last para. Is there evidence that suppression was the actual reason for the disappearing of the movement? This is not "mandatory": Waldenses exist today, despite heavy medieaval suppression, and other movements merged into something else or just disappeared. --Irmgard 21:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * that is not the passage's intention. The fact is that the Roman Catholic church was busy fighting mystical heretic movements in the 1300s, and it was busy fighting Protestantism from the 1400s. Meaning that the prevalent flavour of dissent with mainstream Catholicism shifted. They were certainly repressed out of visibility, it is not disputed that these sects morphed into other forms or continued an underground existence for some time. dab (&#5839;) 12:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Although the Cathars were a done deal by the 14th Century as the most significant Christian heresy in history until then its not unlikely that the Brethren would have at least heard of them. Also, we have to remember that there had been Cathar and Waldensian refugees and cells in northern Europe for some time after the Crusade in Languedoc. All though all three movements believed in an egalitarian, non-gender based and anti-established Church approach to Christianity there were also significant differences between them. Interestingly, the language of darkness of ignorance and the light of knowledge is very similar to Gnostic and Cathar Christian thinking but the Brethren believed in a pantheistic, one could say neo-Platonic, view of God being immanent as well as transcendent in Creation, something they share with Eckhardt, while the Cathars thought the opposite, that God was outside Creation and that Creation was the produce of Satan. ThePeg 10:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to the above - there isn't that much of a gap between the Cathars and the Brethren. Montsegur fell in 1243 but the Church were still mopping up Cathars in the south of France for a decade after that (and technically longer if you include Montaillou). In addition there were Cathars in Italy, Spain and Northern Germany remaining for some time after that (although they had other names). Even if you take 1243 as the end of the Cathars that only leaves a short while before people like Marguerite Porete began knocking about. She is thought to have written her book, the Mirror of Simple Souls in the 1290s and was burnt at the stake in 1310. Barely half a century would have passed between Montsegur and her coming of age. The Cathars would really have been a recent memory. The existence of the Cathar and Waldensian heresies across Europe may have helped influence the ideologues of the Free Spirit. We know there were Cathars in the Rhine area, including Koln where people like Eckhardt studied etc. It may well be the case that the Cathars, as part of the intellectual life of the time, pollenated other ideas. So I still think the reference should stay in. ThePeg 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias
The author of the article continuously refers to the movement as "heretical" or a "heresy". To me this smacks of a pro-catholic orthodoxy bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowlance (talk • contribs)
 * take a look at heresy: the term means "not catholic". I do not think it can be reasonably disputed that the Brethren lay well outside mainstream Roman Catholic theology. dab (&#5839;) 08:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heresy doesn't mean "not catholic", it means outside of orthodox dogma. Lots more religions than just Catholocism have heresy, the Doctrines of Religion of Anglicanism specifically mention it. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebitsofpaper (talk • contribs)
 * I'll have to find a reference to it (I know I have one) but eventually the Brethren of the Free Spirit were assimilated into the Religious Society of Friends - Quakers. I'd have to say that within the stated times, periods and persons involved  - it is heresy. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebitsofpaper (talk • contribs)


 * Heresy by definiton is a relative term, which means not just against a teaching but also to a degree that is considered intolerable, grounds for severe anctions such as excommunication (under canon law) and in context -before the separation of state and religion- persecution (usually by the secular authorities, in defence of the official religion). Fastifex 02:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * excommunication in medieval Europe was not "relative". Either you were excommunicated or you were not. Sure, it reflects the configuration of the powers-that-were, but reporting historical reality is not "bias". dab (�) 09:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Its interesting isn't it? A poster above talks about the Heresy of the Free Spirit becoming the Quakers. Now you couldn't get less amoral, orgiastic or group-sex proselyters than the Quakers. So what does that say about anti-Brethren feeling? ThePeg 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
This article seems to just be a recounting of myths propagated by the movements enemies. -- Kendrick7talk 03:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Look at the Wikipedia article Heresy of the Free Spirit and it puts an opposite view - that their beliefs were slandered by the Church to suggest they encouraged licentiousness. In fact some of the Free Spirit's ideas are very close to some of the Gnostic documents found in the Nag Hammadi library - oneness with God, the Resurrection already having taken place etc. Its frankly amazing to me how many of these different appraoches to the Christian Mysteries proliferated in Europe over a period of a few centuries - Cathars, Lollards, Waldensians, Beguines, Beghards, Brethren of the Free Spirit etc - all of whom sought to reconnect with a grass-roots, anti-authoritarian spirituality. Fascinating. ThePeg 17:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is there two articels? - This one and Heresy of the Free Spirit? Should they not be merged?

This would be difficult as they put completely opposing views of the movement which was actually enormously widespread in northern Europe. But you have a point. On the general note of bias I think its fair to say that an awful lot of the articles on the Wikipedia (with several honourable exceptions) about supposedly heretical movements within Christianity seem to be written from the pro-Establishment POV. It can't have been the case that ANYONE disagreeing with the Church inevitably ended up perverting the Christian message to practise obscene sexual acts!. Admittedly this is partly because the only records we have of them are from the Inquisition etc but they still need to be viewed with some scepticism I think. ThePeg 10:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On the question of bias: The discussion about heresy seems empty to me as all we know about BotFS are from church records, this means that there is nothing else than the recount of "myths propagated by the movements enemies". This should be made clear in the article. It could even be questioned if there ever was a movement. It was a long time since i read about these things but i recall that is a major discussion in R.E. Lerner´s book. /Atzsch 18:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

what nonsense. "pro-establishment"? What establishment? The Catholic Church? Wikipedia articles more often than not are written from a naive would-be PC perspective that for all in the world tries to take the side of some downtrodden victim, as in persecution of Wiccans. I have yet to come across a Vatican taskforce trolling Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, rather, bound to report from sources, and if the only sources referring to the movement are church records, while their own accounts of how great they were have not survived, we cannot recount how great they really were, because that would be idle speculation. We can still refer to the speculations of notable scholars, so if you have any pronouncedly pro-Brethren historian you'd like to quote, you are most welcome to do that. dab (�) 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean the Catholic Church although perhaps I should have put Establishment rather than pro-Establishment. This article, for instance, says nothing about the Brethren other than regurgitate what anti-Brethren records said. There is no proper analysis of what the Brethren really thought, no real detailed theological discussion and no attempt to explore how they might have regarded themselves. Certain comments are quoted as being representative eg the atheist Brethren member who talks about Chance ruling the universe, when they most probably were not (in this instance the man cited could not have thought deeply about what the Brethren really said. They believed they were Christians even if they were pantheistic so this guy couldn't have known his stuff). Information is given in a subtly judgemental way. For instance, converts are described as 'ignorant', which, forgive me, seems pretty POV to me. As for pro-Brethren historians or even historians who delve beyond the Catholic records of the movement, well, see below. ThePeg 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that the article freely states that it incorporates material from the Catholic Encyclopedia so I think I'm kind of vindicated in suggesting the movement is here seen through the (primarily) Catholic lens. I'm not saying that's wrong per se, I'm just saying that its POV. And I'm not suggesting that someone shows how 'great' the Brethren were, only that they represent them fairly. Even if, as you say, we only have Catholic records as evidence about them then the article should say that rather than present those records as fact so that we can make up our own minds. These people were burnt at the stake. The people who wrote the records did the burning. We may as well do them the decency of trying to get a more balanced view. I find it hard to believe, given the names of some of the people associated with their ideas (eg Marguerite Porete, Meister Eckhardt etc) that they were a bunch of irresponsible charlatans and moral desperadoes delighted to find a way to justify their every lust and desire through a particular interpretation of Christianity. The Cathars were accused of similar decadence by the Church and were almost certainly innocent of the charges. So were the Monatists, the Beghards, the Beguines, the Lollards, the Templars, the Valentinians - basically anyone burnt at the stake or denounced as heretics by the Church were said to be sexual perverts of some kind. What I'm saying is that we have to be wary of these statements in evaluating these movements. ThePeg 13:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Scriptural Justification
I found this in the First Epistle of St John -

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall see Him as He is. And every man that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, even as He is pure. Whosoever commiteth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins: and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him."

Perhaps this began the theological position of this movement. I'm not convinced that they went around in orgiastic riots of lust and murder. Its more than likely that they were accused of doing so by a Church which was terrified of a Christian movement which didn't believe in Sin, thus threatening a key element of Church control of the population. My hunch is that the Brethren believed that a real relationship with God meant that the Holy Spirit dwelt within you thus you were in a state of Grace in which you didn't want or need to sin. Just as the Church was appalled by the Cathars' egalitarian and non-materialistic approach to Christianity, thus breaking their monopoly on ritual and sacrament I imagine they were shocked at the idea that man could be resurrected in this life and could break free of the bondage of sin through the Holy Spirit (which was kind of what Christ taught and movements such as the Gnostics and the Lollards etc believed in). ThePeg 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly insightful; that's very much the undertone from reading Porete's book. Even St. Francis' movement began independant from the church around the same time, only to get, as it were, sucked in. I've always been amused by the story, I don't know if it's true, that the Church rewrote his Rule when he was presumed dead somewhere in the Muslim lands, only of course he showed back up. -- Kendrick7talk 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Its an interesting one the story of St Francis. He was as close to being a Heretic as it was possible to be and still be within the Catholic Church. I read somewhere that one of the reasons he was allowed to continue was the Pope had just had a very bad experience with another movement (the Waldensians I think) who he banned but in doing so just swelled their ranks. According to Phillipe Roy many of the male Cathars who were forced to convert joined the Franciscans and, as the Inquisition gathered pace, many Franciscans actively opposed it. Francis' period in the Muslim world is interesting too as some believe that his contact with the Sufis was very important in the development of his spirituality. And when he died the Church did all they could to reorganise his movement along traditional hierarchial lines, suppressing the so-called 'Spiritual Franciscans' who resisted this process. In the end, the more I look into it, the more the Catholic Church has to answer for in its ruthless suppression of anyone who tried to come up with an alternative. Hmmm. ThePeg 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, perhaps, are a few other scriptural justifications for the idea that God is present in Creation (ie the pantheism of the Brethren) and the inherent divinity of Man/presence of God in Man:

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of Heaven and Earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though He needeth anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from any of us; for in Him we live, and move and have our being; as certain of your poets have said, for we are also His offspring' 1st Acts 17:24-28

and

"All things are from Him, through Him, and in Him." Romans 11:36

and

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love cometh of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love... If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and His love is made perfect in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His spirit. .. Whoseover confesseth that Jesus is the son of God, in Him dwelleth God, and He in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us... God is love, and He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in Him. Herein is His love made perfect in us, that we should have trust in the day of judgement. For as He is, even so are we in this world." 1st Epistle of John Chapter 3

and finally, from the Man Himself:

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, my Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." Gospel of St John 17:20-23

There's loads more, but these passages perhaps give a hint of where their ideas may have come from. Nothing there about rape, pillage, murder or group sex, though, obviously. ThePeg 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

More Detail
Here's something from the Intro to the Paulist Press edition of Marguerite Porete's The Mirror Of Simple Souls (ed Ellen Babinsky ISBN 0809134276) about the Free Spirit. I should point out that the Paulist Press is a CATHOLIC publishing house and a superb resource for all forms of Western Spirituality:

"The Free Spirits were committed to poverty and mendicancy as an outgrowth of the vita apostolica movement. The centrepiece of the Free Spirit perspective seems to be an arduous ascetic practise was necesarry to attain the divine life of union with God. In this view, only through extreme purgation could one divest the self of all will and desire in order to achieve perfection. The motivation for the Free Spirit was the search for spiritual perfection, not a revolutionary antipathy to the church, as some scholars have thought"

'Arduous ascetic practise' and 'extreme purgation' don't sound like extreme sexual and moral debauchery to me. If the Brethren were guilty of this (ie these reports aren't just church propaganda) I imagine it was towards the later stages of the movement when it is more than likely freebooters were seeing it as a 'Get out of jail free' card doctrinally. The issue here would have been that the Church would have been threatened by the idea that Union with God or individual salvation was open to all rather than dependent on Church mediation. Also the Brethren's anti-authoritarian message would have added to the authorities' fear of what they would have seen as an anarchistic movement whih would have broken their control if it had spread. NB I'm not saying the Brethren weren't necesarily guilty of these things (or at least some of them may have been), I'm just saying the article needs to be more balanced.

There's a lot more detail needed in this article in general, especially the supposed links between the Free Spirit and Eckhardt. Nowhere does Eckhardt talk about sexual licentiousness being allowed, for instance, as he himself said when he was challenged. Like the Brethren, Eckhardt did believe that a direct experience of/union with God was possible for everyone and he did believe that God was immanent as well as transcendent but he did not champion the things the Brethren were accused of - eg sexual licentiousness, naked masses, rape, murder, theft etc. ThePeg 11:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Beghards
As if to prove my point, the only thing said here about the Beghards was that they conducted masses naked, presumably the implication being that they took part in mass gay orgies or something. To represent this instance fairly you would have to add that the idea behind this was that they were trying to celebrate a pre-Lapserian innocence ie go naked as Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. Now we might find this bizarre and even a bit silly, creepy even (and they may well have indulged in mass homosexual activity) but the best that can be said on this evidence is that they were Christian Nudists. Its also worth remembering that William Blake thought the same thing and would often be found sitting in his garden with his wife stark naked quietly reading poetry to each other.

So one could say that the Beghards are a little unfairly represented here... ThePeg


 * I'll grant you that the purpose of that "naked" tidbit isn't really clear to me in this context. But, instead of filling this talkpage, why don't you begin fixing things in the article? dab (�) 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy to. I was under the impression that changes had to be discussed here before they could be put into action. Is there a consensus for me to do so out there? ThePeg 13:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ah, no, WP:BOLD applies still; in case your additions get reverted by someone, you are kindly asked to come back to the talkpage and argue about it instead of just reverting back again, but as long as nobody objects, you are welcome to improve the article as you see fit. dab (�) 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, dab. Much appreciated. I will get onto it. Might take a while as its a big subject! :-) ThePeg 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite?
So guys, what do you think? I'd like to revamp the article putting both points of view - what the Brethren were accused of doing and what recent scholarship says they may have been about. I will include stuff which is in this article, contextualise it a bit and add some more analysis. ThePeg 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sound's good, especially since you have Babinsky's preface there in front of you. I think she provides some of the mosr up-to-date scholarship on this. -- Kendrick7talk 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Its going to take some time - have to read through the two most famous texts which are thought to be representative of the Free Spirit Heresy: The Mirror Of Simple Souls by Porete and the Sister Catherine passage. But while you wait, here are some references from the Bible which might explain the origin of the theory of the Age of the Holy Spirit. They are from Acts, a book of the NT we often overlook. You will remember that Christ in John promises that he will send 'a Comforter' to his followers (known as the Paraclete). In Acts the moment in which the Apostles and their followers achieve spiritual rebirth/ revelation the phrase 'The Holy Ghost was poured upon them'. If you remember that the Holy Ghost is as much God as Christ and the Father then it literally means that these early Christians were being filled with God (perhaps another way of describing the experience of 'Gnosis' the Gnostics talk about). I would suggest that this is what the Free Spirit Heresy and its theologians meant when they talked about the Age of the Holy Spirit coming about in which men and women could experience the Holy Ghost within them. If you look at Acts that is exactly what is happening. Also, if you remember that the Apostles and early Christians in Acts aren't founding a religion but are actually knocking down old ones (Judaism, Ancient Greek and Roman faiths etc) in order to get at a greater truth you can see how the Free Spirits would have seen their role. On this note its worth remembering that there is a disagreement among English translations of the Bible ie Tyndale vs the King James Version which changed his words - as to whether one should use the word 'congregation' instead of 'church' (perhaps 'movement' or 'followers' would be better). Tyndale, who was anti the established church and all its hierarchies believed using the word 'church' was wrong and deliberately chosen by the Church to justify its existence. You see what I'm getting at?

Anyway, here are the passages from Acts. The Holy Ghost comes to the Apostles and their followers after Christ has ascended into Heaven:

"Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" ACTS 1:8

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and their handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, smoke and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:17-21 (remember that the Free Spirits were millenarian)

If the Book of Acts is about how men and women can operate after Christ has gone by being in touch with the Holy Ghost then you can perhaps see how the Brethren formulated this idea. In Acts God appears primarily in the form of the Holy Ghost. Christ is preached about, God is talked about but the Holy Ghost is active in the world and in its followers.

I suggest that this must have been the chief inspiration for this movement's early ideas.

It probably counts as Original Research but if its presented as a possibility (ie not established fact) is it acceptable for inclusion? Any thoughts? ThePeg 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A further odd thing is that there are enormous echoes in what we know of the Free Spirit Heresy, the writings of Marguerite Porete, the Sister Catherine passage and the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. In Thomas you find imagery of becoming intoxicated by the wine of heaven which appears in Porete, descriptions of the need for women to 'become men' which appear in Sister Catherine and you even get passages in which Christ tells his Apostles that only when they are able to go naked will they be able to enter heaven and experience salvation. This is really bizarre because there's no record of the Gospel of Thomas being around in the 13th/14th Century. If there IS a link could it be through Cathar refugees? What IS going on here? :-) ThePeg 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've started. Have rewritten the opening paragraph and will slowly work my way down. ThePeg 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First Draft
Right, I've done it. I look forward to heated debate and angry comments but would be happy to change anything that's wrong. I am sure it could be better laid out and expressed - any suggestions welcome. I haven't put extra sources yet. Will do.ThePeg 12:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What? No comments at all?!? Aren't I to be burnt at the stake? ThePeg 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey medieval heresy has been on my back burner. Good work though I might challenge a few concepts here and there. -- Kendrick7talk 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging
Before this article gets merged with the Heresy of the Free Spirit article could someone have a look at the new draft. Its very different now. Thanks. ThePeg 15:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New Bit
Kendrick, did you add the bit about the Friends of God, Eckhart etc? Like it! Let's keep it in!

Although I have to say I'm not sure the Friends of God were a lay movement. Tauler was part of the official church as was Suso. Indeed I think Tauler studied under Eckhart as a young novice. He was also called at different points to decide between his conscience and Church decrees when the Pope came into conflict with the Bavarian King (I think it was). The Friends were careful to avoid charges of heresy. Could you look into this? ThePeg 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wasn't me -- this article is still on the far reaches of my radar screen. New Advent says the Friends of God were "both ecclesiastical and lay." The article on Tauler here strongly implies that he may have studied under Eckhart. I don't see anything about a King even in New Advent's article on him though. As New Advent is in the public domain, I'll try to merge this over soon. -- Kendrick7talk 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Very mysterious! Who was that masked man? Tauler almost certainly studied under Eckhart but was also part of the established church, although there is much confusion as to his loyalties when the Pope got into a scrap with Strasbourg (you're right, it wasn't the Bavarian King). And having done a little snooping the Friends were indeed "both ecclesiastical and lay" and some were eventually deemed heretical and burnt at the stake. Seems like everyone with an enquiring mind and a shred of spiritual integrity ended up a shish kebab in those days. ThePeg 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've jiggled the new bit a little bit. Suso and Tauler, although part of the Friends of God and students of Eckhart were careful to stay within the boundaries of the Church and Suso actually preached against the Free Spirit. It would be misleading, therefore, to suggest they were Free Spiriters or sympathetic to them. Also, although I like the suggestion that the Friends absorbed some Free Spirits I would like to know what the source of that was. It remains true that in the end the Friends fell foul of the RC Church like all these other movements. ThePeg 22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pic
Dear all, I would like to suggest this picture for the article:

http://www.beloit.edu/~hist190/heresy1.jpg

Now, I don't know how to put it on the page. If someone does could they do it for me? Many thanks. Caption might be: Heretics being burnt at the stake. Not very cheerful but to the point. ThePeg 17:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the article. It's splendid. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Millenarian?
How were the Brethren millenarians? What evidence is there for this?Kortoso (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Heresy of the Free Spirit ??
Merge with Heresy of the Free Spirit ??

- 179.210.192.170 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Heresy of the Free Spirit which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)