Catholic's can't justify the Crusades

[DavidGonzalez]

Dear M_Oliver

PLEASE!

Other people have asked you to explain this passage before, but you’ve ignored them (because you don’t know what to say?).

“He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.’” (Luke 22;36)

 

[visavismeyou]

"Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”(Matthew 26:52)

**They say:

“They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.”**

Sounds just like Peter’s logic in defending Christ, doesn’t it? Of course he was wrong, Christ said so.

This is easily answered as your objections display a lack of understanding. I will attempt to help you.

Jesus was speaking about the sword, the sword is an offensive weapon, peter was taking an offensive stance against the men who were there to arrest Jesus.

That is the weak statement, the stronger:

Jesus created His Church (which became the The Holy Roman Catholic Church) and told its first pontiff “Lead my flock”. Now one could, erroneously, interprete that this means “Peter, lead my flock into hell” BUT, Why would Christ do that? Thus, of course, Christ told Peter to lead his flock into the future, and throughout the world preaching His message of peace, love and tolerance throughout the world.

Now I ask you the most pertinate question of this debate: What good would Christ’s passage of the reigns of his Church to Peter have done if there was no Catholic Church? Lets say the wars did not happen and the Church did not defend itself and the Muslims conqured the whole world… Under the Muslim belief, anyone who did not believe the Muslim doctrine would be killed and all “heretical” documents would have been destroyed. Christ’s words would have been extuingished, His Church, destroyed. What sort of stewards of Christ’s word do you expect us to be?

Pacifists are only Pacifists until a crazy man wielding a knife enters his house where his wife and 2 daughters are sleeping. Then a whole new animal comes out. Defense of one’s self is not only required to create a civil society, it is scripturally founded. Read where God has lead the Isralites to defend themselves against agressors but forbade them from plundering or acting out in immoral actions which were so common in war (raping and so on). Defense is neccessary - with out defense, Christ’s word would have died a long time ago.

Until there are no more evil aggressors on this earth we must prepare to defend ourselves.

 

[Ridgerunner]

St. Mark’s Roman Catholic Church of Venice contains some of the booty even today. and still they have not yet been returned.
QUOTE]

Returned to whom? The Turks who stole Constantiople itself? If the “booty” was put back where it came from, that’s who would have it. And then, the Turks are supposed to give Constantinople and the booty back to whom? The descendants of the Greek emperors? Greece? The Orthodox Church? Perhaps they, in turn, could return them to the Latins who founded the city to begin with, and the Roman Church from which they seceded? Maybe Venice needs to return those items to Rome as soon as Rome asks for them. But then, the capital of Italy, of which Venice is a part, IS Rome, isn’t it? Seems to me Venice has as good a claim as anyone.

 

[JoeyWarren]

You are spiritually BLIND if you think I am a follower of one of the most evil men who ever lived. Calvin was an evil man. His “church” is as blind as all the rest of the identifiable churches that exist today.

So what church do you belong to?

 

[JoeyWarren]

M_Oliver, my only regret is that the Crusaders did not completely wipe the Muslims off the face of the planet.

We should have killed every single one, man, woman and child.

why?

Bombing of the World Trade Center.
Flight 800
9/11
The War in Iraq

just to name a few.

And before you go and get all self-righteous. I was once a Navy Seal. I participated in an exercise to kill off an entire family in 1981. I was the one to kill an infant in it’s crib. This act was and is sanctioned by the United States of America and then President Ronald Reagan. Orders are orders, the Bible says we are to obey those that are placed in charge of us. I killed an infant by obeying the Bible.

It’s not something I am proud of. But Orders are Orders. PERIOD.

**P.S. If we had wiped them off the face of the Earth, I would not have had to kill an infant in it’s Crib. PERIOD! **

 

[jburgherr]

Isn’t it interesting that when ungodly atrocities, which are being committed now by Islamic radicals, the banner of the Crusades is raised?

What happened almost 1000 years ago, was not committed by anyone living now. It does not represent anything that the Church beleives in or condones…and hasn’t for centuries. What happened almost 1000 years ago was indeed a horrible thing and not to be forgotten, to be sure.

The atrocities of the Crusades does not give the Islamic radicals a current license for atrocities now!

If the author of this thread wants to have a scholarly conversation about the historical facts concerning the crusades…fine. However, if you are trying to tell me that Islam has the right to perform evil because of what occurred a thousand years ago…I’m not interested.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You see, the problem is that, despite the many materials available, the best-intentioned of us still fall into the trap of 'despite the atrocities of the Crusades. . ’ as the previous poster pens. . .

The crusades were not atrocities in and of themselves. We don’t live in the 11th century and our entire humanity has been informed by the 10 centuries in between. IOW, we’re attempting with hindsight to put our current feelings and knowledge onto the people of 1000 years ago.

To fight for the release of the holy land and to keep rampant muslim territorial expansion from overtaking the countries of Europe was NOT considered wrong or atrocious; it was considered PRAISEWORTHY.

We do not, and we SHOULD not, condemn the crusaders as committing atrocities in their decision to attempt a crusade. PERSONAL atrocities OTOH have nothing to do with the Christianity or faith teachings.

So John Paul was perfectly correct to apologize for individual wrongs committed in the name of Christianity. He did NOT however apologize for the crusades themselves, which were judged and which indeed proved to be necessary for the preservation of lives and the faith in Europe, which of course ultimately affected the lives and faith of us in the Americas and elsewhere.

 

[Lance]

M_Oliver stated in a previous post that my conversion to Catholicism was based on a lie. 3 days ago I asked him to tell me what the lie was or admit that he is anti-Catholic and had no clue what he was talking about. He has not replied, though he has posted on this thread since then so he must have seen my post. He therefore leaves no alternative but to assume that my original supposition is true.

It is now almost a week and still no reply so it must be true that my supposition that M_Oliver is ant-Catholic and has no clue what he is talking about must be true.

 

[JoeyWarren]

There was no doubt in my mind that he was anti-catholic.

 

[Dtmccameron]

So, as I understand it all so far, in the original poster’s opinion, we ought never rise to defend ourselves in any way, simply turning the other cheek and be martyrs. Y’know, seeing as how it just really goes against my nature, it’s probobly the right thing to do. Thank God, however, that there were some Christians who didn’t entirely espouse Christ’s ideals; cause otherwise there wouldn’t be any true Christians left to believe them.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

The world nevers stops attacking the Holy Catholic Church. Many times she is attacked by Her own members. Only the Catholic Church understands God. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a great preacher of the Second Cursade said “Rejoice, brave warrior, if you live and conquer in the Lord, but rejoice still more and give thanks if you die and go to join the Lord. This life can be fruitful and victory is glorious yet a holy death for righteousness is worth more. Certainly ‘blessed are they who die in the Lord’ but how much more so are those who die for Him.” The Holy Crusades were about Love and a means of great penance.

 

[Valke2]

As a Jew, please believe me when I say love like that, I can do without.

 

[Freshman88]

As a Jew, please believe me when I say love like that, I can do without.

And would it be loving to watch as your neighbor is conquered? To see a violent army, come to a country, force a foreign religion and oppress the people?

Now that love, as a Roman Catholic, I can certainly do without. I would like to think that I would actually fight for my neighbour.

Watching idly as the defenseless are attacked, while you have the capacity to defend them, is not an act of love - it is an act of cowardice.

Though the Crusades were much more complicated then that, this simple premise can be seen in the Crusades.

But then again, as a Jew, would you have preferred that the allied armies didn’t fight out of love for nation and fellow man? As a Catholic who had family in concentration camps, and others in slave labor farms - I know I certainly preferred that the allies fought.

Futhermore, as a Jew, what can you make out of the Macabees? Surly they were just in fighting off their hellenistic oppressors? So to were the crusades in fighting off would be Islamic oppressors - and history shows that it wasn’t enough - byzantium still fell.

To fight, can very much so, be an act of love.

 

[lizaanne]

Take a quick listen HERE

This may help the conversation along a bit.

~Liza

 

[NotWorthy]

And would it be loving to watch as your neighbor is conquered? To see a violent army, come to a country, force a foreign religion and oppress the people?

I think Valke is referring to the innocent Jews that may have died during the Crusades. They would have preferred to see a peaceful resolution, in my estimation.

 

[Valke2]

And would it be loving to watch as your neighbor is conquered? To see a violent army, come to a country, force a foreign religion and oppress the people?

Now that love, as a Roman Catholic, I can certainly do without. I would like to think that I would actually fight for my neighbour.

Watching idly as the defenseless are attacked, while you have the capacity to defend them, is not an act of love - it is an act of cowardice.

Though the Crusades were much more complicated then that, this simple premise can be seen in the Crusades.

But then again, as a Jew, would you have preferred that the allied armies didn’t fight out of love for nation and fellow man? As a Catholic who had family in concentration camps, and others in slave labor farms - I know I certainly preferred that the allies fought.

Futhermore, as a Jew, what can you make out of the Macabees? Surly they were just in fighting off their hellenistic oppressors? So to were the crusades in fighting off would be Islamic oppressors - and history shows that it wasn’t enough - byzantium still fell.

To fight, can very much so, be an act of love.

If you think you are going to get a Jew to feel all warm and fuzzy over the crusades, which more often than not resulted in the brutal murder and forced conversions of Jews, you are going to have to do a lot better than that.

 

[Chellow]

M_Oliver if it wasn’t for the Crusades your last name would most likely me Mohammed. For you to look down on those man who gave their life for you, is a great disservice to their death.

True like most wars their will be bad guys fighting in our side but that does not mean that it was not a just war. I guess you haven’t read the bible recently, I’m currently reading the book of Joshue, that book makes the Crusades look like a picnic.

 

[Chellow]

If you think you are going to get a Jew to feel all warm and fuzzy over the crusades, which more often than not resulted in the brutal murder and forced conversions of Jews, you are going to have to do a lot better than that.

It was not the church that pushed for force conversions of Jews. Pope Innocent III passed legislation prohibiting just that during the Crusades.

Ref: Innocent III: Letter on the Jews 1199

 

[swariffin]

“Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095.”

In other words he called them to WAR! I guess Christ was just kidding…

Dear Oliver,

The way I am going to response in in two ways:

First, It is correct that Jesus, i.e. human should never engage in war. That means all human. If we talk about the crusades as well as the muslim advances throughout history, one question should be asked. Why did it happen? Why the advancements? This question is valid both to the Christian (i.e Catholic since there was no reform movement at that time) and the muslims. When I was a kid, I was taught that the European when they advanced to the east, the message was 3G (Gold, Glory and Gospel). Really for the gospel? I don’t think so. Mostly the first idea of advances were economic/political purposes. If you take any cultural geography classes, you will be taught the same. When you have an economic/political purposes (not for real evangelization) for advancement, you can have wars. It was good for Constantine to built churches in the holy land. But, was it the only purpose he went there? without economic/political purposes?

The same question, I said apply to the muslims. Why should they spread religion by wars in the northern Africa, Spain, and threatening the Greek and Roman civilizations? Those areas are far from the land of Arabia. If Arabia was under attack, humanly speaking I can understand the situation. But really for religion? without political or economic purposes of conquering? All are the same things. Wars were wars. None of them are for religious purposes, but it was humans that claimed that the wars were holy wars. There were not holy at all.

Secondly, despite what I have said the above. I am still human being with all the weaknesses and the arogances. What happen if you were Pope Urban II at that time? What would you do? Let the muslims conquered? You and I today would me muslims for sure. I said this just to give a what-if analysis, not to despise Islam as a religion, and I said this out of my humanly weaknesses and ego.

To sum up, if we take all wars (the crusade wars or the sabililah wars, or what ever wars), they were all WRONG. Jesus clearly said to put the sword down, that is very-very-very true, and I don’t deny it. The same thing is, some muslims CLAIM that Islam is peaceful, and should be spread in peaceful way. If both the Christians and Muslims really put the swords down, have no selfish economic or political agenda, always negotiate things in the spirit of mutual beneficial relationships, there would be no crusades, no sabililah wars, and no suicide bombings at all.

 

[Church_Militant]

You guys DO realize don’tcha that this thread is over a year and a half old (Apr 7, '06,) and that the OP hasn’t been on here since the end of November of last year?

Why don’t we have a “beating a dead horse” emoticon?