Catholic's can't justify the Crusades

[Kirane]

JSmitty2005:

They had been excommunicated before they even did that. At least that’s what I got out of the article.

And what happened to the enormous number of priceless artifacts stolen from the Eastern Orthodox Churches by the Catholic Crusaders? Did they not end up in Roman Catholic Churches across Europe? Are they not still there in many Catholic Churches, such as St. Mark’s Roman Catholic Church in Venice Italy?

 

[M_Oliver]

Contarini:

M. Oliver,

Apparently you are a thorough-going Christian pacifist. I respect this position, though I’m not entirely convinced of its truth. However, I’m puzzled as to why you would go after the Crusades in particular. Why not focus on more immediate cases where Christians support war–the war in Iraq being the most obvious example? And given that you appear to be an evangelical Protestant, why not tackle the majority of evangelical Protestants who are far more ready to support military action than the current leadership of the Catholic Church? While the modern Catholic Church is not pacifist, it’s a lot closer to pacifism than most American evangelicals are.

So let’s clear up our own back yard before we go worrying about the misdeeds of our spiritual ancestors 1000 years ago!

In Christ,

Edwin

No, no, no, no I am not an evangelical protestant. You are right in that I should have included ALL Christians who support war as being against the new covenant teaching. It is not only some Catholics no doubt about it. There are alot of professing Christians who support war.

One could write a book on this subject but I’ll try and explain this as best as I can within the confines of a message forum. The OLD CONTRACT are the old rules. The NEW CONTRACT is the new rules. God dealt with His creation differently under the old contract than He does under the new.

I COMPLETELY understand that He commanded war with His chosen people under the old contract. The old contract was good but the new one is much better. Why would God give us a new one if the old one was better?

With this NEW contract came new rules. You’ve probably read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5,6,7) numerous times. Have you ever read it knowing Christ is talking to you? How can anyone read these words and conclude it is ok to blow somebody’s head off in the name of defense? I’ll admit I’m wrong if anyone can show me two witnesses in the New Testament that say it is ok for followers of Christ to kill people.

It just isn’t there.

Is war to continue in the world even though we are under a New Contract? YES! Phrophecy would not be complete without war. The difference is ALL war under the new contract is to be carried out by people who are weak in the faith or have no faith at all.

Understanding this message of the NT is the difference of making the first and better resurrection or facing the most serious rebuke one could ever imagine in the second resurrection. People of the second resurrection will be there for a reason. They did not take Christ’s words seriously. That is the great separator of God’s true people from the rest of the world.

Do you know how strange it seems to me to have to justify not killing someone on a Christian message forum???

 

[M_Oliver]

john ennis:

M Oliver, if the Scriptures are so clear and absolute on this, I’m assuming you’re saying we ought not to respond with violence if, say, our children or wives are being physically assaulted.

Stand by, rather, and trust God.

You really believe Christ was saying this?

I really don’t know for sure. Do you? And do you have Scripture that answers a question like this?

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

M_Oliver:

These are very tough subjects no doubt Nebuchadnezzar. I am not convinced of the “free will” doctrine. I was once but I have my doubts now as I advance. Forgive me for not having the chapters and verses handy but I am pretty sure at minimum King David and Prophet Jeremiah make it very clear God knows His people before they are even born. When I say His people I mean all of His creation.

I know Paul speaks of it in Ephesians. See Ephesians 1:5 and 1:11. He speaks of being predestinated. God knows us before we are born. If He knows us before we are born is it a heresy to think He knows what we will do in our life once we are born? I say no.

This is part of the problem of thinking God is like us. God doesn’t have to go thru time. He is outside of time and therefore sees all time beginning to end at once. So of course he knows what we are going to do before we do it. But he will not impose his will on us to change our destiny. We choose to love him and obey him or not. He loves us enough to let us live with our choice whatever way we choose.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

M_Oliver:

No, no, no, no I am not an evangelical protestant. You are right in that I should have included ALL Christians who support war as being against the new covenant teaching. It is not only some Catholics no doubt about it. There are alot of professing Christians who support war.

If you are not an evangelical Protestant, of what faith do you belong to? God’s faith, is, afterall, Catholicism.

Oh, one more thing, you are not representing the just war doctrine. No Christian “supports” war, but we (Catholics) realize that sometimes it is necessary for the ultimate good and to keep order. Surely you do not believe World War II and the Allies were unjustified?

**2309 **The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[whatevergirl]

Nebuchadnezzar:

I think the M. Oliver misses a huge point. He sights an example of people murdering your family and that being part of God’s plan. Well as I understand it, we are all people with free wills and God allows us to live out the consequences of our willful decisions. Hence we still have to die today because of sin. There is stavation in the world even though we have enough food for everyone. Christians are martyred every day for their faith. 1000’s of innocent babies are murdered in their mother’s wombs everyday by the culture of death. These are all choices that men have made and there are concequences for them. I do not think this is part of God’s plan or his will that is happening.

Yeah, I agree that all of these horrors are not God’s plan. They are the byproduct of free will. Free will can lead us to good or evil, and we ALL HAVE BOTH inside of us. The trigger is pulled to release evil, if we turn our backs on God. God would never ask us to do something against his pure Word.

I think this topic has strayed from the Crusades? (which I will admit…I need major enlightenment on!)

When it comes to history…I’m totally asleep.

 

[JSmitty2005]

M_Oliver:

I really don’t know for sure. Do you?

This is the crux of the issue and the crux of any debate between Catholics and other Christians. It is the issue of authority. Sola scriptura and private interpretation get you no where but confused, which is obvious in the quote above.

 

[JSmitty2005]

whatevergirl:

I think this topic has strayed from the Crusades? (which I will admit…I need major enlightenment on!)

When it comes to history…I’m totally asleep.

Check out the link in my signature.

 

[TobyLue]

I remind you Christ said:
"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) AND

 Here is the link if you want to read the rest of this lame attempt to justify war (murder) in the name of catholicism: AND

   May Chist our Lord speed His return and have mercy on those who are liars inside but bless you with their lips.

Hmm, are we by any chance witnessing the reincarnation of Giver?

 

[AquinaSavio]

M_Oliver:

With this NEW contract came new rules. You’ve probably read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5,6,7) numerous times. Have you ever read it knowing Christ is talking to you? How can anyone read these words and conclude it is ok to blow somebody’s head off in the name of defense? I’ll admit I’m wrong if anyone can show me two witnesses in the New Testament that say it is ok for followers of Christ to kill people.

I would still like an answer as to why Christ angrily drove the money-changers out of the temple witha whip. This was indeed violence, yet, as I see it: justifiable violence. I again repeat that Jesus was defending His Father’s house, just as we are defending ourselves (temples of the Holy Spirit).

M_Oliver:

Do you know how strange it seems to me to have to justify not killing someone on a Christian message forum???

You are not justifying the decision not to kill someone. You are trying to defend the mistaken position that violence of any kind is forbidden by the New Testament.

One thing to look at is this: The Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites on Mount Sinai. The fifth: Thou Shalt Not Kill. However, there were exceptions to this law. The Israelites DID war with other nations. Although this example is from the Old Testament, it still shows that God does make exceptions with regards to His law.

 

[JSmitty2005]

TobyLue:

Hmm, are we by any chance witnessing the reincarnation of Giver?

:bigyikes: Oh, no, not again!

 

[john_ennis]

Originally Posted by john ennis
*M Oliver, if the Scriptures are so clear and absolute on this, I’m assuming you’re saying we ought not to respond with violence if, say, our children or wives are being physically assaulted.

Stand by, rather, and trust God.

You really believe Christ was saying this?*

M_Oliver:

I really don’t know for sure. Do you? And do you have Scripture that answers a question like this?

This is a remarkable response; your positive assertion was that violence is always wrong. I’m asking if you’d even go so far as my above example.

I never implied that pacifism is wrong or condemned in Scripture. I also see no reason to believe that Scripture will necessarily provide the total answer for us.

Peace.

 

[Kirane]

I think that the original statement that Catholics cannot justify the Crusades is correct with reference to what happened in the first and fourth Crusades.

 

[Catholic29]

Kirane:

I think that the original statement that Catholics cannot justify the Crusades is correct with reference to what happened in the first and fourth Crusades.

Right, certainly with regard to the sacking of Constantinople.

 

[LilyM]

I’m not well versed enough in the history of the Crusades to say that they were justifiable or unjustifiable. My guess would be that, like many conflicts, there isn’t enough evidence either way to paint one side as the ‘goodies’ and the other as the ‘baddies’. One thing I do know - Jesus said ‘there will always be wars and rumours of wars’, and boy was he ever right.

He said ‘happy are you when people persecute you for my sake’, meaning martyrdom for the faith or pacifism if the aggression is only against you is OK. He didn’t say ‘don’t ever defend your country, home or family if someone is attacking them’. Why are there patron saints of soldiers for heaven’s sake? Ever hear of Joan of Arc? Fought for her country on God’s orders and was successful (and canonised as a saint) for her troubles.

I certainly don’t believe in the death penalty, nor that the ‘war on terrorism’ is necessarily justified as it is being currently run. That doesn’t mean helplessness in the face of aggression is the only possible Christian position.

 

[Melanie01]

Thank goodness for the crusades and the rabble that fought them either wise we would be all Muslim.

I am old, father William and I like big FONT.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Catholic29:

Right, certainly with regard to the sacking of Constantinople.

No. Both of these Crusades were justified although not every action that the Crusaders made were.

 

[NotWorthy]

TobyLue:

Hmm, are we by any chance witnessing the reincarnation of Giver?

No, I don’t think so. I’ve been looking for Robert Heibel but haven’t seen him lately. Does anyone know what happened to him? Why did he get kicked off this time?

Notworthy

 

[davy39]

M_Oliver:

Have you ever read the pathetic excuses put forth by catholics to make their bloody history go away? The crusades were WAR, period. A true Christian never supports war.

They admit:

"For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars."

Oh, so because it was a defensive war it was ok? I guess Jesus was just kidding around…

"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.

They say:

"With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed.

By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece.

In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense."

Oh I see! A defensive war is a justified war! I guess Christ was was wrong…

"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)

A pope wouldn’t entertain WAR would he?

"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…

"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)

How did the church who says it is the only church of salvation respond?

"The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it?"

Why DID they do it??? Because they were not and are not True Christian’s!

How do they explain it?

"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an “an act of love”—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar,

"You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’"

OOOOOOOOHHHHHHH. Forgive me. We can murder when it is an act of love. Surely Christ must have been speaking “metaphorically”. Isn’t that the catholic answer to almost every sin they commit that is prohibited by Scripture.

I remind you Christ said:

"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)

My intention was to go through this entire joke of an article but I must admit it is to troubling to me when I read it. Catholism was out of control from it’s beginning as it is today. They have mastered the art of BS, to put it mildly, when it comes to their MANY unscriptural actions throughout history.

Here is the link if you want to read the rest of this lame attempt to justify war (murder) in the name of catholicism:

crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

May Chist our Lord speed His return and have mercy on those who are liars inside but bless you with their lips.

Wow! What an post! Jack Chick could not have done any better. You did say that a true Christian never supports war. You should be glad that a lot of them did, or you would be speaking German or Japanese right now.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

JSmitty2005:

No. Both of these Crusades were justified although not every action that the Crusaders made were.

Right. Mark Shea pointed out that wrongful acts in the Crusades do not make them unjust wars any more than the bombing of Dresden, selling out of Poland to the Soviets, etc. makes Allied invovement in WWII unjust.