Catholic's can't justify the Crusades

[Lance]

I thank God that most people don’t think like M_Oliver. If they did the world would be ruled by tyrants and we would all be their slaves. There would not be a vibrant, open Church. We would not have the inter-net or free speach.

 

[Brian_C]

Well, I guess we should just disregard

"In hoc signo vinces."



Bad Constantine!

 

[JSmitty2005]

Brian_C:

Well, I guess we should just disregard

"In hoc signo vinces."



Bad Constantine!

“Deus Vult!” goes out the window too.

 

[NotWorthy]

AnCay eway eepkay ethay atinlay otay a inimumay!!!

Otworthynay

P.S. Or at least explain for the ignorant masses!

 

[JSmitty2005]

NotWorthy:

AnCay eway eepkay ethay atinlay otay a inimumay!!!

Otworthynay

:nope: We’re Catholic here. It’s our language.

 

[Jabronie]

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.

You’ve got a lot of anger inside you. I know next to nothing about the crusades (anyone know a good book to read?) but if you want to discuss the wars here, I’d recommend you calm down a bit.

 

[JSmitty2005]

NotWorthy:

P.S. Or at least explain for the ignorant masses!

“In Hoc Signo Vinces” is Latin for “In This Sign (the Cross) You Shall Conquer.” It was taken from a vision of the Emperor Constantine in about the year 310. At the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine’s army was fiercely outnumbered by the contending emperor Maxentius. On the evening before the battle, Constantine saw a Cross emblazoned on the horizon with the words “In Hoc Signo Crucis Vinces” surrounding it. He immediately set to work placing the cross on the shields of everyone in his army. The next day Constantine swept the enemy into the Tiber River, and entered victoriously into Rome! It was this incident that blazed the trail for the Edict of Milan in 313, which ended the persecutions against the Catholics, and gave them the legal right to worship publicly.

“Deus Vult!” is Latin for “God wills it!” which was the battlecry of the Crusaders.

 

[Brian_C]

Jabronie:

I know next to nothing about the crusades (anyone know a good book to read?) .

shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0184.html?L+scstore+lxbl8552ff316631+1153474808

 

[BryPGuy89]

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.

God supports war for certain purposes. He started several Himself and gave victory to them if they did it to His will. We aren’t to be push overs and turn the other cheek to every kind of offense, some must be defended and perged, like large Muslim armies near Christian borders, killing and attacking CHristians on pilmigrages to the Holy land.

But I will give that some crusaders were not good Christians and did horrible things not desired by the Church who didn’t really have any control of what they did anyway.

Also, though defending Christ from fullfilling His will by defending Him is different from defending the Church or Christians in general you know?

 

[JSmitty2005]

BryPGuy89:

God supports war for certain purposes. He started several Himself and gave victory to them if they did it to His will. We aren’t to be push overs and turn the other cheek to every kind of offense, some must be defended and perged, like large Muslim armies near Christian borders, killing and attacking CHristians on pilmigrages to the Holy land.

Indeed. And this is not something that happened only 1000 years ago. It’s happening today.

 

[NotWorthy]

“In Hoc Signo Vinces” is Latin for “In This Sign (the Cross) You Shall Conquer.” It was taken from a vision of the Emperor Constantine in about the year 310. At the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine’s army was fiercely outnumbered by the contending emperor Maxentius. On the evening before the battle, Constantine saw a Cross emblazoned on the horizon with the words “In Hoc Signo Crucis Vinces” surrounding it. He immediately set to work placing the cross on the shields of everyone in his army. The next day Constantine swept the enemy into the Tiber River, and entered victoriously into Rome! It was this incident that blazed the trail for the Edict of Milan in 313, which ended the persecutions against the Catholics, and gave them the legal right to worship publicly.

“Deus Vult!” is Latin for “God wills it!” which was the battlecry of the Crusaders.

As spokesman for the “ignorant masses”, and maybe the only member, I thank you!

I was thinking about the exact incident with Constantine, which is why I so much wanted to know what it meant.

Thanks again!

My understanding of Latin is,

Notworthy

 

[Della]

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.

Nope. Your argument and the verses you used to support it won’t fly on this issue.

The verses you cited have nothing to do with warfare. Jesus was not talking about nations taking up arms to defend themselves nor about aggressive nations trying to conquer others. He was talking about relationships between individuals.

The first thing to consider in interpreting any verse is: What is the context of that statement, and what did the author of the writing want to tell us within that context? Context and intention trump all other interpretations. Secondary interpretations cannot oppose the primary interpretation.

We cannot rip verses out of their context and intention to shoe horn them into our personal mind sets or philosophies. The fact that so many have felt free to do so is the very reason there are thousands of Protestant denominations and sects. And, it is the reason so many think they know better than the Church that gave us the NT what Jesus meant by this comment or that.

 

[JSmitty2005]

NotWorthy:

Thanks again!

My understanding of Latin is,

Notworthy

You’re welcome. Mine isn’t really all that great either. I’m just kind of self-taught from reading the liturgy and Church history. However, I think that a basic knowledge of Latin is something that all Catholics should have. Especially since we still (rarely in my parish ) use it sometimes. Consider these quotes:

“The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (36).

“In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office” (101).

And also:

“The Latin language, which we can truly call catholic, having been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, mother and teacher of all the churches, must be considered a treasure…of incomparable value, and a door which leads into direct contact with the Christian truths handed down by tradition and with the documents of the teaching of the Church.”

Sorry for the tangent. Back to the thread topic!

 

[NotWorthy]

JSmitty2005:

You’re welcome. Mine isn’t really all that great either. I’m just kind of self-taught from reading the liturgy and Church history. However, I think that a basic knowledge of Latin is something that all Catholics should have. Especially since we still (rarely in my parish ) use it sometimes.

Sorry for the tangent. Back to the thread topic!

So I wasted all those years learning Pig-Latin???

Notworthy

 

[HappyCatholic01]

M_Oliver:

Does MAN’S bigger picture matter to the God of ALL that exists? Really, does it?

To make this productive, you need to address the specific points some have presented in favor of simply writing eloquent quotes of your own creation.

Thats all old rhetoric trick that often leaves debates unanswered and useless.

 

[thechrismyster]

control-c, contol-v = someone elses writing?

original thoughts are appreciated by me, regurgitating, copying and pasting chick tract loving, anti-catholic, free thinking website blog entries is intellectual masturba…
you get my point.

 

[Kirane]

JSmitty2005:

Both of these Crusades were justified although not every action that the Crusaders made were.

Was it also justified in the fourth crusade from a Roman Catholic point of view to steal millions of dollars of gold and precious jewels and other artifacts from Eastern Orthodox Churches in Constantinople and place them in west European Roman Catholic Churches and refuse to return them for 800 years? And what about the raping of nuns who had consecrated their lives to Christ and to the Orthodox Church?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Kirane:

Was it also justified in the fourth crusade from a Roman Catholic point of view to steal millions of dollars of gold and precious jewels and other artifacts from Eastern Orthodox Churches in Constantinople and place them in west European Roman Catholic Churches and refuse to return them for 800 years? And what about the raping of nuns who had consecrated their lives to Christ and to the Orthodox Church?

Did I say any of that? Also, you must remember that the Crusades happened about 1000 years ago. Even if there were men of good will that wished to return the stolen relics, it would have been a huge burden and probably even more detrimental towards the artifacts to try to take them hundreds of miles back to the Middle East without the means of transportation that we have today.

 

[Kirane]

JSmitty2005:

Did I say any of that? Also, you must remember that the Crusades happened about 1000 years ago. Even if there were men of good will that wished to return the stolen relics, it would have been a huge burden and probably even more detrimental towards the artifacts to try to take them hundreds of miles back to the Middle East without the means of transportation that we have today.

St. Mark’s Roman Catholic Church of Venice contains some of the booty even today. and still they have not yet been returned.
According to Robert de Clari, ch. lxxiii, in Hopf: Chroniques:
“Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist [Halberstadt] master Jean Faicette [De Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders], and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks. Then the bishops commanded the pilgrims to confess their sins and receive the communion devoutly; and said that they ought not to hesitate to attack the Greeks, for the latter were enemies of God.”
According to: Nicetas Choniates: Alexii Ducae Imperium, ch. iii-iv, in Recueil des historiens des Croisades,:
“Nor can the violation of the Great Church [Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so, great and infinite splendor.
When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with go , which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of t temple.”
Also see a much longer account of Geoffrey de Villehardouin at:
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/villehardouin.html

 

[Lance]

Kirane:

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

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with go , which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of t temple.”
Also see a much longer account of Geoffrey de Villehardouin at:
[fordham.edu/halsall/basis/villehardouin.html](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/villehardouin.html)

If your point is to show that members of the Catholic Church are imperfect and don’t always follow Her teachings then you did a good job. However you wanted to show the the Catholic Church is not perfect in what She teaches you failed.