Catholic's can't justify the Crusades

[crmcfl]

I’m not a Crusade scholar, so I’m not going to get into that particular angle, but here’s what the Catholic Catechism says - In Brief Section 2321 “The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or for the common good.”

 

[Valke2]

I also don’t see where the Roman Catholic Church authorized or sanctioned such persecution.

Well, it sanctioned it in a large part by granting the participants automatic and “pre-issued” forgivness for any acts committed during the crusdaes.

 

[Valke2]

Ok. Thanks!

welcome.

 

[brotheinChrist]

If it weren’t for Crusades, we’d all be bowing now to Muhammad’s invented deity…

 

[corvidae]

I just read a quote and had to respond, I am not sure if anyone has already said this, sorry if they have.

But the “new kingdom” and the “new covenant” are quite different things.

One describes what the world will be like when everyone is perfect,

the other is meant to get us there.

Swords into plowshares describes the new kingdom, the kingdom of God, not the covenant

A lone Raven

p.s. - I can think of at least a couple reasons for someone at the time to think the crusades were a good idea, remember, hindsight is 20/20

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

By that logic, you should be thanking the Jews. If we hadn’t rejected Jesus outright, Paul would not have been able to convince his followers to recruit from the Gentiles. Instead they would have followed James who advocated recruiting from within judaism only and Christainity would only be another sect of Judaism, instead of it’s own religion.

According to the Christian Scriptures you’re actually kind of correct Valke2.

Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

Without any offense or snark intended I honestly say thank you.

 

[Atreyu]

Well, it sanctioned it in a large part by granting the participants automatic and “pre-issued” forgivness for any acts committed during the crusdaes.

I’m pretty sure that the participants were granted plenary indulgences - NOT unconditional forgiveness. Of course to gain a plenary indulgence, one would need to be a Catholic in a state of grace… And this state of grace would be nullified by any mortal sin (read atrocity) committed during said crusade. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the crusaders who sacked Constantinople were all excommunicated.

 

[Valke2]

I’m pretty sure that the participants were granted plenary indulgences - NOT unconditional forgiveness. Of course to gain a plenary indulgence, one would need to be a Catholic in a state of grace… And this state of grace would be nullified by any mortal sin (read atrocity) committed during said crusade. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the crusaders who sacked Constantinople were all excommunicated.

How many were excommunicated for killing jews?

 

[Valke2]

Cathar Crusades lasted about 20 years, the purspose of which was to elimiate a religion that the Church considered apostasy. I have read that the voilence was extreme, the church promised dominion over the conquored lands to the french noblemen, making the crusaders mercanires. ANd this campaign of killing practioners of another religion began after priests failed to peacefully convert them. The CHurch did excommunicate people because of this – but only those who refused to cooperate or offered protection to the Cathars. I also recall that this crusade helped establish the Inquisition, although I don’t remember exactly how.

The Fourth Crusade: (1201-1204). This is the one you are talking about I believe when you say some were excommunicated. I don’t know if that is true. I have read that the church threatened excommunication but it did little to stop the pilliging. It was also responsible for the final split between East and West Orthodoxy. NOt to mention that this was violence against other christians, which partially explains even the threat of ex-communication.

The crusaders who sacked the city of Zara were excommunicated. Again, this was a Christian city that no one was authorized to attack.

 

[Valke2]

I’m pretty sure that the participants were granted plenary indulgences - NOT unconditional forgiveness. Of course to gain a plenary indulgence, one would need to be a Catholic in a state of grace… And this state of grace would be nullified by any mortal sin (read atrocity) committed during said crusade. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the crusaders who sacked Constantinople were all excommunicated.

I may have used the wrong term. I’m not sure what the practical difference is. SInce killing jews or muslims or heretics while on the crusades was almost by defintion, not a mortal sin in the eyes of the Church.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

As a point of information, we Jews have very bitter memories of the Crusades, specifically of the massacres of Jews perpetrated by (First) Crusaders in the Rhine Valley & in Jerusalem. I am certainly not speaking against Pope Urban II & we certainly remember how Archbishop Ruthard of Mayence and Bishop John of Speyer (among many other senior churchmen, including Bernard of Clairvaux during the 2nd Crusade) tried as best they could to protect us, but we still remember the Crusades very poorly. If you played a word association game with most orthodox Jews like myself, who know something about the history, and said, “Crusades,” we would probably respond with words like “Fire,” “Blood,” “Slaughter,” and the like.

See tinyurl.com/5rhu3 & tinyurl.com/4zjpg.

We remember Saladin very well, both as ruler of Egypt & reconqueror of Jerusalem:

In 1187, at the head of the Ayubbid Dynasty, Saladin reconquered the city of Jerusalem from the Crusaders. Looking on from the 20th century one cannot help but notice the difference between Saladin and the Crusaders. In 1099 the city was ravaged. The synagogues were burnt down and the inhabitants, Jews and Moslems alike, were massacred. The Ayubbid conquest was conducted very differently. Saladin relieved the Christian inhabitants of a considerable amount of money and clearly asserted Moslem superiority in a fashion that was no doubt most humiliating. But there was no massacre. Saladin allowed free religious practice to both Christians and Jews who wished to remain in the city under Moslem rule and safe passage out to those who did not.

Link: jafi.org.il/education/juice/2000/jerusalem/j3k-9.html

DW & I took Da Boyz (Yohanan, now 9, & Naor, now 5) up to the Galilee for a few days’ vacation in August 2004. We had a picnic lunch at the Goren National Park & enjoyed its spectacular view of the crusaders’ Montfort Castle accross the steep, wooded, valley of the Keziv stream (see gemsinisrael.com/monfortgoren.html). Yohanan asked about the castle & I told him that it was built by a group of Christians who were fighting with a group of Muslims over which one of them owned the Land. He thought that that was a real hoot: Christians & Muslims fighting over something that belongs to neither. (gemsinisrael.com/crusaders.html is a very good source for info on the Crusaders & Crusader sites in Israel. The view of the upper Jordan Valley, the lower Galilee, the heights of Gilead in Jordan & the Golan Heights, from the Crusaders’ Belvoir Castle tinyurl.com/489fq is awesome. The castle at Yehiam tinyurl.com/5dj8h in the western Galilee is pretty neat too.)

Be well!

ssv

 

[corvidae]

I just have to say that the albigensian (cathar) crusade is not in the same type as the other crusades. Most historians believe that the albigensian crusade was a land grab by the king of france, as many of the albigensians held large tracts of land in southern france. This was a crusade by the french, against the french.

There were atrocities on this crusade, you must remember, that the inquisition was begun to stop the violence and atrocities of this crusade, that should give you an idea of what it was like.

Also, you have to distinguish between so called peasent crusades and the wars the church supported. Many of the massacres of Jews especially were done by large groups of peasents who believed they were going on crusade.

You also cannot blame the Church for what happened (at least you cannot completely blame them), war is a chaotic thing and sometimes things get out of hand, the pope did not lead the war, the war was simply called for, and the nobles themselves had to decide what to do. Some had good intentions, some did not, that does not mean the Church itself is to blame.

There have been horrible things that happened in every war, and these may or may not be the fault of those who begin or continue the war. Who knows what may happen, many felt they were fighting for the livelyhood of christendom period. It was either defeat the muslims, or have them continue to take over christendom.

Also remember, it was the eastern churches that asked for help, it was not a unilateral decision.

A lone Raven

 

[TheGarg]

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect*."

It is not easy, that is the message of the whole Bible!

It is not easy? it is IMPOSSIBLE>…you are quite good at taking things out of context. Of course me must be perfect to get into Heaven, to live with the Father, thay is why our meciful Father gave us Jesus, who gave us the Sacraments, and our Merciful Father gave us Pergutory, cause he KNEW that none of were gonna be perfect, due to our fallen nature.

Peace of the Lord be with you

 

[M_Oliver]

It is not easy? it is IMPOSSIBLE>…you are quite good at taking things out of context. Of course me must be perfect to get into Heaven, to live with the Father, thay is why our meciful Father gave us Jesus, who gave us the Sacraments, and our Merciful Father gave us Pergutory, cause he KNEW that none of were gonna be perfect, due to our fallen nature.

Peace of the Lord be with you

What have I taken out of context? Show me the Scriptures where Jesus gave us the “sacraments”. Where does God reveal “pergutory”? I’m serious. WHERE??

Fallen nature? Man never fell. He was CREATED THAT WAY!

 

[corvidae]

Are you saying man was created flawed and with a tendency to do evil, if you are, I would say you have a lot of explaining to do to let others know where you got that idea.

Second, no, the word sacraments and pergatory are not found in the bible, the ideas are.

The wedding feast at Cana- Obviously Jesus being there means He at least thought it was important, also all that stuff about What God has put together, let no man seperate.

So it looks like the idea that Marriage is graced is a good one

Confession- John 20:22- Whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you hold bound are held bound.

Now this may be just me, but if they had the authority NOT to forgive, then we better go and see if we are forgiven

Baptism- Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit- Matthew 28:19

The Eucharist-The last supper-The cup we use in the Lord’s Supper and for which we give thanks to God: when we drink from it, we are sharing in the blood of Christ. And the bread we break, when we eat it, we are sharing in the body of Christ.
1 Corinthians 9: 16

Also Check out John 6

Confirmation-When they arrived, they prayed for the believers that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit had not yet come down on any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 8: 14

hmmm, seems like grace is being given

Annointing of the sick- Is there anyone who is sick? He should send for church elders, who will pray for him and rub olive oil on him in the name of the Lord.
James 5: 14

again, looks like grace, and a ritual that the apostles founded

Holy orders- The group presented them to the apostles, who prayed and placed their hands on them.
Acts 6:5

Ok, let me give you the Catholic definition of sacrament-
An outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

As for purgatory-
… and the fire itself will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.
1 Corinthians 3: 13

plus Maccabees, but since it is part of the apocrypha I will not include it.

The idea of a purifying fire is not a new one. You will be as gold tested in fire anyway, it makes sense that if we are to see an absolutely perfect God, we must be absolutely perfect.

So there you go, some biblical backing.

A lone Raven

p.s. a just man falls seven times a day, so remember you are not perfect, nor am I

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

Does this mean we should let the terrorists forcefully turn the whole world into an Islamic world. Because that is what they are trying to do There has been war since the fall of man. War is horrible and people are dying and I dont like it either, but the only reason we are talking tonight is because of past wars. No matter what people think of Bush–He is a God fearing man and knows that if he turned the other cheek with the terrorists they would slowly suppress christianity and kill christians and worse then that–TEACH LIES ABOUT GOD Freedom is not FREE!! I think we (especially in the US) need to remeber that we are free to follow Christ-OPENLY because of the men and women who died in wars to keep us free. Had we not responded to Pearl Harbor we would probably be speaking German or Japanese right now.
I received an e-mail and at the end it said If you are reading this–Thank a teacher------If you are reading this in english–Thank a soldier!

Bottom line is we have to TAKE A STAND FOR CHRIST and sometimes that means war.

Peace and Love

 

[Formosus]

I’m not sure how the murder and persecution of Jews during the cursades is a defensive war. And I don’t know of any catholics who even try to justify that today.

The Jews most likely fought on the side of the muslims like they did when the Persian empire attacked the Byzantine controlled Jerusalem in the early 600s. The Jews betrayed the Eastern Catholic government of Jerusalem and aided the persians in their conquering of the city. I can only imagine that during the Crusades the jewish population fought as soldiers for the Muslims , and also the first crusaders were condemned by the Pope for their actions after taking the city of Jerusalem.

 

[M_Oliver]

Are you saying man was created flawed and with a tendency to do evil, if you are, I would say you have a lot of explaining to do to let others know where you got that idea.

As for the rest of your post…it is as wrong as this that I answer.

If man was NOT “created flawed and with a tendency to do evil” then HOW did man sin? Your church teaches man was created in the image of God. Right? So how does a creature made in the image of God sin? Ever think about that with your own brain?

Your church teaches that a creature “made in the image of God” was INCAPABLE of sinning BUT it sinned anyway! HOW can something MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD sin when God is INCAPABLE of sinning? Are you saying God is NOT in control? Blaspheme!

The answer is it cannot, and to teach otherwise blasphemes our Creator. It is a serious contradiction of ALL identifiable churches!

Here is the short answer…

Despite your churches claim to understand everything they bigtime fail to see that God is CREATING man [and women] in His own image. He has NOT created man [and women] in His own image YET. Pay attention to the WORDS!

Here is some basic Scripture that speaks volumes:

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)

So WHERE have we heard that before? Why all the way back in Genesis BEFORE the false teaching of “the fall” promoted by the world occurred.

I’ll emphasize to help you out…

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food[LUST OF THE FLESH], and that it was a delight to the eyes[LUST OF THE EYES], and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise[PRIDE OF LIFE], she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6)

So BEFORE, yes BEFORE she ate of the fruit she ALREADY possessed that which was of the world and NOT of the Father. The “fall” of man is a lie. We were created CARNAL[spirtually weak] from the beginning so that God could MOLD us into his image during our life in the flesh.

There is your “explaining”.

 

[corvidae]

Well thank you for your explanation

here is mine

Sin is not logical, Sin does not make sense
A great example is the sin of envy, it provides no pleasure for anyone involved, and yet people still commit it

Think about it, do your sins make sense,
you probably know that they offend a God who is immensly worthy of praise, why do it
You probably know that they can cast you into hell, yet you do them
You know that God allows you to sin so that you can truly Love Him, and yet you choose to sin.
It doesn’t make sense.
I do not do the good that I wish to do, but rather do the evil that I do not wish to do.- St. Paul

If St. Paul had a problem with sinning, who are you and I to say we do not.

Secondly, if man and woman were created with evil, and God was the only one who created them, then God had to have some part of evil (you cannot give something you do not have).
That my friend, is blasphemy

I am saying that God gave even Adam and Eve free will, the Image and likeness of God is the things that make them like God, Intellect and Will. They had the option to choose evil, even if it didn’t make sense. That is my belief

A lone Raven

p.s. Basically you are saying God flawed us in order to save us, that is no better than not giving free will in the first place is it. What would be the point of free will if God flawed us in the first place so that we would be predisposed to sin. Why would GOD predispose us to something that HE hates

 

[corvidae]

Just a thought,

It is just bad discussion to say I will answer to one of the three pieces of evidence that you put forward on three different topics and say the other two are just as stupid as that one.

Usually, on three topics, and three pieces of evidence, there are at least attempts at three rebutals.

A lone Raven