Deus Vult.
I wish you did, too. You do realize that movies like that are pure fiction, and just for fun, right?
You must be right. Under the authority of the Church, Jesus and therefore God, history can be re-written or the “proper” perspective on history can be defined. Therefore, the crusades never happened. Pope Urban the II never said “Deus Vult” at the outset of the crusades.
I never admitted that there is any Presence in their host. In all reality, their communion is just bread-before and after anything is said over it. All I was granting is that there is (or, maybe I should be more cautious and say, maybe) the presence of Christ with Christians who pray together “in spirit”. At this, He’s there because of Baptism-which flows through the Catholic Church.
Jmcrae did a good job of explaining it.
If one bothers to believe something in faith, it ought to be a fact. That which God has promised us through the Church is to be believed with more certainty than that which we see before our eyes. For a Catholic to try to say what the Church teaches is merely a matter of faith smacks of rationalism.
One can do so without leaving the truth behind.
We dialog only to understand where other people are coming from and we want to find out where they are coming from in order to better correct them and lead them back to Rome. There is no compromise, nor can there be, in true ecumenism. We will never be able to please everyone, nor do we want to-let those with ears hear.
We are talking about a supernatural reality here, “why can’t we all just get along” doesn’t cut it.
True unity comes in truth, not compromise and not is glossing over the errors and difficulties so that we can “all get along”. If we follow this path no one “gets along” and no unity results. Saying something is united when it most certainly is not does not change the fact. Besides, and I know you’ll just scoff at this too, Rome is the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Is all that is necessary a mere discernment of the “presence” of the Lord? Nope, not according to another source of the Word of God-Holy Tradition and the Magisterium.
I know what the Crusades were - defense of innocent tourists who were going on pilgrimmages to Jerusalem, who were being murdered merely because they were Christians.
Lol. That is both absurd and funny. I will tell my grandkids that there is hope yet for the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, heck, why not the Great Pumpkin!!!
Wow, I won’t even justify the Farsi portion of your comment with a response. If it weren’t for the efforts of Muslim scholars and scientists, Western science may not have made it to where it is now. They preserved ancient Greek philosophical/scientific texts which were the catalyst for much of our Renaissance-but I am sure you knew that.
:knight2:Hogwash. Give us all one break. I have heard a lot of defenses of the Crusades, but never that one. And your history of scientific knowledge needs some review.
OK, I worded that statement poorly. However, that which is guaranteed to be true by the Church is true beyond a shallow fideism.
I was just told in another thread by another defender of the Catholic church that the Catholic church is continuallly “updating” her beliefs with regard to what is revealed truth. What sort of guarantee is that?
This was probably a clumsy reference to the concept of development of doctrine. Keep in mind, the Apostles knew nothing about the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union - these ideas developed later as the Church came to realize more fully what it was, exactly, that the Apostles had encountered in Christ, and in response to various heresies.
I have always found it a curious proposition that people, sometimes hundreds of years later (church officials) found that they could determine “more fully” what Christianity was about than the apostles who knew Jesus intimately, who knew the very smell of Jesus. People develop ideas and conclusions all the time about events after the fact. Whether these ideas have any basis in the reality of the original events is a different question.
Just because they didn’t understand it doesn’t mean they didn’t believe in it. They were the ones who gave us the information from which we deduced that God is a Trinity of distinct persons who operate with one will. We didn’t add any extra information to the raw data that we were given by the Apostles.
No, your comment was:
I happen to agree with your comment, they didn’t know anything about the Trinity. It was not an question of understanding, they didn’t have a clue. Are you going to say that Newton didn’t have a clue about quantum mechanics (he didn’t) yet he believed in it? Hogwash (and rather convenient hogwash at that). It took an act of God (literally) for Peter to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah, much less divine. That my friend is miles away from believing in a complex doctrine like the Trinity.
How can one say, “we didn’t add any extra information to the raw data that we were given by the Apostles” and still speak against the idea of “sola Scriptura”?
If not for the Crusades, I would be pulled out of school in the eighth grade at the latest, wearing a burqa, subjected to unspeakable rituals of mutilation, sold to a man who already had several women when I was 12, forbidden to see daylight without a male escort, expected to commit suicide if I was raped, stoned as a prostitute if I accidentally let my hair show, and dead by now of illnesses that would be easily treated or prevented but that I was in a state of mandatory overbreeding, heat exhaustion, rickets and medical deprivation. When I became a Christian, I would have been killed for my faith by my family.Lol. That is both absurd and funny. I will tell my grandkids that there is hope yet for the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, heck, why not the Great Pumpkin!!!
Wow, I won’t even justify the Farsi portion of your comment with a response. If it weren’t for the efforts of Muslim scholars and scientists, Western science may not have made it to where it is now. They preserved ancient Greek philosophical/scientific texts which were the catalyst for much of our Renaissance-but I am sure you knew that.
Deus Vult!!! (Because the Church Wills It!)
Lol. :nope:
I don’t want to derail this thread from its original topic. However, I would suggest you brush up on your history. In light of their initial intentions, the crusades were failures. Europe did benefit from the increased trade and contact with the near east and its cultures which were more sicentifically and medically advanced. Any gains the armies of Christendom made their were eventually lost. Catholics did develop a refined sense and ability to persecute religious minorities in their homelands (albigensian crusades, anti-semitism-which also occurred on the out-set). The Church also grew in power and wealth.
Because the Scriptures are actually a prime example of development of doctrine. (You do realize that most of the Apostles never saw or knew about the New Testament, right?)
So the “raw data” you spoke of isn’t the scriptures – I take that would be “compiled data” – but this oral tradition?
Yes.