crusade;why some ppl thought it as a violence?

[morning_star777]

Dear Morningstar,

Blood bath was never meant by God. No killing is authorized by God, especially done in his name. This is true in whatever religion of the world.

my dear brother,when i have posted this thread then i was new.but later i learnt many things from you&others.&u know i consider you as my elder brother.so brother i agree with you&i am sorry for this thread.so pls don’t misunderstand me.

 

[swariffin]

Dear Morningstar,

Please feel free to make a new thread of anything. Thanks to all the brothers and sisters in www.catholic.com who created this forum. I do learn from other people, including from you. I believe that by having good arguments without any hatred but in full charity, we will all learn from each other.

 

[morning_star777]

Dear Morningstar,

Please feel free to make a new thread of anything. Thanks to all the brothers and sisters in www.catholic.com who created this forum. I do learn from other people, including from you. I believe that by having good arguments without any hatred but in full charity, we will all learn from each other.

thanks my brother,many ppl help me but you&brother inJESUS help me alot via PM.

 

[morning_star777]

thanks my brother,every ppl help me but you&brother inJESUS help me alot via PM.

so brother, specially i am gratefull to both of you&inJESUS and also gratefull to all brother&sisters here.thanks again for all of ur help that made me understand many thing.holy lord jesus bless all of you my brother&sisters.regards to all friends

 

[Sepharad]

Myth: the Crusades were also waged against the Jews;

No Pope has EVER called a Crusade against Jews. During the first Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. In part it also stemmed from the INCORRECT BELIEF that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war.
Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade, a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it.
The misfires of the movement were an unfortunate byproduct of Crusade enthusiasm, but they were NOT the purpose of the Crusades.
Here is a modern analogy:

During the second world war, some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for these crimes. But the purpose of the second world war was not to commit crimes…

If you will re-read my post again, correctly this time, you will see that I did not say any Pope ever called a Crusade against JEWS. It was called against MUSLIMS.

But in the process of traveling to the Near East for the Crusades, many Crusaders did slaughter Jews in communities in France and Germany.

 

[Cathdefender]

If you will re-read my post again, correctly this time, you will see that I did not say any Pope ever called a Crusade against JEWS. It was called against MUSLIMS.

But in the process of traveling to the Near East for the Crusades, many Crusaders did slaughter Jews in communities in France and Germany.

In 1096, a small band of knights and peasants, inspired by the preaching of the Crusade set off from various parts of France and Germany. The Crusade of the priest “Folkmar” beginning in Saxony persecuted Jews in Magdeburg and later in Prague in Bohemia.
The Catholic Bishop Cosmos attempted to prevent forced conversions and the entire Catholic hierachy in Bohemia, preached against such acts.
Duke Bratislav was out of the country and the Catholic church officials protest were unable to stop the mob of Crusaders.

 

[Peter_J]

From Zenit:

**Vatican Publishes Study on 4th Crusade

Seeks Impartial Look at Event That Cemented 1054 Schism **

VATICAN CITY, JULY 1, 2008 ( Zenit.org ).- A study of the famous 4th Crusade of the 13th century – which was called to rescue Jerusalem from Islam but resulted instead in a sack of Christian Constantinople – has been published by the Vatican.

The Vatican Publishing House has released a volume collecting the addresses in various languages from a conference held in 2004 on the 4th Crusade. That year was the 800th anniversary of the crusade that went awry. The 13th-century event is considered to have cemented the Great Schism with the Orthodox that had occurred in 1054.

The 2004 conference was organized by the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences, in collaboration with the Institute of Byzantine History of the University of Athens and the Institute of Byzantine and Neo-Greek Studies of the University of Vienna.

The volume is titled “The 4th Crusade Revisited” and it has an interdisciplinary scope, including considerations of the political, anthropological and theological implications of the crusade.

Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, president of the pontifical committee, wrote in the prologue that the volume was edited with the intention of “contributing to the completion of the historians’ great project and to the purification of memory, which has been indicated by the path that has to lead to the coexistence of men, nations and religions, characterized by reciprocal understanding and benevolence.”

He said the congress welcomed the invitation of the Pope, convinced that a “serious and impartial writing of history” without prejudices and based in “rigorous historical method” would be an indispensable tool in reaching this goal.

The volume brings together texts prepared by people of various nations and religious creeds, seeking what they call the step from suspicion to truth in charity.

 

[bobzills]

From Zenit:

**Vatican Publishes Study on 4th Crusade

Seeks Impartial Look at Event That Cemented 1054 Schism **

VATICAN CITY, JULY 1, 2008 ( Zenit.org ).- A study of the famous 4th Crusade of the 13th century – which was called to rescue Jerusalem from Islam but resulted instead in a sack of Christian Constantinople – has been published by the Vatican.

The Vatican Publishing House has released a volume collecting the addresses in various languages from a conference held in 2004 on the 4th Crusade. That year was the 800th anniversary of the crusade that went awry. The 13th-century event is considered to have cemented the Great Schism with the Orthodox that had occurred in 1054.

The 2004 conference was organized by the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences, in collaboration with the Institute of Byzantine History of the University of Athens and the Institute of Byzantine and Neo-Greek Studies of the University of Vienna.

The volume is titled “The 4th Crusade Revisited” and it has an interdisciplinary scope, including considerations of the political, anthropological and theological implications of the crusade.

Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, president of the pontifical committee, wrote in the prologue that the volume was edited with the intention of “contributing to the completion of the historians’ great project and to the purification of memory, which has been indicated by the path that has to lead to the coexistence of men, nations and religions, characterized by reciprocal understanding and benevolence.”

He said the congress welcomed the invitation of the Pope, convinced that a “serious and impartial writing of history” without prejudices and based in “rigorous historical method” would be an indispensable tool in reaching this goal.

The volume brings together texts prepared by people of various nations and religious creeds, seeking what they call the step from suspicion to truth in charity.

This is a wonderful step in the right direction.

 

[Postmodern]

Let me put this into modern terms.

Imagine a nation invaded another country. NOw, the people of that country called out for the UN to do something. The UN called upon the invader to leave at once. They do not. The UN then calls for sanctions. It does not matter. Finally, the UN allows for force to solve the problem. They send in an army and drive the invador out. That is how it is supposed to work. It never does. In reality, the UN cannot do squat. A coalition of nations, generally headed by US forces invades and fights. We get blamed for being oppressors and making ourselves police of the world and the UN acts like it did its job.

Here is how the Crusades occured. A nation, the Muslim Caliphate, invaded the Holy Land. The Christians there called for help. the Muslims would not negotiate. The pope called for all Christians to help the oppressed people of Palestine. No problem, right? Well, as time went on, some of the Crusades overstepped the job. Constantinople was sacked, for no reason. There were widespread abuses.

The need was there, the execution was bad. I will not apologise for defending the faith. I will for performing evil acts.

Pope Urban II gave a rather raciest speech and made a number of rather exaggerated claims. Many cities would precede their sending off of troops by a rather brutal attack on their Jewish population and if memory serves one crusader enjoys recounting how blood flowed up to the knees as the streets ran red with infidel blood.

Why modern Christianity wishes to defend this barbarism is beyond me. The Holy lands had been under Muslim rule for some three hundred years, and Christian pilgrims had little trouble making pilgrimages to the Holy cites. In fact Jews and Muslim fought together in the Siege of Jerusalem, the Jews were slaughtered when the Christian Franks burst in.

Many in the Christian hierarchy admirable attempted to shelter some Jews from the murderous mobs, however let’s not pretend this was some noble endeavor. Theoretically I believe the first crusade was justified, all subsequent ones, and the actual actions of Christians during the crusade, were not.

 

[ralphinal]

Pope Urban II gave a rather raciest speech and made a number of rather exaggerated claims. Many cities would precede their sending off of troops by a rather brutal attack on their Jewish population and if memory serves one crusader enjoys recounting how blood flowed up to the knees as the streets ran red with infidel blood.

Why modern Christianity wishes to defend this barbarism is beyond me. The Holy lands had been under Muslim rule for some three hundred years, and Christian pilgrims had little trouble making pilgrimages to the Holy cites. In fact Jews and Muslim fought together in the Siege of Jerusalem, the Jews were slaughtered when the Christian Franks burst in.

Many in the Christian hierarchy admirable attempted to shelter some Jews from the murderous mobs, however let’s not pretend this was some noble endeavor. Theoretically I believe the first crusade was justified, all subsequent ones, and the actual actions of Christians during the crusade, were not.

Once I got to the end of your post, I could see that we are not far off in the way we see it. The first could be justified, it went down-hill from there.

One thing that is overlooked in these discussions is the real threat that the Muslim Turks were to Europe in the East. There were numerous wars and battles, and I assure you they were not overly chivelrous, either. It was a brutal time and people acted like brutes.

Another thing that amazes me is that, in America, if not for anti-Catholic rhetoric, the crusades would be a blurb in history. It seems like in the Middle East, more importance in placed on them. I wonder why

 

[Peter_J]

Why modern Christianity wishes to defend this barbarism is beyond me.

What is your basis for saying that modern Christianity wishes to defend the crusades?

Are you basing this on the fact that some Protestant groups have names like “Campus Crusade for Christ”?

 

[Postmodern]

What is your basis for saying that modern Christianity wishes to defend the crusades?

Are you basing this on the fact that some Protestant groups have names like “Campus Crusade for Christ”?

I intended to have a “some” in there, sorry.

 

[Postmodern]

Once I got to the end of your post, I could see that we are not far off in the way we see it. The first could be justified, it went down-hill from there.

One thing that is overlooked in these discussions is the real threat that the Muslim Turks were to Europe in the East. There were numerous wars and battles, and I assure you they were not overly chivelrous, either. It was a brutal time and people acted like brutes.

Another thing that amazes me is that, in America, if not for anti-Catholic rhetoric, the crusades would be a blurb in history. It seems like in the Middle East, more importance in placed on them. I wonder why

Well, I have a Polish friends who pumped his fist when our European History class got to the battle of Vienna.

I think it’s like how the Civil War is a big deal in the South, but not the North

 

[bilop]

Pope Urban II gave a rather raciest speech and made a number of rather exaggerated claims. Many cities would precede their sending off of troops by a rather brutal attack on their Jewish population and if memory serves one crusader enjoys recounting how blood flowed up to the knees as the streets ran red with infidel blood.

Why modern Christianity wishes to defend this barbarism is beyond me. The Holy lands had been under Muslim rule for some three hundred years, and Christian pilgrims had little trouble making pilgrimages to the Holy cites. In fact Jews and Muslim fought together in the Siege of Jerusalem, the Jews were slaughtered when the Christian Franks burst in.

Many in the Christian hierarchy admirable attempted to shelter some Jews from the murderous mobs, however let’s not pretend this was some noble endeavor. Theoretically I believe the first crusade was justified, all subsequent ones, and the actual actions of Christians during the crusade, were not.

Perhaps b/c we are glad that Medieval Christians fought back against Moslem agression and prevented Islam from over-running Europe.

Just like we want the West to fight back against aggressive Islam today, and not cede the European continent to the Moslems.

God Bless

 

[bobzills]

Just like we want the West to fight back against aggressive Islam today, and not cede the European continent to the Moslems.

I didn’t know about the whole European continent being ceded to the Moslems. When did this happen?

 

[Peter_J]

I intended to have a “some” in there, sorry.

Ah. In that case, I guess we’re basically on the same page.

 

[ralphinal]

Well, I have a Polish friends who pumped his fist when our European History class got to the battle of Vienna.

I think it’s like how the Civil War is a big deal in the South, but not the North

There is a difference, though. As a Southerner with at least three relatives who faught in the War of Northern Agression (old joke), I do get upset when incorrect history is taught about it. I am not as big on celebrating the losing side on the issue, so I do not buy into the whole Dixie flag stuff. there are those who still talk about the war as if it was recent, but they are a dying breed, just like those who still talk about how bad reconstruction was on the South (and it was horrible).

There are people who talk about the Crusades as if they were last year. They were half a milinium ago. Get over it.

 

[Postmodern]

There is a difference, though. As a Southerner with at least three relatives who faught in the War of Northern Agression (old joke), I do get upset when incorrect history is taught about it. I am not as big on celebrating the losing side on the issue, so I do not buy into the whole Dixie flag stuff. there are those who still talk about the war as if it was recent, but they are a dying breed, just like those who still talk about how bad reconstruction was on the South (and it was horrible).

There are people who talk about the Crusades as if they were last year. They were half a milinium ago. Get over it.

I think you mean the “wahr of nothrahn agression”

Sorry, phonics aren’t my thing.

I don’t know what to say. The Polish still seem very proud of having “saved” Western Europe. I remember reading books by Pope John Paul II where he seemed to have a very close relationship with Polish cultural history.

I’ve never met any Muslims who actually seem to be “hung up” on the crusade, perhaps your experience is different.

 

[ralphinal]

I think you mean the “wahr of nothrahn agression”

Sorry, phonics aren’t my thing.

I don’t know what to say. The Polish still seem very proud of having “saved” Western Europe. I remember reading books by Pope John Paul II where he seemed to have a very close relationship with Polish cultural history.

I’ve never met any Muslims who actually seem to be “hung up” on the crusade, perhaps your experience is different.

That was pretty close. I love making fun of the accent of the Southern Aristocracy. I am a little more typical deep south. I sould more like a country singer than Rhett Butler.

The Polish thing is one of pride for a people who have been beaten down through the years. Some Jewish folks have similar pride in historical events.

It seems like there are three groups hung up on the Crusades: anti-CAtholics, the politically correct police, and some radical Muslims. Just look at how much effort after 9/11 was put into clearly stating that this is not a crusade. Just the word evokes issues to some people.

 

[Hesychios]

There is a difference, though. As a Southerner with at least three relatives who faught in the War of Northern Agression (old joke), I do get upset when incorrect history is taught about it. I am not as big on celebrating the losing side on the issue, so I do not buy into the whole Dixie flag stuff.

I also, with deaths.

…there are those who still talk about the war as if it was recent, but they are a dying breed, just like those who still talk about how bad reconstruction was on the South (and it was horrible).

I know.

There are people who talk about the Crusades as if they were last year. They were half a milinium ago. Get over it.

I have never met such people.

If you want to talk about the Civil war, Sherman’s March to the Sea and all that you will find people who write about it as if it were yesterday. Because they are interested in it for some reason.

No, I don’t think about it as if it were yesterday, and yes, my ancestors were Latin Catholics at the time, so some of them may have taken part. That interests me.

The fact is Orthodox don’t live and breathe the Crusades, but the topic comes up a lot around here, and this is pretty obvious: Orthodox are almost never the ones to bring up the topic. But yes, they should know about it if they are interested in their own history.

So we know about it sure…I learned most of what I know on the subject when I was a Latin Catholic. And anyone who has an interest in medieval history will know all of the spicey little details. You can read about it in any library.

What must bug a lot Latin Catholics is that they would like to identify with the era, and be proud of that. But there are also some pretty despicable things that happened to eastern Christians at the time and everyone knows it, you do and I do, all the authors do. I suppose that you would prefer that we not mention it.

I don’t open these topics up. I am pretty tired of all the whining over it from whatever direction. I don’t really care any more about it than any other period of history but when I smell a lie or see a spin coming, I am just not going to let that go unchallenged.


THUH SOUTH SHALL RISE AG’IN
In the mornin’