Crusades, Inquisition, Jews

[Montalban]

Petergee, weren’t the Knights Templar persons who took religious vows under the auspicies of the Church?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Petergee, weren’t the Knights Templar persons who took religious vows under the auspicies of the Church?

Is that up for debate?

 

[Montalban]

What does that even mean?

It means what it says. When you became a knight, you took vows and the church over-saw this process.

The fact that the Knights Templar, et al, took the cross, seems to be unknown to you

 

[Montalban]

Is that up for debate?

Do you need permission? I’ve asked a question of someone, feel free to contribute

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Do you need permission? I’ve asked a question of someone, feel free to contribute

In asking I did.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It means what it says. When you became a knight, you took vows and the church over-saw this process.

The fact that the Knights Templar, et al, took the cross, seems to be unknown to you

It does not seem to be unknown to me. I know it well enough.

 

[Montalban]

In asking I did.

How? I’ve asked a person a question. What is ‘up for debate?’ The question?

The monastic hospitaller order was founded following the First Crusade by the Blessed Gerard, whose role as founder was confirmed by a Papal bull of Pope Paschal II in 1113.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Hospitaller

 

[Montalban]

It does not seem to be unknown to me. I know it well enough.

Then you disagree with Petergee ? Try responding with a little more detail.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

How? I’ve asked a person a question. What is ‘up for debate?’ The question?

The monastic hospitaller order was founded following the First Crusade by the Blessed Gerard, whose role as founder was confirmed by a Papal bull of Pope Paschal II in 1113.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Hospitaller

In asking a question I participate. I commend you for your use of wikipedia.

What do you want from me in the matter or participation if asking questions is not participating?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Then you disagree with Petergee ? Try responding with a little more detail.

You do the same.

Do you demand that when I respond to your questions or ask questions myself I must do so in reference to other posters?

 

[Montalban]

As was typical in all wars when a city was breached after refusing to surrender to the besiegers, there was initially a slaughter of those who had resisted. Modern non-Catholic historians are unanimous that the polemic descriptions of this event by 19th century protestant and secularist authors (and which still remain common urban legends even quoted by western politicians) are ludicrously exaggerated. The slaughter was condemned by the Church, was not repeated, and it is nonsense to suggest that this was “the purpose of the Crusades”.

JP2 expressed remorse, again, on behalf of the Church (i.e. all Catholics) for this and other abuses which some Catholic individuals committed during the Crusades and at other times. He did NOT “apologise for the Crusades”, nor should he. The Crusades per se are something which all Christians can be immensely proud of, and we should strive to imitate the piety, courage and chivalry of the vast majority of the Crusaders for the vast majority of the period. .

I’d like to re-start with this as ASimpleSinner thinks I’m responsible for a subtle change of topic!

I can’t work from his short-hand responses what it is he’s objecting too, especially as he’s blaming me for the points you raised - important as they are.

From what I can gather is that the Popes approved of the raising of military orders. These orders involved church men at all levels and I believe that the orders themselves were of churchmen. They may not have been priests, but even if they were only monks it’s still an institutionalising of ‘religious warriors’.

 

[Montalban]

You do the same.

Then why are you asking to debate me on this? You seem confused. You’re taking me to task over points he raised, and where I disagree with him, you ask ME is this up for debate? You should be asking him!

Do you demand that when I respond to your questions or ask questions myself I must do so in reference to other posters?

Only if they’re the ones you are disagreeing with. It’s nice that your posts are simply obsessed with what I have to say, but they don’t contribute to this debate.

From what I gather he is disputing a close-link between the church and the military.

I disagree.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I’d like to re-start with this as ASimpleSinner thinks I’m responsible for a subtle change of topic!

I am sorry I seem to be responsible for interupting your consistent thought. Pardon is begged.

I can’t work from his short-hand responses what it is he’s objecting too, especially as he’s blaming me for the points you raised - important as they are.

I blame you for absolutely nothing. You are blameless in my eyes. I am sorry to have been so concise to have caused confusion or problem for your response. Pardon is begged.

From what I can gather is that the Popes approved of the raising of military orders. These orders involved church men at all levels and I believe that the orders themselves were of churchmen. They may not have been priests, but even if they were only monks it’s still an institutionalising of ‘religious warriors’.

So that is your proposition and what you posit.

Very good.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Then why are you asking to debate me on this? You seem confused. You’re taking me to task over points he raised, and where I disagree with him, you ask ME is this up for debate? You should be asking him!

Where did I ask to debate you? Am I obligated to defend the notions made by anyone else on these forums who self identify as Catholic?

Only if they’re the ones you are disagreeing with. It’s nice that your posts are simply obsessed with what I have to say, but they don’t contribute to this debate.

What can I say? In what you judge to be obsession, I simpy have fascination with your logic. I am flattered that you should have thought about it enough to have judged me.

They do if it clarifies points made.

From what I gather he is disputing a close-link between the church and the military.

I disagree.

Pleae go on then.

 

[Montalban]

jerusalem is holy to three major religions.

Without wishing to distract: to Islam, it’s deemed to be the third holiest of cities.

They have the “Furthest Mosque” there, which some believe to be the same one mentioned in the Koran - though this is not the case. They thus ‘manufacture’ a connection to the city… at a religious level, that is thoroughly not justified.

I touched upon this some time ago here and in slightly more detail here

 

[dosdog]

1937 February 10 Nazi officials close all Catholic schools in Bavaria.

1937 March 14 A papal encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (With Burning Sorrow) is published, dealing with the condition of the Catholic Church in Germany and condemning Nazi racism.

1937 March 21 Mit brennender Sorge, is read from the pulpits of all Catholic Churches in Germany on Palm Sunday. It has been smuggled into Germany, secretly printed and distributed by messenger throughout the nation. “With deep anxiety and with ever-growing dismay” Pius XI says he has watched the tribulations of the Catholic Church in Germany. The Concordat of 1933 is now being openly violated, and the conscience of the faithful oppressed as never before. True belief in God, the Pope declares, is irreconcilable with the deification of earthly values such as race, people or the state. Important as these are in the natural order, they can never be the ultimate norm of all things. Belief in a national God or a national religion, similarly is a grave error. The God of Christianity cannot be imprisoned “within the frontiers of a single people, within the pedigree of one single race.” (Lewy)

1937 March 22 The Gestapo confiscates all copies of the Pope’s encyclical it can find. Twelve print shops are soon closed and dispossessed without compensation for having printed the encyclical letter. Strong protests are lodged with the bishops and the Vatican. (Lewy)
t
1937 March 26 The Pope publishes an encyclical entitled Divini Redemptoris, condemning atheistic Communism.

1937 April 6 Hitler orders the resumption of the immorality and foreign exchange trials against Catholic clergymen, which had been halted shortly before the Olympic Games in the summer of 1936.

1937 April 11 A new order from the German Ministry of the Interior deprives all Jews of municipal citizenship.

1937 April 12 The German Foreign Ministry sends a note of protest to Papal Secretary of State Pacelli describing the Pope’s encyclical as a call to battle against the leadership of the German state and a grave violation of the Concordat (See March 21). (Lewy)

1937 April 16 Swiss officials announce that they are refusing to grant permanent resident permits to German Jewish refugees to avoid flooding the labor market.

humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1937tbse.htm

The Inquisition:Investigating popular myth
Cynical sneers that have greeted this report are just further evidence of the lamentable gulf that exists between professional historians and the general public. The truth is that, although this report makes use of previously unavailable material, it merely echoes what numerous scholars have previously learned from other European archives. Among the best recent books on the subject are Edward Peters’s Inquisition (1988) and Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition (1997), but there are others. Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. So what is the truth?

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment,
nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

Real History of The Crusades
For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode
crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html

 

[Montalban]

Real History of The Crusades
For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

I for one don’t deny that they were wars to get back Christian lands.

What is of concern is their conduct. Slaughtering of Christians by Crusaders. And the very notion of a ‘holy war’ in Christianity.

Also, your time-line for the Nazis is interesting.

 

[dosdog]

I for one don’t deny that they were wars to get back Christian lands.

What is of concern is their conduct. Slaughtering of Christians by Crusaders. And the very notion of a ‘holy war’ in Christianity.

Also, your time-line for the Nazis is interesting.

Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, “God made them as stubble to our swords.” He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it “a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches.”

Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part of the Orthodox Russian empire.

The Thirty Years’ War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Italy. Sweden’s Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther’s “Ein 'Feste Burg” in battle.

When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
englishatheist.org/indexztwo.shtml

 

[Montalban]

Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans…

Do you know what logical fallacy you’re now attempting?

 

[dosdog]

Do you know what logical fallacy you’re now attempting?

Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

Anyone eager to bash Catholics will not long tarry before brandishing the Crusades and the Inquisition. The Crusades are often used as a classic example of the evil that organized religion can do.
crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
ignatiusinsight.com/featu…des_print.html