Crusades, Inquisition, Jews

  • Thread starter Thread starter J1Priest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Protestant Plausible Deniability allows for Humans to be wrong, and God to be right

Catholic Papal Infallibility does not do this. If the pope is wrong (which he sometimes is), it is a reflection on the Church, and if the Church is supposedly “Spirit-Inspired,” it becomes a reflection on God
 
Afterburned6387 said:
Protestant Plausible Deniability allows for Humans to be wrong, and God to be right

Catholic Papal Infallibility does not do this. If the pope is wrong (which he sometimes is), it is a reflection on the Church, and if the Church is supposedly “Spirit-Inspired,” it becomes a reflection on God
Click to expand...
Or alternatively you could be wrong about the Pope being wrong, and God and the pope could be right.
 
Are you asserting that some pope somehow declared an infallible dogma that genocide is right? If so, you are way, way, way off track to the facts.
 
Petergee said:
A few of the Crusaders on one of the Crusades did this, for which they were promptly excommunicated.
Click to expand...
i’ll have to research it more, but from what i’ve read, it sounds less like a case of a few bad apples and more like a case of a marauding army out of control, indiscriminately killing jews, eastern christians and muslim non-combatants. if that is true it is a shameful episode and one for which we should apologize if we haven’t already.

the catholic church is still my spiritual home, though, even if terrible things have been done in its name.
 
Afterburned6387 said:
Protestant Plausible Deniability allows for Humans to be wrong, and God to be right
Click to expand...
sounds identical to catholic “plausible deniability” to me.
Catholic Papal Infallibility does not do this. If the pope is wrong (which he sometimes is), it is a reflection on the Church, and if the Church is supposedly “Spirit-Inspired,” it becomes a reflection on God
Click to expand...
except that papal infalliblity only applies to certain formal statements regarding faith and morals. not everything the pope says is infallible; catholic teaching affirms this.
 
Afterburned6387 said:
I still haven’t heard much defense for the Albigensian Crusade, or the persecution of the Waldenses,

I believe the most telling quote was when Arnaud-Amaury (A Papal Legate), was asked by the head of the Papal army(10k strong), Caesar of Heisterbach how to tell how to tell the Cathar/Albigenses from the Catholics, his response was:

“Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”

or, “Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his.”
Click to expand...
The “statement” you quote is an oft-repeated legend in the same vein as Alfred burning the Cakes, or Canute holding back the waves - with no reputable historical verification. Anti-Catholics love to repeat it because it fits their prejudices.
In the French City of Béziers alone, seven to twenty thousand were slain in the name of the RCC (This includes a few thousand Cathars, and also thousands of Catholics who were given the opportunity to flee, but refused to leave their homes.)

Remember, the Medieval Inquisition was instituted after the great massacres of the Waldenses, Cathars, and Albigenses as a “mop-up” campaign after the nobles in regions dominated by these beliefs finally bent their knee to the Pope. (Innocent III for those interested)
Click to expand...
Another point - detractors always quote Beziers in language that falsely implies (“in the french city of Beziers alone”) that it was one of several similar events, when it was not. It was a one off event in a civil war in which Catharism was only one issue - and in which Southern french nobles fought bloodily against royal authority.

The Cathar heresy itself was not the idealist sect it is often painted as today. It was a sect that practiced intimidation and murder, and was heavily involved in violence. It was an extension of Bogomil beliefs. In the 12th century. At first the Church tried to counter the heresy in Southern France by peaceful pursuasion. This was unsuccessful, and after the papal legate was murdered, a crusade was called against the Cathars and the Lords who supported them. The French kings took over this war, because Catharism was dividing their lands, and weakening the kingdom. This ended in a civil war that lasted 50 years, in which tens of thousands died.
 
bet you got that from the Catholic Encyclopedia, eh?

As for the “alone” bit. I mean to point out that in that one event, more Catholics and “heretics” were slaughtered than in all the Inquisitions put together.
 
Afterburned6387 said:
Oliver Cromwell was not acting at the behest of the leader of his church (for Protestants, that Jesus), unlike the Catholic Crusaders, who served at the behest of the leader of their church, Innocent III, who supposedly served in place of Christ(Vicarius Christi).
Click to expand...
This is a typical Protestant cop-out.

Sure, you have no pope, but you do have your “leaders”, even if in your immediate church building.
 
Petergee said:
Zolli himself emphasised that his conversion was for theological reasons, not done simply as a “thank-you” to Pope Pius and the Church for their heroic efforts on behalf of Jews. But obviously the latter must have influenced his thinking and at least opened his heart to the charity to be found in the Church.
Click to expand...
The book by Louis I. Newman gives a different view.
 
bobzills said:
What is your opinion on the book by Louis I. Newman on this? He questions the motives for the conversion? Maybe it is a hatchet job, I don’t know.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read that particular book.

But I think the best testimony is from the one that went through the conversion. It was thier conversion. They would know ther motives best.
 
Afterburned6387 said:
Oliver Cromwell was not acting at the behest of the leader of his church (for Protestants, that Jesus), unlike the Catholic Crusaders, who served at the behest of the leader of their church, Innocent III, who supposedly served in place of Christ(Vicarius Christi).
Click to expand...
Cromwell was acting on the disturbed ideas of Luther. Luther was the leader of the Protetant hog wash. This makes Luther the head of your church. Ergo, Cromwell was acting on your leader’s initiatives.

What makes it worse is that Cromwell pointlessly slaughtered for his own blood lust. He killed the innocent and unarmed. He killed anything that was Catholic. Then he usurped all power during his reign and brought people down to a whole new level of coarseness.

The Crusaders on the other hand, fought the Muslim armed invasion that reached as far north as Vienna. And the Muslims were close to taking it. They were a very powerful and organized army.

What stopped the Muslims was a series of freak rainstorms. An Act of God in favor of the Crusaders.

The Crusders also gave thier life with no expectation of any earthly rewards. They acted out of piety and humility.

You should be thankful for what the Crusaders did. Otherwise you would be praying to Allah now and we would not be having this discussion.

And Innocent III was the Vicar of Christ as are all Popes. It was decreeed by God and handed on through Jesus.

Remember, Jesus was a priest of the Order of Melchizedek. Jesus ordained Peter as the first Pope. And the rest have found thier origin through Apostolic succession.

You really shouldn’t be so hostile. It makes you come cross as a Cromwellian.

Get over your hate already and become Catholic.
 
bobzills said:
The book by Louis I. Newman gives a different view.
Click to expand...
So what motives does Mr Newman impute and what marvellous instrument does he use to look into the depths of Zolli’s soul?

There were some Jews, as Zolli anticipated, who criticised his conversion because they saw it as a lack of solidarity with his fellow-Jews at the time when they were just starting to rebuild their devastated community. i.e. in essence they were arguing that Zolli should have refused to join what he conscientiously believed was the true religion and stay in one he believed was false, thus losing his immortal soul, just so that others could feel better about their cultural heritage. But Zolli emphasized that he remained a Jew, just he was now a Catholic Jew. The fact that he chose the baptismal name “Eugene” (the same baptismal name as the Pope) speaks for itself.
 
Petergee said:
So what motives does Mr Newman impute and what marvellous instrument does he use to look into the depths of Zolli’s soul?
Click to expand...
Like I said above, it might be a slanderous hatchet job on the part of Mr. Newman. But the book is out there and I don’t know if there was a serious reply to the book.
 
SFLCatholic said:
Get over your hate already and become Catholic.
Click to expand...
Honestly I can’t thank the members of this forum enough! Not only have they spurred me on to see that the Catholic faith is itself “Hogwash,” but has really refined my doctrinal picture of my faith. I needed someone who takes the opposite position as me, but still knows scripture. I get too much nodding when I try and talk with Baptists…they all agree with me…so boring…
 
bobzills said:
Like I said above, it might be a slanderous hatchet job on the part of Mr. Newman. But the book is out there and I don’t know if there was a serious reply to the book.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight: You know this bloke Newman has written a book, but you don’t even know the title and you’ve got no idea what the book says, other than that it “gives a different view” from Zolli’s own view into the most deeply personal decision Zolli ever made. Yet for some reason you think it demands “a serious reply” from somebody.
Thank you, we’ll give that comment all the respect it deserves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top