Crusades, Inquisition, Jews

  • Thread starter Thread starter J1Priest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back before ASimpleSinner’s interjections some may have noted that in post #134 I cited the (last) Pope

He gave an apology for the hurts done. Evidentally he can own up to previous mistakes, but people here are intent on white-washing church history, and so in fact are attempting to discredit the pope. Apologise! For what? 😛
 
Afterburned6387 said:
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…
Click to expand...
Wow, thank you, that’s the nicest thing I’ve ever seen a Baptist say about Catholics, that we do actually know scripture.😊 Well done, you’ve taken the first step towards discovering the fullness of the truth. Don’t stop now!
 
Montalban said:
Back before ASimpleSinner’s interjections some may have noted that in post #134 I cited the (last) Pope

He gave an apology for the hurts done. Evidentally he can own up to previous mistakes, but people here are intent on white-washing church history, and so in fact are attempting to discredit the pope. Apologise! For what? 😛
Click to expand...
Read it and see.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Mit brennender Sorge (1937) was Pius XI.

But we get the idea! 🙂
Click to expand...
It bore the signature of Pius XI (who was by then quite elderly and ill), but its essential author and the force behind its promulgation was the future Pius XII who was Secretary of State and had been the Nuncio in Germany.
 
Montalban said:
… people here are intent on white-washing church history, …
Click to expand...
I think it is a mistake to whitewash history. For one thing, although we cannot erase the past, it is possible to learn by negative example and try to do better in the future.
 
Petergee said:
It bore the signature of Pius XI (who was by then quite elderly and ill), but its essential author and the force behind its promulgation was the future Pius XII who was Secretary of State and had been the Nuncio in Germany.
Click to expand...
Very cool!

Learn something every day.
 
bobzills said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lev23 View Post
Set it free, what, the Holy sites? Thats nice but was the purpose of the crusades?
I thought I read somewhere that the first Crusade resulted in the wholesale slaughter and massacre of Jews, Muslims and even Eastern Christians on July 15, 1099 as the Crusaders entered and took Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
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. .
 
bobzills said:
I think it is a mistake to whitewash history. For one thing, although we cannot erase the past, it is possible to learn by negative example and try to do better in the future.
Click to expand...
I agree. I for one am more than happy (perhaps a bad choice of words) to admit to the mistakes of my church.
 
Petergee said:
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. .
Click to expand...
I think that war against Islam was valid - and still is, as Islam’s *raison d’etre *is to make the world Moslem.

I find it difficult to conceive of a ‘holy war’ in Christianity. As difficult too, the concept of someone who is both a monk (or priest - not sure if some were also priests) who is also a ‘warrior’ (not just spiritual), such as the Knights Templars.

I’ve just started on this book
 
Montalban said:
I think that war against Islam was valid - and still is, as Islam’s *raison d’etre *is to make the world Moslem.

I find it difficult to conceive of a ‘holy war’ in Christianity. As difficult too, the concept of someone who is both a monk (or priest - not sure if some were also priests) who is also a ‘warrior’ (not just spiritual), such as the Knights Templars.

I’ve just started on this book
Click to expand...
That was a subtle transition to an altogether new obhection and point of contention.
 
Montalban said:
I think that war against Islam was valid - and still is, as Islam’s *raison d’etre *is to make the world Moslem.

I find it difficult to conceive of a ‘holy war’ in Christianity. As difficult too, the concept of someone who is both a monk (or priest - not sure if some were also priests) who is also a ‘warrior’ (not just spiritual), such as the Knights Templars.
Click to expand...
War is always a defeat for humanity. No matter how just the cause, no matter how well-intentioned the commanders, innocent people always get killed and injured. There is no such thing as a “good” war. When we describe the Crusades as “holy wars” we mean that they were for a holy cause - to allow pilgrims to visist the Holy Places without being attacked and murdered. This is totally different from the Moslem concept of jihad, which confusingly is also usually translated as “holy war”. Jihad is the religious duty of every Moslem to spread Islam by force and kill and oppress anyone who refuses submission (“islam”) to Mohamed.

Catholic Canon Law prohibits priests from carrying weapons, and anyone who has killed a man (no matter how justly) is barred from being a priest…
 
ASimpleSinner said:
That was a subtle transition to an altogether new obhection and point of contention.
Click to expand...
I was commenting on issues raised. Such a state you’re in that you fail to even notice this.You really need to stop projecting.
:mad:
It’d probably be easier though to just ignore you.:cool:
 
Montalban said:
I was commenting on issues raised. Such a state you’re in that you fail to even notice this.You really need to stop projecting.
:mad:
It’d probably be easier though to just ignore you.:cool:
Click to expand...
That you can so magnanimously understand and know me to say when I am “projecting” is telling.

Accept that thinking if you must.

My thinking about you and your posts also leads me to think “It’d probably be easier though to just ignore you”

Best of luck, and may you find peace and the great joy of Orthodoxy.
 
Petergee said:
War is always a defeat for humanity. No matter how just the cause, no matter how well-intentioned the commanders, innocent people always get killed and injured. There is no such thing as a “good” war. When we describe the Crusades as “holy wars” we mean that they were for a holy cause - to allow pilgrims to visist the Holy Places without being attacked and murdered. This is totally different from the Moslem concept of jihad, which confusingly is also usually translated as “holy war”. Jihad is the religious duty of every Moslem to spread Islam by force and kill and oppress anyone who refuses submission (“islam”) to Mohamed.
Click to expand...
No I think that the Crusades weren’t just a war for a good cause, but was a way of the church institutionalising a “Christian” war - that’s why there were fighting orders of monks, rewards in heaven, etc.
Petergee said:
Catholic Canon Law prohibits priests from carrying weapons, and anyone who has killed a man (no matter how justly) is barred from being a priest…
Click to expand...
Okay, they were monks then - unless this law’s been changed.

The whole issue of becomming a knight; the church had a hand in, anyway.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
That you can so magnanimously understand and know me to say when I am “projecting” is telling.

Accept that thinking if you must.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you note that the comments you objected too were in relation to matters raised?

Thought not!😛

You must also see that whilst I’m continuing to respond to you, I’m continuing discussing with others. You simply pursue me on these ‘personal’ matters.

:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top