Defence of the Crusades by Modern Popes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Abel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most people dont even consider the fact that the Crusades prevented Islamic forces from completely overwhelming the Eastern Roman Empire, the only buffer Christendom had against Islam. Imagine if the invasion of Eastern Europe happened 2-300 years earlier. No eastern kingdom would have been able to stand up to them.

Islam was a violent expansionism religion from the get go. The Crusades were a logical step in a war of faiths, and they had great military successes. They were the main reason the Eastern Romans lasted as long as they did, or the Turks would have overwhelmed them. In fact, it is arguable that if it were not for the 4th crusade the Romans may have actually have been able to retake Anatolia and possiby all of Asia Minor and could have existed for much longer.
 
Islam was a violent expansionism religion from the get go. The Crusades were a logical step in a war of faiths, and they had great military successes. They were the main reason the Eastern Romans lasted as long as they did, or the Turks would have overwhelmed them. In fact, it is arguable that if it were not for the 4th crusade the Romans may have actually have been able to retake Anatolia and possiby all of Asia Minor and could have existed for much longer.
I would have to disagree with boldened area.

I’ll explain why, in just one word: Mongols. When they popped in from the far east in 1200’s, they showed no mercy to anyone. Turk, Arab, Persian, you name it. They even laid siege to the Byzentine Empire a few times. With the rate of how much they were conquering, if they had more people, we’d all be speaking Mongol right now, or had have been affected by them in some form or another.

Either way, I have been studying the Crusades for over 3 to 4ish years now, and it was the Crusades which made me realize many things. The Protestants would’ve rolled over and died in the face of Islam and the Atheists would’ve been too cowardly to have done anything about it.

I myself do not believe that any Pope, ANY Pope, has to apologize for the Crusades, AT ALL; excluding the Fourth Crusade, which I myself find hard to consider a Crusade. But, there are many elements around that, and how it was a failure in leadership of the Crusaders, the Pope himself, and how the Venetian Merchant Empires who ruled some areas of Italy manipulated the Crusaders into doing their bidding. If the Crusaders had just contacted the Pope and told them of the money-issues, perhaps something else could’ve been done, or perhaps the Pope would’ve foreseen such a thing and declared that those Crusaders were exempt from paying the Venetians for their “excess” in vessels, and had found other forms of paying them back.

Either way, I myself do not believe the Crusades was a wasted effort. I wonder what is more to people’s liking? That the Crusades never began at all? That efforts for “negotiations” should’ve taken place? Or is it fear of having to stand against an enemy whom basks in terror itself? These very same people, whom had set fire to the Holy Sepulcher in 18 October 1009 and destroyed many churches and confiscated many convents simply because they weren’t “Muslim” enough? That’s the problem with many people. They don’t want confrontation.

But confrontation is upon us, wether we want it or not. And we may have our own Crusades brought down on us in this modern age, of all ages for it happen!

Ladies and gentleman, people need to be aware, they need to know that the Crusades was not some venture of death, money or God-knows-what-else-they’ll-think-of. People were truly pious, back then people didn’t question that King David was real, they had no doubt that Jesus walked the earth. Life was short and people loved, I mean truly loved, God. What has the Protestant reformation done but weaken the Church? Is it that there are some people who truly believe that before the Protestants all went to hell? I say no. I refuse to believe that, because too many good people have paid the price with their lives. Too many martyrs had put their lives on the line, and too many nuns that were used for indecencies by these people, these muslims.

I myself would take up the cross and crusade. Yes. I’ll admit it. I would. As Saint Louis IX of France had done many years before. I know many think I’m nuts, I’m crazy or that there must be something wrong with me. But fact is that I am tired of seeing Christians being butchered, I am TIRED of sitting in my house reading and reading and reading over the news of how Muslims are rioting in Europe because one man or another had a difference of opinion. What kind of society is that? What happened to freedom? What happened to rights? What happened to love? Where is Jesus?

Now there are churches being burned and turned into Mosques because it “fits” the times.

People, we have to understand that we are about to experience a very similar experience to that of the Crusaders and that understanding the Crusaders is the first step to knowing why this is happening, why do we feel the way we feel and what can we do about it.

Alright, I digress, but this is something I just had to get off my chest. A man can only stay silent for so long before his tongue has to open and say, “NAY!”.

For people who refuse to understand the Crusades, I have three suggestions for them:
  1. Read about the Crusades and try and understand them with an open mind and with careful reading.
  2. See things, I mean truly see things, through the Crusader perspectives. Don’t just close yourselves to Protestant ludicrousy, nor Muslim., nor Atheist.
  3. If 1 nor 2 work, join the Army. 😃
Another thing I myself want to add is the subject on the Knights Templar. I have read many books on them, from british writer, Helen Nicholson’s Knight Templar 1120-1312 to Steven Runciman’s The History of Crusades and The Crusades through Arab eyes by Amin Maalouf.

To be a Templar you had to have a love, I mean, a powerful love, for the church, for God, for Jesus, for the Holy Spirit, you had to put your life on the line for everything and everyone, to take the bullet noone else would take. To save that poor crippled child at the cost of your own, to safeguard the elderly, to be an angel to those who need you and a killer to God’s enemies. It’s none of that junk that’s surrounded the Templars these days.

The bottom line is: You had to be a hard-core Catholic to be a Templar.

-MontChevalier
 
Sure their connection is revealed… by the pens of atheists wanting to make an easy buck.
Also to others.

The Church abolished the Templar order, which is enough reason to suppose that they were not a benevolent institution.

The official view of the templars in the media in my lifetime changed at least 3 times, so I stay what I learned from my grandfather and the history book written before I born. It may be biased, but on that time the flow of the information was not own by a few interconnected families.

This is my opinion. You may have different opinion, but if you deny that the Church had right to abolish the Templar order, you must prove that this was abuse because the Templars were benevolent.
 
Criticism of the Crusades within the Catholic Church only became popular in the latter half of the 20th century.
 
The Church abolished the Templars because the french king had the pope by the throat. Why do you think the sentences agaisnt the templar got absolved.

I doubt the Church would of done that if there was anything inherently wrong with the Templar, especially considering if there was they would know about it through the archival records of the CDF.
 
The Church abolished the Templars because the french king had the pope by the throat. Why do you think the sentences agaisnt the templar got absolved.

I doubt the Church would of done that if there was anything inherently wrong with the Templar, especially considering if there was they would know about it through the archival records of the CDF.
Would you so kind to enlighten us with your historical proofs for this bold statements?

My stand will change only if the Church officially will revoke the abolition of the Templars, as revoked the sentence against Jean de Arc by her canonization.

Maybe the proofs behind your statement will convince the Church too, but you have to disclose them.
 
Most people dont even consider the fact that the Crusades prevented Islamic forces from completely overwhelming the Eastern Roman Empire, the only buffer Christendom had against Islam. Imagine if the invasion of Eastern Europe happened 2-300 years earlier. No eastern kingdom would have been able to stand up to them.

Islam was a violent expansionism religion from the get go. The Crusades were a logical step in a war of faiths, and they had great military successes. They were the main reason the Eastern Romans lasted as long as they did, or the Turks would have overwhelmed them. In fact, it is arguable that if it were not for the 4th crusade the Romans may have actually have been able to retake Anatolia and possiby all of Asia Minor and could have existed for much longer.
Well… not really. The Fourth Crusade caused the Empire to become so weakened, that there was no way to recover.

With that said, the Crusades (or at least the concept of the Crusades) was not a bad idea at the time and I don’t see a need for the Church to apologize for any of the first three Crusades.
 
Well… not really. The Fourth Crusade caused the Empire to become so weakened, that there was no way to recover.

With that said, the Crusades (or at least the concept of the Crusades) was not a bad idea at the time and I don’t see a need for the Church to apologize for any of the first three Crusades.
So the first 3 did absolutely nothing to prolong the life of the empire? If the 4th crusade actually would have gone where it should have it would have brought the pressure off of the Romans and allowed them to continue on with their military operations in Asia Minor.

I also already mentioned the 4th crusade.
 
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1910406/postsThe Templars have been vindicated and acquitted.
Their initiation ceremony is believed to have included spitting on the cross, but Frale said they justified this as a ritual of obedience in preparation for possible capture by Muslims. They were also said to have practised sodomy.

“Simply put, the pope recognised that they were not heretics but guilty of many other minor crimes – such as abuses, violence and sinful acts within the order,” she said. “But that is not the same as heresy.”

I do not see vindication and acquittal.
 
So the first 3 did absolutely nothing to prolong the life of the empire? If the 4th crusade actually would have gone where it should have it would have brought the pressure off of the Romans and allowed them to continue on with their military operations in Asia Minor.

I also already mentioned the 4th crusade.
I think it also needs to be said that the Byzentine Empire, even when they had asked for the help from the Latin Catholics, they used underhanded and low tactics to get what they wanted, instead of being straight-forward with the Crusaders. Can anyone really do business with that sort of fellow? I know I wouldn’t.

And when the Byzentine asked for help from the Catholics again during the invasion of Ottomans in 1453, nobody came. My opinion may even be different from the truth, but I see that as a,“Hey you guys just couldn’t be honest, now you’re on your own.”

I personally don’t think that last other Crusades, from the Albenginsian to 5th through 9th Crusade needs to be apologized for. Richard of England hadn’t spoken with the Pope in what he did for the Third Crusade, it wasn’t a legitimate decision. The Holy land still remained in Muslim hands.
 
Their initiation ceremony is believed to have included spitting on the cross, but Frale said they justified this as a ritual of obedience in preparation for possible capture by Muslims. They were also said to have practised sodomy.

“Simply put, the pope recognised that they were not heretics but guilty of many other minor crimes – such as abuses, violence and sinful acts within the order,” she said. “But that is not the same as heresy.”

I do not see vindication and acquittal.
Let me go ahead and finish the rest of that for you. You should do more research instead of grabbing one piece of information out of a whole to suit your view point.

"The Templars explained to Pope Clement that the initiation mimicked the humiliation that knights could suffer if they fell into the hands of the Saracens, while the kissing ceremony was a sign of their total obedience.

The Pope concluded that the entrance ritual was not truly blasphemous, as alleged by King Philip when he had the knights arrested. However, he was forced to dissolve the Order to keep peace with France and prevent a schism in the church."

The Chinon Parchment is a historical document, published by Étienne Baluze in Vitae Paparum Avenionensis (“Lives of the Popes of Avignon”), Paris, 1693. It has recently been made famous when Barbara Frale, an Italian historian, made the claim that in 1308,** Pope Clement V secretly absolved the last Grand Master Jacques de Molay and the rest of the leadership of the Knights Templar from charges brought against them by the Medieval Inquisition.** The parchment is dated Chinon, 1308 August 17 - 20th; the Vatican keeps an authentic copy with reference number Archivum Arcis Armarium D 218, the original having the number D 217.

“The Chinon parchment details a failed attempt by the Pope to preserve the Templars from the machinations of the king of France, Philippe IV, by establishing that the Order was not heretical and was capable of reform under the aegis of the Church. However, as it became apparent that Philippe was determined upon the extermination of the Order (and the confiscation of their considerable wealth and property within his kingdom) the Pope abandoned the Templars to their fate. Outside France, the dissolution of the Order was achieved with far less bloodshed, and surviving members of the order were absorbed into other religious institutions.”
 
So the first 3 did absolutely nothing to prolong the life of the empire? If the 4th crusade actually would have gone where it should have it would have brought the pressure off of the Romans and allowed them to continue on with their military operations in Asia Minor.

I also already mentioned the 4th crusade.
It’s fairly irrelevant if the first 3 helped the empire if the 4th one destroyed it.
 
It’s fairly irrelevant if the first 3 helped the empire if the 4th one destroyed it.
My point, in case you missed it, was were it not for the first 3 the Romans could have fallen a few hundred years earlier. An islamic invasion a full 200 years earlier is fairly relevant.
 
I suppose Catholics today can find no contradiction in a non-heretical religious order in need of “reform,” reform meaning abolishing sacrilegious rites and ceremonies of a “minor” order.

That the Pope bought the Templar apologists arguments then, and again more recently, doesn’t prove anything. It is stupid to spit on the Cross in case you might actually be made to, because as Christians we are never supposed to spit on the Holy Throne of God, which it is. All this has proven is that it was established fact that the Templars were in the habit of spitting on God’s Throne.

It appears the Templars then were in the same habit of secret societies today ; that is, they spend a lot of time swimming up and down a certain river in Egypt.
Let me go ahead and finish the rest of that for you. You should do more research instead of grabbing one piece of information out of a whole to suit your view point.

"The Templars explained to Pope Clement that the initiation mimicked the humiliation that knights could suffer if they fell into the hands of the Saracens, while the kissing ceremony was a sign of their total obedience.
Pax Christi,
Tim
 
I was not there, neither had seen the original documents, so I stay with the fact, to spit on the cross and to kiss buttock as part of the initiation process.

One should not deny God, not even if he die otherwise. Thousand of martyrs is the proof for that

Matthew 10:33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.

The organized preparation with the principle that one’s life and goals are more important than God, is horrible. A heretic may have good faith and clean conscience about the usually hard to understand mysteries, what he misinterpret; but this reversion of the order between God and men, and telling that my life and goals are more important that confessing God, is against the natural law. and no well formed conscience can justify that .

Same is with the homosexuality. One my have same sex attraction from birth, but to force his sexual preferences on others, is abominable sin. Much horrible than any heresy. It is also against the natural law.

Given this facts (spitting on the cross and kissing buttocks as part of the initiation ceremony), the Church condemned the Templars, and this condemnation was never revoked.
Let me go ahead and finish the rest of that for you. You should do more research instead of grabbing one piece of information out of a whole to suit your view point.

"The Templars explained to Pope Clement that the initiation mimicked the humiliation that knights could suffer if they fell into the hands of the Saracens, while the kissing ceremony was a sign of their total obedience.

The Pope concluded that the entrance ritual was not truly blasphemous, as alleged by King Philip when he had the knights arrested. However, he was forced to dissolve the Order to keep peace with France and prevent a schism in the church."

The Chinon Parchment is a historical document, published by Étienne Baluze in Vitae Paparum Avenionensis (“Lives of the Popes of Avignon”), Paris, 1693. It has recently been made famous when Barbara Frale, an Italian historian, made the claim that in 1308,** Pope Clement V secretly absolved the last Grand Master Jacques de Molay and the rest of the leadership of the Knights Templar from charges brought against them by the Medieval Inquisition.** The parchment is dated Chinon, 1308 August 17 - 20th; the Vatican keeps an authentic copy with reference number Archivum Arcis Armarium D 218, the original having the number D 217.

“The Chinon parchment details a failed attempt by the Pope to preserve the Templars from the machinations of the king of France, Philippe IV, by establishing that the Order was not heretical and was capable of reform under the aegis of the Church. However, as it became apparent that Philippe was determined upon the extermination of the Order (and the confiscation of their considerable wealth and property within his kingdom) the Pope abandoned the Templars to their fate. Outside France, the dissolution of the Order was achieved with far less bloodshed, and surviving members of the order were absorbed into other religious institutions.”
 
I was not there, neither had seen the original documents, so I stay with the fact, to spit on the cross and to kiss buttock as part of the initiation process.

One should not deny God, not even if he die otherwise. Thousand of martyrs is the proof for that

Matthew 10:33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.

The organized preparation with the principle that one’s life and goals are more important than God, is horrible. A heretic may have good faith and clean conscience about the usually hard to understand mysteries, what he misinterpret; but this reversion of the order between God and men, and telling that my life and goals are more important that confessing God, is against the natural law. and no well formed conscience can justify that .

Same is with the homosexuality. One my have same sex attraction from birth, but to force his sexual preferences on others, is abominable sin. Much horrible than any heresy. It is also against the natural law.

Given this facts (spitting on the cross and kissing buttocks as part of the initiation ceremony), the Church condemned the Templars, and this condemnation was never revoked.
Never revoked? Its right there in front of you. Official church documentation. Its as clear as day. No clearer way of saying they were absolved. Found not guilty. Back in communion with the church. Non-heretical. The move against the order was a “witch hunt”, nothing more.

The Grandmaster was interrogated last on August 20, 1308. The cardinal interrogators also gave their absolution. According to the document, all interrogations of the accused spanning the 17th to 20 August 1308 were always in the presence of the notaries public and the gathered witnesses. Among the accusations were sodomy, denouncing God, illicit kisses, spitting on the cross, and worshiping an ‘idol’.
The body of the text details the appearance of the accused, the swearing in of the accused, charges against the accused, and the mode of questioning of the accused: in Molay’s interrogation,“When he was asked whether he had confessed to these things due to a request, reward, gratitude, favor, fear, hatred or persuasion by someone else, or the use of force, or fear of impending torture, he replied that he did not. When he was asked whether he, after being apprehended, was submitted to any questioning or torture, he replied that he did not.”.** The text further details the denunciations, requests of absolution by the accused, and the granting of absolution by the agents of the pope**; all of these were always in the presence of witnesses. An excerpt of absolution given to Molay thus reads:

"After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to Brother Jacques de Molay, the Grandmaster of the said Order, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church."

Analysis of the Chinon Parchment enabled Barbara Frale to establish some of the secret initiation practices of the Templars. While three of the accused admitted to having been asked by their receptors during their initiation to denounce the Cross and spit at the crucifix, their stories are all inconsistent.** Geoffroy de Gonneville admitted to not succumbing under duress of denouncing and spitting on the Cross. Despite this, Geoffroy de Gonneville was still admitted to the order, implying that the denial of the cross may have been a test of some sort**. The others admitted to “denouncing in words only, not in spirit”. Gordon Napier feels that the practice of the denial of the cross was training in case they had been taken prisoner by the Saracens.

All denied the practice of sodomy or ever witnessing sodomy;however, kisses were admitted having been given as a sign of respect only during Templar initiation.

The Chinon parchment details a failed attempt by the Pope to preserve the Templars from the machinations of the king of France, Philippe IV, by establishing that the Order was not heretical and was capable of reform under the aegis of the Church. However, as it became apparent that Philippe was determined upon the extermination of the Order (and the confiscation of their considerable wealth and property within his kingdom) the Pope abandoned the Templars to their fate. Outside France, the dissolution of the Order was achieved with far less bloodshed, and surviving members of the order were absorbed into other religious institutions.
 
I suppose Catholics today can find no contradiction in a non-heretical religious order in need of “reform,” reform meaning abolishing sacrilegious rites and ceremonies of a “minor” order.

That the Pope bought the Templar apologists arguments then, and again more recently, doesn’t prove anything. It is stupid to spit on the Cross in case you might actually be made to, because as Christians we are never supposed to spit on the Holy Throne of God, which it is. All this has proven is that it was established fact that the Templars were in the habit of spitting on God’s Throne.

It appears the Templars then were in the same habit of secret societies today ; that is, they spend a lot of time swimming up and down a certain river in Egypt.

Pax Christi,
Tim
It was an accusation that was proved false. The only thing the Templars admitted to was denouncement in words only and not in spirit. You think the Pope would have gone after them if they were growing roses and singing hymns? The King of France and enemies of the Order funnelled misinformation to the church in order to start the inquisition. The Pope found no wrongdoing and tried to save the Order, but due to politics (th ever so powerful French King) he abandoned them. Most went to other Orders, retired, went to Switzerland, and lived perfectly normal lives.
 
In any case, we have no right to judge others, ESPECIALLY if their sin’s were forgiven and absolved by the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top