French church attacked during Mass, priest murdered [CC]

[JimG]

Hi Jim,

Well, I am not at war, and the Church is not at war, right? Does the author intend to instill or flame rage, or is he a voice for mercy and forgiveness?

My guess is that he shares our anger, and that is the context of his words. He is feeling angry and resentful, probably, and that is our normal, natural reaction to atrocities. In time, he too will see that there comes a time to forgive, though this does not preclude the need to protect ourselves.

Let’s continue to pray for all involved.

Well, ISIS is at war. If no one else is at war to oppose them, the outcome is predictable: surrender and submission, which is their objective. Quoting again from the linked article:

“There can be no confidence in comatose lethargy, contentious communities, concentrated materialism, or collective atheism. In the wake of the Nice attack, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls alarmingly said that France had better get used to living with terror, and that is the only conclusion for a civilization that has surrendered, and surrendered to a falsehood posing as the truth—and forcing itself upon others as the truth.”

No, the West does not have to learn to live with terror, as the French prime minister said. One only has to submit, and there will be peace.

Forgiveness of our enemies does not absolve us of the obligation to obtain victory over them.

 

[HolyCrusader007]

Your post and your name. The most ironic thing I’ve read on these boards in a long time…

During the Crusades Richard the Lionheart and Saladin respected each other. Im trying to follow in the footsteps of Crusaders such as the Lionheart.

I urge folks to realize the truth that ISIL not the only Muslim group, but there are for example groups of Syrian Christians and Muslims teaming up to eliminate ISIL from Syria.

 

[St_Francis]

During the Crusades Richard the Lionheart and Saladin respected each other. Im trying to follow in the footsteps of Crusaders such as the Lionhearted.

Saladin was respected because of his personal qualities and as an exceptional warrior. But they still fought against him.

I urge folks to realize the truth that ISIL not the only Muslim group, but there are for example groups of Syrian Christians and Muslims teaming up to eliminate ISIL from Syria.

English has an interesting feature of using adjectives to differentiate between individual items within categories, i.e.: She wants the blue book, not the red book. As a result, that people speak about radical Islamic terrorists and the like shows that they are aware of the other groups of Moslems and are specifying the small sub-set of which they are speaking.

Syrian Christians, btw, are not Moslems…

 

[tomarin]

Saladin was respected because of his personal qualities and as an exceptional warrior. But they still fought against him.

What were Saladin’s admirable personal qualities? Just curious as I had the impression (from what source I don’t remember) that he was pretty ruthless.

 

[GEddie]

Saladin was respected because of his personal qualities and as an exceptional warrior. But they still fought against him.

Sure, in a war situation it is easy to respect and even admire somebody while still trying to kill them. That really says nothing.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Seamus_L]

Saladin could be magnamimous or vicious depending on the occasion. He executed most of the Knights Templars and Hospitallers who fell into his hands because he considered them fanatics. I think there’s an endless list of people more worthy of our admiration than a Muslim warlord famous for defeating Christians.

 

[Geist]

I think there’s an endless list of people more worthy of our admiration than a Muslim warlord famous for defeating Christians.

Charles Martel immediately comes to mind.

 

[St_Francis]

Saladin could be magnamimous or vicious depending on the occasion. He executed most of the Knights Templars and Hospitallers who fell into his hands because he considered them fanatics. I think there’s an endless list of people more worthy of our admiration than a Muslim warlord famous for defeating Christians.

Charles Martel immediately comes to mind.

Well, yeah! But I was responding to a previous poster’s implication that respecting an enemy precludes continuing the war.

 

[pianistclare]

From the link you posted…

Yes. But not to carry them to church. That’s what I was talking about, in response to a person who brings his gun to Mass with him.
Having said that, my pastor just said last week “we priests are not allowed to own guns.”
So maybe it was something they were advised in seminary.

 

[ARSpade]

Yes. But not to carry them to church. That’s what I was talking about, in response to a person who brings his gun to Mass with him.
Having said that, my pastor just said last week “we priests are not allowed to own guns.”
So maybe it was something they were advised in seminary.

Priests can own guns. So can sisters. (example: blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2015/12/big_buck_special_memory_for_pe.html

In the military clergy generally don’t carry weapons only because of conventions on war naming them as noncombatants (lol), but I know of one Catholic Navy chaplain who carried a M1911 during the Korean War.

Some orders don’t allow guns, sure, because of a general prohibition on violence (Franciscans?), but that’s not a blanket statement across Catholicism.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Saladin also had the r spect of his fellow Islamisists, he was not a terror to them!

 

[Melodeonist]

This is why we should declare a crusade.

 

[deuterium2h]

I was hoping someone here might be able to provide clarification on the following issue, and perhaps reference to further reading from Magisterial documents.

I happened to read the following article (link below), which presents the argument that two necessary conditions must exist for martyrdom to be considered.

catholicexchange.com/martyrdom-is-more-than-being-killed-for-your-faith

The two necessary conditions are codified in Pope Benedict XVI Letter to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, which I quote below:

The martyrs of the past and those of our time gave and give life (effusio sanguinis) freely and consciously in a supreme act of love, witnessing to their faithfulness to Christ, to the Gospel and to the Church. If the motive that impels them to martyrdom remains unchanged, since Christ is their source and their model, then what has changed are the cultural contexts of martyrdom and the strategies “ex parte persecutoris” that more and more seldom explicitly show their aversion to the Christian faith or to a form of conduct connected with the Christian virtues, but simulate different reasons, for example, of a political or social nature.

It is of course necessary to find irrefutable proof of readiness for martyrdom, such as the outpouring of blood and of its acceptance by the victim. It is likewise necessary, directly or indirectly but always in a morally certain way, to ascertain the “odium Fidei” [hatred of the faith] of the persecutor. If this element is lacking there would be no true martyrdom according to the perennial theological and juridical doctrine of the Church. The concept of “martyrdom” as applied to the Saints and Blessed martyrs should be understood, in conformity with Benedict XIV’s teaching, as “voluntaria mortis perpessio sive tolerantia propter Fidem Christi, vel alium virtutis actum in Deum relatum” (De Servorum Dei beatificatione et Beatorum canonizatione, Prato 1839-1841, Book III, chap. 11, 1). This is the constant teaching of the Church.

It is the subtlety of the first condition that I have a question – i.e., the Martyr “freely and consciously” giving their life for the Faith, in a supreme act of love. While this condition, on the surface, seems to be pretty clear…a thought has occurred to me. Does the martyr have to be completely passive during their acceptance of death for Christ. In other words, is their any latitude given for the prospective martyr in making an active, physical effort of resistance against the efforts of the persecutor(s), while in no way denying the Faith?

I am thinking of the Crusaders who went into battle with the full knowledge that the likely outcome would be their death. There is no question they died in defense of the Faith. There is no doubt they sacrificed their life willingly. There is no doubt that their enemy (persecutor) was a "hater of the Faith. Can martyrdom be achieved during active resistance and/or battle?

Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts in this matter.

 

[Padres1969]

This is why we should declare a crusade.

And back it up with what army?

Giving a religious response to ISIS is what they want. Keep it secular and just kick their butts (in a just and swift manner). Keep religion out of it from our side.

 

[Geist]

And back it up with what army?

I’d enlist in a heartbeat. I can bring my own weapons, and I have enough to spare to share with the rest of the team.

Giving a religious response to ISIS is what they want. Keep it secular and just kick their butts (in a just and swift manner). Keep religion out of it from our side.

Without religion to unify us we can never succeed. Rest assured they are unified under their “religion”, but we have let secularism neuter us.

 

[Tomdstone]

I am thinking of the Crusaders who went into battle with the full knowledge that the likely outcome would be their death. There is no question they died in defense of the Faith… There is no doubt that their enemy (persecutor) was a "hater of the Faith.

I don’t think so. Many Greek Orthodox were sincere devout Christians who wanted to live in peace with all. But the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade invaded the city of Constantinople, murdering many civilians, raping many nuns, drove horses with their falling excrement into their Greek churches, they committed sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist, they placed prostitutes at the altar of a Greek Church, they looted the precious icons and golden artifacts, many of which ended up in Roman Catholic churches in the west.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yes. But not to carry them to church. That’s what I was talking about, in response to a person who brings his gun to Mass with him.
Having said that, my pastor just said last week “we priests are not allowed to own guns.”
So maybe it was something they were advised in seminary.

If I’m ever in your neck of the woods do I go through the metal detector before or after the holy water fount?

 

[Mark121359]

Having said that, my pastor just said last week "we priests are not allowed to own guns."

Has your pastor ever heard of Fr. Mitch Pacwa?

Peace, Mark

 

[Gertabelle]

If I’m ever in your neck of the woods do I go through the metal detector before or after the holy water fount?

Has your pastor ever heard of Fr. Mitch Pacwa?

Peace, Mark

Clare is a pretty powerful Conquistadora, but she probably does not advise her Bishop on his guidelines for parishes!

I’m also guessing that it’s not within her job description to check with her pastor as to whether or not he’s heard of Fr Mitch Pacwa!

Give it a rest, people. Sheesh.

 

[fin]

Ever heard of Islamic Reverence Syndrome?

Better read this excellent article by Fr. Benedict Kiely, one among the very few prelates who are aware of reality and NOT in denial of it. Wake up guys

lifezette.com/faithzette/islamic-reverence-syndrome/