Infallibility and the Crusades

[empantarhei]

I do not agree with complete defenselessness for the sake of veering from violence. If that is the choice of a religious order, fine; but those who do take up arms will always be subject to those who do. Self defense is a right, if one gives up that right that is their call.

It is morally irreprehensible when one will not take up violence to defend someone who is helpless simply because they are “pacifist”

well said.

 

[po18guy]

Please note: The Pope did not grant salvation. He granted them absolution from their sins only. Yet, look at the qualifier: they had to die!

Thats what i’m gettin at! If his authority comes from the “loose on earth/heaven bound in earth/heaven” then can someone explain further how that justifies the granting of salvation.

Or is this not ex cathedra?

and what exactly is the definition for ex cathedra?

1. A doctrine of faith or morals. 2. To be held by the universal Church 3. From the chair of Peter.

Notice that the referenced quote begins with the largest two-letter word that exists: “IF”
As well, the Pope was granting them absolution of their sins - just like any Priest would and could do in an application of a general absolution.

Nothing controversial in the least to these eyes.

 

[Rence]

Please note: The Pope did not grant salvation. He granted them absolution from their sins only. Yet, look at the qualifier: they had to die! 1. A doctrine of faith or morals. 2. To be held by the universal Church 3. From the chair of Peter.

Notice that the referenced quote begins with the largest two-letter word that exists: “IF”
As well, the Pope was granting them absolution of their sins - just like any Priest would and could do in an application of a general absolution.

Nothing controversial in the least to these eyes.

A general absolution applies to that moment and time and before, not to the future. One is still responsible for obtaining absolution for the sins he/she commits in the future. So being given this so-called general absolution before one went off to the crusades wouldn’t automatically grant them salvation, only forgive them for the sins they had committed prior to the so-called general absolution. So unless these folks looking for a free ticket to Heaven can keep themselves in the Grace of God (or they have a priest at the frontlines who can absolve them before they die) which is highly unlikely, a so-called general absolution isn’t going to help them get into Heaven any faster or assuredly as anyone else.

 

[Genesis315]

There’s two common misconceptions about papal infalliblity–1) that everything the Pope says in his capacity as Pope is infallible, 2) and more common today, only twice in history has a papal proclamation of doctrine been infallible.

1)The first is easily avoidable by recourse to the definition of the First Vatican Council and its repetition by the Second. The Pope must be acting as supreme teacher, his act must be a definitive binding on the whole Church, and it must be a truth of faith or morals revealed by God (“to be believed”) or a truth of faith or morals connected to revelation by logical necessity (“to be held” or sententia definitive tenenda).

As St. Francis de Sales explained it, he must be definitively laying down the universal law of faith (either divine or ecclesiastical faith).

Bl. Urban II is offering an indulgence (or absolution, depending on the differing accounts) to some soldiers who die in battle. I don’t see how this can be confused with a universal and definitive judgment about some truth or error.

1. The idea that this has happened only twice seems common, but I don’t know why. It would mean that Saints and theologians for centuries and centuries defended this truth for merely hypothetical reasons–and that heretics went out of their way to deny it for hypothetical reasons. It means an ecumenical Council was convened to re-affirm this truth when it had only happened once. It doesn’t pass the common sense test.

In fact, at the First Vatican Council, some bishops wanted to make the Pope follow a particular procedure or use a particular formula when proclaiming something infallibly and the official relator, Bishop Gasser, explained to them that this was impossible as “thousands and thousands” of such proclamations had already been issued (he was speaking somewhat hyperbolically, but the point is valid).

I think a main point of confusion is that Popes have defintively proclaimed the truths of the of faith, not just through positive formulations of doctrine (although there are even more than two of these), but also more commonly (as the Councils have also done more commonly) through the definitive condemnation of heresy and error.

So where’s a list, one might ask? Denzinger is a good source, although it is neither exhaustive nor restricted to only such things. But, really, to ask for a list goes against the Church’s praxis. Books and copies of papal decrees may be lost and destroyed, etc., etc. We rely on the ordinary and universal Magisterium ordinarily–the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal definitions–the Pope’s ability to define the faith is called an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium for this reason. When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith, so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever.

 

[guanophore]

What gives the Pope the right to declare that they are all martyrs if they die?

There are many assumptions being made that are not recorded in the Pope’s decree. Among them are that the persons going to war are Catholics in good standing. They were confessed and absolved prior to their departure. All the Pope is saying is that their journey and task is considered to be “service to Christ” and will have eternal benefits.

Also the verse you stated earlier talks of the level of ones love; not that an act of perfect love will guarantee salvation.

Yes, but both things are true. Jesus said that no one has greater love than those who have been forgiven much. So one who is willing to lay down his life for another shows himself to be in right relationship with God, and aware that Christ sacrificed himself for us.

 

[Gorgias]

A general absolution applies to that moment and time and before, not to the future.

Yet, he wasn’t absolving them at that point in time! (After all, formulae of absolution never start off “if…” )

One is still responsible for obtaining absolution for the sins he/she commits in the future. So being given this so-called general absolution before one went off to the crusades wouldn’t automatically grant them salvation, only forgive them for the sins they had committed prior to the so-called general absolution.

Except that, this isn’t what he was doing. He wasn’t telling them that, at the point he was talking to them, their sins were forgiven.

So unless these folks looking for a free ticket to Heaven can keep themselves in the Grace of God (or they have a priest at the frontlines who can absolve them before they die) which is highly unlikely, a so-called general absolution isn’t going to help them get into Heaven any faster or assuredly as anyone else.

Not so. What he was saying was that the act of giving one’s life in the service of others in the context of the crusade, was an act of martyrdom. It would be that act that earned them salvation. Note, of course, that the act of martyrdom would be their last act, and therefore, the problem you raise isn’t really a problem at all…

 

[guanophore]

Not so. What he was saying was that the act of giving one’s life in the service of others in the context of the crusade, was an act of martyrdom. ** It would be that act that earned them salvation.** Note, of course, that the act of martyrdom would be their last act, and therefore, the problem you raise isn’t really a problem at all…

There are no human “acts that earn salvation”. We are saved only by grace, through faith.

A person in the service of Christ who is martryd is assumed to be in a state of grace, through faith.

 

[PaulVF]

What the Pope gave the Crusaders of that time was an indulgence and not blanket absolution.

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.

It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. An indulgence is not a pardon which secures the recipients salvation. The recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin through Confession or a sincere repentance if the sacrament is not available.

 

[PoorKnight]

I do not agree with complete defenselessness for the sake of veering from violence. If that is the choice of a religious order, fine; but those who do take up arms will always be subject to those who do. Self defense is a right, if one gives up that right that is their call.

It is morally irreprehensible when one will not take up violence to defend someone who is helpless simply because they are “pacifist”

As a cop may I applaud you! I have believed for some time now that as using violence incorrectly is morally grave, so is using pacifism incorrectly also morally grave. As a matter of fact the Catholic Catechism also says so in paragraph 2321: “The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.”

To NOT use Legitimate defense when you are responsible for the lives of others - and we see from the parable of the Good Samaritan that we are ALL responsible for our Neighbors - is a GRAVE matter.

I firmly believe that the current Catholic Culture (which is different from Catholic Teaching) is heck bent on eliminating its Warrior class.

 

[empantarhei]

As a cop may I applaud you! I have believed for some time now that as using violence incorrectly is morally grave, so is using pacifism incorrectly also morally grave. As a matter of fact the Catholic Catechism also says so in paragraph 2321: "The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good."

To NOT use Legitimate defense when you are responsible for the lives of others - and we see from the parable of the Good Samaritan that we are ALL responsible for our Neighbors - is a GRAVE matter.

I firmly believe that the current Catholic Culture (which is different from Catholic Teaching) is heck bent on eliminating its Warrior class.

:clapping: thank you

 

[Usagi]

It was assumed that the crusaders, being knights of Christendom, would have been baptized as infants. So that covers that part – they were all, objectively, Christians.

As others have noted, it is commonly understood that martyrdom for Christ “clears one’s slate” as much as possible. Of course, St. Paul tells us that even delivering one’s body to be burned without love in one’s heart gains nothing, so that might not apply in the case of a crusader who remains unrepentant of mortal sin (including, for example, a crusader who was doing all his killing out of hatred or bloodthirst rather than a desire to serve Christ and the Faith).

Much like the promises attached to various devotions or sacramentals, I would presume that Pope Urban’s words must be taken in the context of what we already know about the economy of salvation. The Pope can attach a plenary indulgence to an action; he can grant general absolution in emergency situations (and “soldiers going into danger” definitely counts for that); he can declare through canonization that a deceased individual is in Heaven; he can probably define whether a particular death counts as martyrdom; but outside of those powers he cannot override the will of either God or an individual to send that individual automatically to Heaven.

Usagi

 

[katholikos12]

As a cop may I applaud you! I have believed for some time now that as using violence incorrectly is morally grave, so is using pacifism incorrectly also morally grave. As a matter of fact the Catholic Catechism also says so in paragraph 2321: “The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.”

To NOT use Legitimate defense when you are responsible for the lives of others - and we see from the parable of the Good Samaritan that we are ALL responsible for our Neighbors - is a GRAVE matter.

I firmly believe that the current Catholic Culture (which is different from Catholic Teaching) is heck bent on eliminating its Warrior class.

Thank you for your words and your service!

As a military service member I know the sacrifices that cops make are just as often and frequent and daily put their lives on the line for us.

 

[LilyM]

To me the Pope’s words are in the nature of declaring an indulgence (ie the remission of one’s temporal penalty for sin under certain usually very strict conditions with other implicit conditions attached) rather than pronouncing absolution.

And remember it is rare that the Pope’s declaring of something MAKES it so. The Papal declaration on the Immaculate Conception did not make Mary immaculate, nor did the declaration on the Assumption make it so. Instead the Popes more customarily explicitly define and dogmatize something which is already true.

Now the idea that those who died in the defence of the faith were martyrs and that martyrdom was in itself at least a fair indication that a soul was in a state of grace at the moment of death were not ideas that were new when Irban said them, any more than the idea of the Assumption was new when Pius XII declared it to be dogma.

 

[Bill1940]

As a cop may I applaud you! I have believed for some time now that as using violence incorrectly is morally grave, so is using pacifism incorrectly also morally grave. As a matter of fact the Catholic Catechism also says so in paragraph 2321: “The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.”

To NOT use Legitimate defense when you are responsible for the lives of others - and we see from the parable of the Good Samaritan that we are ALL responsible for our Neighbors - is a GRAVE matter.

I firmly believe that the current Catholic Culture (which is different from Catholic Teaching) is heck bent on eliminating its Warrior class.

Thank you for your service and your intelligent post. Deus vult! To which we reply, “Here I am Lord. I come to do thy will.”