What about all the other crusades?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FireFromHeaven

Guest
I was reading The Crusades by Johnathan Riley-Smith. It got me thinking. Much of the apologetics work on the crusades is in reference to the first crusade. I personally think it was of the right reasons ( helping the Byzantines) but was stained by massacres. However what about the other crusades to the holy land? The Second and Third Crusades were to help or retake the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which under oath should have gone to Byzantium? Why about the fourth crusade which was aimed at Egypt? What about the crusades of conversion against the pagans of Eastern Europe? What about the political crusades against the Holy Roman Empire and Sicily? I am wondering about these crusades. What does everyone think?
All help appreciated.
 
Also I forgot to mention the Albigenesian Crusades. Were those justified?
 
The first Crusade to the Holy Land is easily justified, and it was a resounding Christian success.

The others? No.
 
What about St. Louis? He was a French king and a crusader. Was his canonization an act of support for the crusades? Were any of the crusades I listed proclaimed ex cathedra?
 
FireFromHeaven said:
What about St. Louis? He was a French king and a crusader. Was his canonization an act of support for the crusades?
Click to expand...
His Canonization had nothing to do with any crusade itself. The seventh crusade was actually sent to rescue him.
Were any of the crusades I listed proclaimed ex cathedra?
Click to expand...
Only doctrine can be proclaimed ex Cathedra. But most (if not all) crusades were conducted under Papal blessing.
 
So if this ever comes up, it was just the popes making a mistake?
 
DavidFilmer said:
Typically. A mistake in judgement, but not a mistake in Doctrine (which is very apparent in this example, as no Doctrine is at stake).
Click to expand...
What about when popes would say they will be forgiven of all sins when fighting in such a crusade? What does that count as?
 
Correction. The Second crusade was to defend the Holy Land. The Third was to retake it once again. These two are easily justifiable. Justification drops off after the third, with one set of crusaders being excommunicated by a Pope for attacking a Christian city. The Crusade to rescue Luis would also be justified, as essentially it is a rescue mission.

However, what a crusade is for and what was done on one are two different things. Though a reason for a crusade may be just, the actions performed on it may not be.
 
dronald said:
What about when popes would say they will be forgiven of all sins when fighting in such a crusade? What does that count as?
Click to expand...
You don’t have your sins forgiven on crusade, you need confession for that. Though I know indulgences were given provided you actually reached the holy land and even visited specific sites. If there was one given for dying in battle, I don’t know 100%, but it would be a appropriate as the common soldier left house and home to defend the holy land.
 
dronald said:
What about when popes would say they will be forgiven of all sins when fighting in such a crusade? What does that count as?
Click to expand...
I’d need a credible scholarly source showing that that is what they said. I.e., Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism or a Chick publication don’t qualify. Which Pope taught that one does not have to repent (express to God true sorrow for their sins) but can just go on a crusade and their sins will be forgiven?

In general to get a quick idea of the present state of scholarly studies on the Crusades I’d read this review of several new historical works on the subject by an expert familiar with the primary sources.

Even sources like Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade, who can barely hide his animus toward Catholicism, writes that a crusade was an act of penance, that is, an action in cooperation with Gods grace (like sack cloth and ashes in the OT) that expresses that one is already truly contrite and seeks to make up and restore in the concrete circumstances of their life the order that was lost through sins.
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
I’d need a credible scholarly source showing that that is what they said. I.e., Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism or a Chick publication don’t qualify. Which Pope taught that one does not have to repent (express to God true sorrow for their sins) but can just go on a crusade and their sins will be forgiven?

In general to get a quick idea of the present state of scholarly studies on the Crusades I’d read this review of several new historical works on the subject by an expert familiar with the primary sources.

Even sources like Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade, who can barely hide his animus toward Catholicism, writes that a crusade was an act of penance, that is, an action in cooperation with Gods grace (like sack cloth and ashes in the OT) that expresses that one is already truly contrite and seeks to make up and restore in the concrete circumstances of their life the order that was lost through sins.
Click to expand...
I think the above poster meant the giving of indulgences for going on crusade. This can be seen in nearly any crusade letter.
Here is a group of letters.
fordham.edu/halsall/source/cde-letters.asp

I have not read them all but the ones seeking to recruit new crusaders would stress either total or partial indulgences.
 
TheQuestioner said:
Correction. The Second crusade was to defend the Holy Land. The Third was to retake it once again. These two are easily justifiable. Justification drops off after the third, with one set of crusaders being excommunicated by a Pope for attacking a Christian city. The Crusade to rescue Luis would also be justified, as essentially it is a rescue mission.

However, what a crusade is for and what was done on one are two different things. Though a reason for a crusade may be just, the actions performed on it may not be.
Click to expand...
Two ones I think Protestants might bring up would be the Albigenesian Crusade and the Hussite Crusade. Are these justified? If so why?
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I think the above poster meant the giving of indulgences for going on crusade. This can be seen in nearly any crusade letter.
Here is a group of letters.
fordham.edu/halsall/source/cde-letters.asp

I have not read them all but the ones seeking to recruit new crusaders would stress either total or partial indulgences.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but the context was an obvious mistake on the part of the pope in proclaiming a crusade. See his response to DavidFilmer. It uses the word “forgive” and suggests an obvious mistake, not a point of doctrine over which we disagree of which there are many.
 
TheQuestioner said:
Correction. The Second crusade was to defend the Holy Land. The Third was to retake it once again. These two are easily justifiable. Justification drops off after the third, with one set of crusaders being excommunicated by a Pope for attacking a Christian city. The Crusade to rescue Luis would also be justified, as essentially it is a rescue mission.

However, what a crusade is for and what was done on one are two different things. Though a reason for a crusade may be just, the actions performed on it may not be.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t the justification of te crusade to rescue Louis depend on his crusade being justified? From what I have read that crusade was against Egypt. I guess a case could be made for that aiding the Kingdom of Jerusalem. What do you think?
 
Perhaps some context can be given on the following quote by Pope Urban II:

“I speak to those who are present, I shall proclaim it to the absent, but it is in Christ who commands. Moreover if those who set out thither lose their lives on the journey, by land or sea, or in fighting against the heathen, their sins shall be remitted in that hour; this I grant through the power of God vested in me.”

Are popes still able to do this?
 
dronald said:
Perhaps some context can be given on the following quote by Pope Urban II:

“I speak to those who are present, I shall proclaim it to the absent, but it is in Christ who commands. Moreover if those who set out thither lose their lives on the journey, by land or sea, or in fighting against the heathen, their sins shall be remitted in that hour; this I grant through the power of God vested in me.”

Are popes still able to do this?
Click to expand...
Yes they are still able to grant indulgences. Pope Urban is saying that those who went to te aid of Byzantium would have the consequences of their sins, which they had confessed and done penance for would be pardoned. This thread is one te justification of crusades, however and not over disagreements between Catholics and Protestants on atonement. Fell free to start your own thread on this if you feel so inclined.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
Yes they are still able to grant indulgences. Pope Urban is saying that those who went to te aid of Byzantium would have the consequences of their sins, which they had confessed and done penance for would be pardoned. This thread is one te justification of crusades, however and not over disagreements between Catholics and Protestants on atonement. Fell free to start your own thread on this if you feel so inclined.
Click to expand...
No worries, not trying to start a debate by any means. I just needed some clarification on a quote such as that.

I’m wondering if to this day a Pope could say that dying by “fighting heathens” could have their sins remitted in that hour.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
Wouldn’t the justification of te crusade to rescue Louis depend on his crusade being justified? From what I have read that crusade was against Egypt. I guess a case could be made for that aiding the Kingdom of Jerusalem. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Hi,
Yes. the video link I sent earlier,
youtube.com/watch?v=RLVXRrzm0kc
Did make the connection that to hold Jerusalem, one would have to control the Muslims - who took Jerusalem and their other holdings by force of arms and persecuted Christians there - armed forces in Egypt. Jump ahead 11 minutes to get to the facts.

One a tangent, here is an interesting article on the effects of the Crusades.
crisismagazine.com/2013/the-real-significance-of-the-crusades



John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top