When Urban II wrote this, was he right or wrong or what?

[ahs]

I want to think that the Pope never said anything like this. I wonder then though what convinced the rich and poor to join in the Crusade?

The fact that Christians were being killed everywhere this evil group entered, and their churches taken over…that would be my guess.

I think it comes down to this:

1. Did the Pope claim remission for sins for those who seek out to kill others and die in combat?

1. Did the Pope call them vile and/or worship demons?

According to only what we have of the Pope’s actual writing, no. But I do believe there is evidence of an indulgence for those who joined the Crusade.

1. Can the Pope really declare these things and say Christ is really the one speaking?

The Pope does have the authority as the Vicar of Christ to say these things. “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom…Whatever you bind…whatever you loose…” did not come with any exceptions that we know of from Scripture.
But again, the parts you take the most offense to are not the words of the Pope…so it’s a moot point.

1. Should the offenders really be “destroyed.”?

Did God command the destruction of other offenders in history? But again, these aren’t the Pope’s words, so it’s a moot point.

If the answers are yes, then can we say that Jesus would have taught this to His Disciples and the Apostles too would have taught this way of thinking?

Whose to say He/they didn’t? Are you assuming He/they didn’t just because you don’t see it written in the Bible?
But again, these aren’t the Pope’s words, so it’s a moot point.

If so, then why is it so absent from the Christian message that we read in the NT?

Why does something need to be present in the NT in order to be part of the Christian message? Are you assuming that every aspect of the Gospel was written?
But again, these aren’t the Pope’s words, so it’s a moot point.

 

[Vico]

Urban writing from the chair of Peter, writing as if what he says has authority says this:

"On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ!”

I also wonder if we could imagine Paul writing something like this or Jesus saying something like this? After all, Urban is putting words into Christ’s mouth is is not?

There are (at least) five versions of Urban II Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095 A.D.:

The one you quoted is from *Fulcher of Chartres. There are four others given here:
*
legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

Pope Paul VI referred to it with this source in his Apostolic Constitution On Indulgences (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA):

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6INDULG.HTM

1. Cf. Council of Claremont can. 2: “Quicumque pro . . . paenitentiareputetur” (Mansi, SS.Conciliorum collectio 20, 816)

 

[Wesrock]

dronald, if your country was invaded today by a foreign nation, would military action to defend your country be unChristian?

 

[Church_Militant]

No…what it comes down to is whether you are willing to believe an undocumented source and expect faithful Catholics to answer for something that apparently has no basis in fact.

I suppose that you also wouldn’t mind having to account for things that various “reformers” are alleged to have said (or in some cases verifiably did say Or worse yet…actually did to us Catholics?)? Would you feel that such a tactic is fair and righteous for anyone calling himself a Christian? I don’t…

What is your source for this supposed quote?

dronald, if your country was invaded today by a foreign nation, would military action to defend your country be unChristian?

I was thinking that same thing…or maybe change it to modern Israel?

Would Dronald then take issue with the following direct quote from the Catechism on legitimate defense?

**Legitimate defense
**
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

 

[ahs]

I want to think that the Pope never said anything like this.

Then you can rest easy, because the historical evidence does not support the claim that he did.

Did you bother to read the citations from the source given in Posts #5, 17, and 22? I get the impression that you chose not to read those.

 

[ahs]

What is your source for this supposed quote?

Say, dronald, I believe this is the third time in this thread you have been asked this question without answering it. Why are you not answering this?

 

[dronald]

The one I quoted is from Fulcher. I again have no issue if the general historical consensus is “The Pope never said these things.” I think it’s wonderful. I can tell Atheists/Muslims that when the atrocities committed by Muslims are compared to that of Christians in the past.

But I want to be certain.

 

[ahs]

The one I quoted is from Fulcher. I again have no issue if the general historical consensus is “The Pope never said these things.” I think it’s wonderful. I can tell Atheists/Muslims that when the atrocities committed by Muslims are compared to that of Christians in the past.

But I want to be certain.

Then you can rest easy, because the historical evidence does not support the claim that he did.

Did you bother to read the citations from the source given in Posts #5, 17, and 22? I get the impression that you chose not to read those.

 

[teeboy]

I don’t know what the Pope said, but just war is legitimate. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the principles supporting a just war. If you read the New Testament, you should know that wars are inevitable.

Jesus wars against Satan, and that is Just. The Church wars against Satan, and that is just.

 

[Spelf]

Or by the Romans immediately after His death right?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

What I will say is that if you’re looking for some kind of exit explanation - that the Crusades weren’t actually sanctioned by the Church or are inconsistent with Church teaching - you’re not going to find it. Whether or not the comments of Pope Urban II are legitimate is largely irrelevant - the Crusades were not only justified by morals and reason, but supported by the Church and subsequently proven to be legitimate by the work of Aquinas.

Just war to defend the Empire (“the land of our friends”) and to drive the Muslims out of lands partially or wholly occupied by Christians under persecution (remember, the entire areas that were targeted by the Crusades, i.e. the Levant/Anatolia for 1-4 and Egypt/Africa in subsequent Crusades were either majority Christian or large plurality Christian) is certainly not something to be ashamed of or to reject as un-Christian behavior.

The idea that the Crusades were some kind of proto-imperialism justified by faith for purpose of financial gain is preposterous; many families spent their entire fortune and gave the lives of their most eligible heirs and landholers to drive out the Muslims. The idea that the Christians committed some kind of atrocities is also unfounded, no more than the normal level of casualties that would occur when a city would be taken (by either side or in any war) during that period. On the contrary, Muslims living under the King of Jerusalem and neighbors were treated fairly well and were generally not forced to convert under pain of death; many went on with their daily lives of industry and commerce.

 

[dronald]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

What I will say is that if you’re looking for some kind of exit explanation - that the Crusades weren’t actually sanctioned by the Church or are inconsistent with Church teaching - you’re not going to find it. Whether or not the comments of Pope Urban II are legitimate is largely irrelevant - the Crusades were not only justified by morals and reason, but supported by the Church and subsequently proven to be legitimate by the work of Aquinas.

Just war to defend the Empire (“the land of our friends”) and to drive the Muslims out of lands partially or wholly occupied by Christians under persecution (remember, the entire areas that were targeted by the Crusades, i.e. the Levant/Anatolia for 1-4 and Egypt/Africa in subsequent Crusades were either majority Christian or large plurality Christian) is certainly not something to be ashamed of or to reject as un-Christian behavior.

The idea that the Crusades were some kind of proto-imperialism justified by faith for purpose of financial gain is preposterous; many families spent their entire fortune and gave the lives of their most eligible heirs and landholers to drive out the Muslims. The idea that the Christians committed some kind of atrocities is also unfounded, no more than the normal level of casualties that would occur when a city would be taken (by either side or in any war) during that period. On the contrary, Muslims living under the King of Jerusalem and neighbors were treated fairly well and were generally not forced to convert under pain of death; many went on with their daily lives of industry and commerce.

So then why didn’t Jesus do the same or teach His Apostles to do the same? And then why didn’t the Apostles teach the same?

 

[dmar198]

So then why didn’t Jesus do the same or teach His Apostles to do the same? And then why didn’t the Apostles teach the same?

Jesus and the Apostles did teach just war, and some of their followers were in the military. The Church Fathers continued this teaching. If the Church is wrong to teach just war, then every Christian was wrong for the first 1500 years of Christendom, because they all belonged to a Church that taught just war.

— 001 - 100 A.D. — The Age of the Apostles

Catholics in the Military
—The Italian Cohort and St. Cornelius

The New Testament on Just War
—John the Baptist and the Soldiers
—Jesus and the Centurion
—Jesus on the Right to Armed Defense
—St. Paul and the Armed Guards
—St. Paul on the Ruler’s Sword
—The Book of Revelation on Just War

— 100 - 300 A.D. — The Age of Catholic Martyrs

Catholics in the Military
— The Thundering Legion
— The Theban Legion
—The Catholic Soldiers of Alexandria

The Fathers Under Pagan Rome on Just War
—St. Irenaeus on the Military
—St. Clement of Alexandria on Just War
—Julius Africanus on Military Theory
—Tertullian on Just War
—Origen on Just War

— 300 - 500 A.D. — The Age of Catholic Rome

Catholics in the Military
—The Thundering Legion

The Wars of Catholic Rome
—Constantine versus Licinius
—Wars against Barbarians
—Wars against the Persians
—Theodosius the Younger
—Against the Donatists

The Fathers of Catholic Rome on Just War
—The Council of Arles on the Military
—Adamantius on Just War
—Eusebius of Caesarea on Just War
—St. Lactantius on Just War
—St. Athanasius on Just War
—St. Basil the Great on Just War
—St. Gregory Nazianzen on Just War
—St. Ambrose on Just War
—St. Augustine on Just War

 

[dmar198]

Urban writing from the chair of Peter, writing as if what he says has authority says this:

"On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ!”

I also wonder if we could imagine Paul writing something like this or Jesus saying something like this? After all, Urban is putting words into Christ’s mouth is is not?

I think we ought to distinguish several things:

(1) The fact that Crusades were called by the Church
(2) The language used in the calls for Crusades
(3) The indulgences granted to those who die in the fight

It is my understanding that we are not required by the Church to believe that any of the above 3 things were good. A Catholic, I think, could legitimately hold that the Crusades were a bad idea, the language sinful, and the indulgences an abuse.

Nonetheless, I think all three can be defended in some way by examining the historical context.

(1) I think the Crusades on the whole met the principles of just war given to us by the New Testament and the Church Fathers.

(2) I think the language used (“vile race,” “pagans…which worships the devil,”) is not good, but can be empathized with when you consider how desperate the people were. It would be hard for them to think otherwise. Early in the 600s A.D., when the Muslims first conquered North Africa and Jerusalem, the Catholics of that time spoke similarly about the Muslims: “Then the race of Saracens, unbelieving and hateful to God, proceeded from Egypt into Africa with a great multitude, took Carthage by siege and when it was taken, cruelly laid it waste and leveled it to the ground.” source “the troops of the Saracens [are] attacking us…the vengeful and God-hating Saracens.” source “Christ…[is] blasphemed by pagan mouths.” (ibid.) Yes, this language is awful, but so were the times, and we ought to put it in that context and forgive them for it.

(3) I think it was just to grant indulgences for fighting in the Crusades because I think the Crusades themselves were just. If you are fighting in a righteous cause, then you are doing good, and can be blessed for it. Indulgences are a form of blessing. Thus, I think the use of indulgences was justified in the Crusades.

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[Vico]

Urban writing from the chair of Peter, writing as if what he says has authority says this:

"On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ!”

I also wonder if we could imagine Paul writing something like this or Jesus saying something like this? After all, Urban is putting words into Christ’s mouth is is not?

This is the Latin from the source used by the Vatican, Canon II from the Council of Claremont, with my translation:

II
Quicunque pro sola devotione, non pro honoris vel pecuniae adoptione, ad liberandam ecclesiam Dei Jerusalem profectus fuerit, iter illud pro omni poenitentia reputetur.
2
Whoever, with regard only to the devotion, not with the adoption for the honor, or money, has gone forth to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, that journey for all penance imputed.

1. Cf. Council of Claremont can. 2: “Quicumque pro . . . paenitentiareputetur” (Mansi, SS.Conciliorum collectio 20, 816)

 

[adf417]

I want to think that the Pope never said anything like this.** I wonder then though what convinced the rich and poor to join in the Crusade**?

I think this is a very good question we should all ask ourselves daily in this time of worldly turmoil. ISTM that we, as a culture, tend to follow more closely what is popular or politically motivated as opposed to what is just. I don’t think we have to look too far to see this this sort of confusion (propaganda) being disseminated within Christianity today.

Peace!!!

 

[dmar198]

This is the Latin from the source used by the Vatican, Canon II from the Council of Claremont, with my translation:

II
Quicunque pro sola devotione, non pro honoris vel pecuniae adoptione, ad liberandam ecclesiam Dei Jerusalem profectus fuerit, iter illud pro omni poenitentia reputetur.
2
Whoever, with regard only to the devotion, not with the adoption for the honor, or money, has gone forth to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, that journey for all penance imputed.

1. Cf. Council of Claremont can. 2: “Quicumque pro . . . paenitentiareputetur” (Mansi, SS.Conciliorum collectio 20, 816)

I believe that the verb reputetur is in a tense that justifies translating it “is imputed.” Thus: “that journey is imputed for all penance.”