Why couldn't the Crusaders keep control of the Holy Land?

[swariffin]

If it was spoken ex-cathedra that means the papacy is not infallible then.

The Pope may have thought he was speaking with authority from God. They are chilling words by Pope Urban II: “Christ commands it” If those words were not intended to be spoken with authority from God, what are they? See below as well.

fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

We, as Christians can’t criticise the certain Arab and Asian Muslims who despise Westerners, after all our spiritual forefathers hated them. It would be hypocritical.

Dear MH84,

The word of Pope Urban II still was not a formal teaching of the Church, and I am glad with that. At least what you quoted does not come from an encyclic. But, basically I agree with you. If I were Pope Urban II, I cannot deny that I might do the same thing under the same circumstances.

 

[donmaximuso27]

Dear Donmaximus,

Thanks for the link. But, I still privately believe that Crusades is more political to religion, regardless of their position of defense against expansive opponents.

The Crusades were merely a defensive tactic for the sake of Constantinople and for those in the Holy Land. Every knight that participated in the Crusades recieve little if any booty from the battles in the Holy Land. They suffered dearly, for many knights sold most of their possessions, land, and spent most of their wealth to even go on a Crusade. The matter was purely driven by piety and zeal, yet modern historians would have us believe in the ridiculous assumption that knights gained endless amounts of wealth and land in the Holy Land; this was clearly not the case. When looking that the Islamic Empire and their treatment of former Christian lands, which were indeed the Holy Land, North Africa, Spain, and Sicily, the Crusades most definitely fit St. Augustine’s doctrine of a just war.
Because of the Crusades, tolerance and peace was brought to the Holy Land, even though the Christians eventually lost their kingdom. The idea of spreading Islam by the sword was greatly weakened because of the Crusades. Were the Crusades a just war? Absolutely. Pope Urban II condemned any abomination committed during the Crusades, as did most knights, because they fought for the protection of Christendom and its people.

“The prince beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God to execute His vengeance against him who doeth evil” (Romans xiii 4).

St. Augustine say in Book VI, Question 16, of Questions on Joshua: “Just wars are usually defined as those which avenge injuries, when the nation or city against which warlike action is to be directed has neglected either to punish wrongs committed by its own citizens or to restore what has been unjustly taken by it. Further, that kind of war is undoubtedly just which God Himself ordains.”

St. Augustine in De Verbis Domini: “With the true servants of God wars themselves are pacific, not being undertaken through cupidity or cruelty, but through the love of peace, with the object of repressing the wicked and encouraging the good.”

St. Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonifacium, CLXXXIX) : “For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged in order that peace may be obtained. Therefore, even in waging war, cherish the spirit of the peacemaker, that, by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back to the advantages of peace . . . .”

 

[Crusader4Jesus]

I believe that the reason for the Catholic control of the Holy Land to be lost, is to help us not to become too attached to the material view, the Crusades was about defense and not about controlling, the protection of the people was the goal and not the keeping of land. The Crusades had an everlasting goal, not a temporary earthy one.

Would you like to become a Crusader, this time you wont be going to the Holy Land, you will be going into the Internet.
This is an online campaign started by Catholics who are faithful to the Church. Its goal is the spread the Gospel to those who are in error and to correct falsehoods.
If you are interested in joining, then click the links below or PM me. No expert knowledge is desired although a willingness to share the faith or do something for God is
Pray about it and hopefully I’ll see some of you out there, because remember…

THE CATHOLIC CRUSADE OF JESUS CHRIST WANTS…

 

[LutheranDK]

Comparing the Crusades to the extermination campaigns of the SS is just plain stupidity!
How can liberating people who screamed for help be an evil cause?
The Arabs had been harrassing Europe, (both by conquest, vandalizing, razing cities, desecrating holy sties, etc) for some four centuries before Pope Urban called the first crusade, and it was about time that someone acted!

Spare me the “oh so innocent Arabs and cruel, wicked Europeans”-routine.

True, horrendous acts of cruelty were commited by the crusaders; acts that no Christian can condone. But that does not make the cause neither unjust, nor “evil”, no more than the terror-bombing of Dresden during WW2 made the Allied campaign to liberate Europe from Nazism “evil”. It was a horrible warcrime, but it did not take anything from the cause itself.
The crusaders are heroes, and it’s time that Western Civilization regains knowledge of this fact!

 

[LilyM]

*]**the “crusaders” were thugs & bandits, younger sons with no prospect of inheriting anything, adventurers, riff-raff with a taste for blood. As was shown by the pogroms that punctuated the progress of these holy men in the Rhineland in 1096. They slaughtered the Jews there, & that any survived was no fault of the crusaders; they killed as many as they could. **

“younger sons with no prospect of inheriting anything” who included the most powerful REIGNING KINGS of their day among their number? Richard I of England, King Philip of France? not to mention local Kings who had been set up in the Holy Land itself like Baldwin IV? They were hardly riff-raff, objectionable as they may’ve been in some respects.

While I appreciate the main thrust of what you’re saying, and don’t particularly believe in the rightness of the Crusaders’ cause or the actions they took in pursuit of it, hyperbole and easily refutable misinformation of this sort isn’t going to persuade anyone.

 

[Sam_777]

Is allowing the Crusade in the past has anything to do with Matthew 16:19?

 

[swariffin]

Dear Sam,

It had nothing to do with Mat 16:19. The Crusades was an eartly business. Mat 16:19 actually refered to the forgiveness of sins, i.e through the baptism by the Church.

Whatever Pope Urban II meant by offering the forgiveness of sins to me was some sort of abuse of power. BTW, I don’t blame him, because it was much easier to pump spirit of fighting of “inadequately” educated people by putting it in the name of God, instead of in the name of justice or freedom.