Will we ever have to fight?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JackVk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JackVk

Guest
Hypothetically, let’s say things get REALLY bad for Catholics, and in order to defend the Church that Christ gave us, there is no other option than to take up arms. Didn’t this happen in the Crusades? Will we ever have to draw swords or guns to defend the Church? And if so, will we do it?
 
Hypothetically, let’s say things get REALLY bad for Catholics, and in order to defend the Church that Christ gave us, there is no other option than to take up arms. Didn’t this happen in the Crusades? Will we ever have to draw swords or guns to defend the Church? And if so, will we do it?
Well I would certainly hope that the Church wouldn’t fight Muslims again because there are a lot more passionate Muslims than passionate Catholics.
 
I’ve been around a while in this world, and I can almost guarantee you the Church is going to go through a tremendous period of persecution, and many will get the chance to be martyrs for the faith. Why? Because we have grown lax. The vast majority of Catholics in the U.S. and western affluent nations are grossly ignorant of their Catholic faith, and practice it even less. With 70% of those in this country professing to be Catholic, yet not attending weekly Mass, practicing artificial birth control, supporting pro-abortion candidates in government, etc., what would you expect our Heavenly Father to do? Just let us all go to hell quietly? No, He will allow us to be persecuting and attacked in order to wake us up and get those fires of faith and love for Him burning again!
 
Hypothetically, let’s say things get REALLY bad for Catholics, and in order to defend the Church that Christ gave us, there is no other option than to take up arms. Didn’t this happen in the Crusades? Will we ever have to draw swords or guns to defend the Church? And if so, will we do it?
Hmmm…

The Church has survived persecution after persecution after persecution without recourse to violence, from the Roman Empire to medieval Japan to the Soviet Union.

HOWEVER, when it tried to secure its rights by means of armed struggle (the Crusades) it failed.

IMNAAHO, it is not our mission as a Church to engage in violence. And before anybody brings up the “swords” in the Gospel, I’ll just say our LORD never let them be used to defend HIM. HE did not say, “Love your neighbor, until he starts to oppress you, then smash his head.”

Based on the historical record, i’d say that armed violence is not something our LORD came to teach, and it would be a grave mistake for the Church as such to again engage in it.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Christ chided Peter for drawing the sword and striking out to defend him.

The martyrs are honored for submitting to God unto death. Jesus himself could have raised an army, but he chose to suffer and die instead. This should be our ultimate example.

As much as fear and persecution might tempt us to take up arms…we should not. We should remain steadfast in faith, and not fear punishment or death.

That is the ideal anyways! I’m sure many would take up arms if a situation like that arose. I don’t know what I would do.
 
If you want a great perspective on this (and also liberation theology, which is tangental to this), watch ‘Romero’ starring Raul Julia.

And as Garyjohn mentioned, Christ did not want His Church (passed down to Peter) to become violent for His sake, and let us pray that time will never come. There may not be as many ‘violent, murderous persecutions’ in the West as there were from ancient times through the Industrial Revolution, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be spiritual martyrs for Christ. Just because you aren’t laying down your life doesn’t mean there is no grace given for those who turn the other cheek, pray for their persecutors, and do not strike back in anger or vengeance.
 
Hmmm…

The Church has survived persecution after persecution after persecution without recourse to violence, from the Roman Empire to medieval Japan to the Soviet Union.

HOWEVER, when it tried to secure its rights by means of armed struggle (the Crusades) it failed.

IMNAAHO, it is not our mission as a Church to engage in violence. And before anybody brings up the “swords” in the Gospel, I’ll just say our LORD never let them be used to defend HIM. HE did not say, “Love your neighbor, until he starts to oppress you, then smash his head.”

Based on the historical record, i’d say that armed violence is not something our LORD came to teach, and it would be a grave mistake for the Church as such to again engage in it.

ICXC NIKA.
This is not accurate view of history. The Crusades need to be taken in a larger context. For 1,000 years, there was a war between civilizations, Christendom and Isam. Europe was attacked repeatedly on three fronts, the Iberian Pennisila, through Asia Minor and Sicily/Italian pennisula. The Crusades, were largely an effort to turn a 300 year old defensive war into an offensive war, perfectly legitimate. To say they failed is only looking at it from a tactical perspective. They succeeded immensely in relieving military pressure from Europe. It is also safe to say that most of the major Islamic successes in this 1,000 year old war occurred prior to the start of the Crusades.

As to other parts of the historical record, perhaps you would refer to the Seige of Vienna, the Battle of Vienna, the Battle of Lepanto, and the success of driving the Moors out of Spain after a 700 year old war, before you say that Christianity neve had success in defending itself via an armed struggle. The simple fact is, Christendom was under military assault from around 700 AD until the end of the 17th century, and it won. We moderns have a hard time thinking in terms of a 1,000 year long war, but make no mistake, that is what it was.
 
I’ve been around a while in this world, and I can almost guarantee you the Church is going to go through a tremendous period of persecution, and many will get the chance to be martyrs for the faith. Why? Because we have grown lax. The vast majority of Catholics in the U.S. and western affluent nations are grossly ignorant of their Catholic faith, and practice it even less. With 70% of those in this country professing to be Catholic, yet not attending weekly Mass, practicing artificial birth control, supporting pro-abortion candidates in government, etc., what would you expect our Heavenly Father to do? Just let us all go to hell quietly? No, He will allow us to be persecuting and attacked in order to wake us up and get those fires of faith and love for Him burning again!
A better reason to believe that we will be persecuted again is because it is part of our doctrine of the end of times. Lots have been made in recent years of the rapture theory that many protestants hold, but the church also has its own set of beliefs with respect to the end of times (which, we are in and have been in for 2000 years).

Before the second coming:
  1. The jewish people will have to make a final decision to accept Christ or not
  2. The Gospel will have to be preached to the whole world
  3. A period of great tribulation will occur, in which the church will be globally persecuted.
The church, in its wisdom, does not declare if any of these has occurred or not, but it is probably save to assume that #1 and #3 has not.
 
This is not accurate view of history. The Crusades need to be taken in a larger context. For 1,000 years, there was a war between civilizations, Christendom and Isam. Europe was attacked repeatedly on three fronts, the Iberian Pennisila, through Asia Minor and Sicily/Italian pennisula. The Crusades, were largely an effort to turn a 300 year old defensive war into an offensive war, perfectly legitimate. To say they failed is only looking at it from a tactical perspective. They succeeded immensely in relieving military pressure from Europe. It is also safe to say that most of the major Islamic successes in this 1,000 year old war occurred prior to the start of the Crusades.

As to other parts of the historical record, perhaps you would refer to the Seige of Vienna, the Battle of Vienna, the Battle of Lepanto, and the success of driving the Moors out of Spain after a 700 year old war, before you say that Christianity neve had success in defending itself via an armed struggle. The simple fact is, Christendom was under military assault from around 700 AD until the end of the 17th century, and it won. We moderns have a hard time thinking in terms of a 1,000 year long war, but make no mistake, that is what it was.
This is an interesting perspective, and I don’t think it is too off the mark. I agree with most of it. We have to be careful considering the entire 1000 year period as one war though, because there were many long spaces without any fighting at all within that period. I can definately appreciate the fact that when we look from a very broad perspective, we can lump it all together as one conflict for the purpose of some arguments.

At the same time, we must also consider what would be considered a “success” in terms of the crusades. If the objective was to expand the borders of christian europe (as it was in some crusades) then yes, it succeeded. However if the objective was to conquer and hold the holy lands (as it was in some crusades) then it was a failure.

I wouldn’t catagorize one view as accurate, and the other inaccurate, (crusades being many wars with an overall loss vs. crusades being one war with an overall win)… just different, because the objectives and timeframes are defined differently.
 
40.png
Garyjohn2:
This is an interesting perspective, and I don’t think it is too off the mark. I agree with most of it. We have to be careful considering the entire 1000 year period as one war though, because there were many long spaces without any fighting at all within that period
Thanks for the agreement. But, your statement that there were many long pweriods of time ithout any fighting at all is not accurate. Somewhere, along the vast front of the mediteranian, there was a conflict going on almost all the time. Christendom was very fragmented politically during the whole time, Islam was not as fragmented, so it is easy to not view it as one war and there were parts of Christendom that had long periods of no contention with Islam. But overall, it was one long war of aggression by Islam against Christendom, of which the Crusades were part.
 
Thanks for the agreement. But, your statement that there were many long pweriods of time ithout any fighting at all is not accurate. Somewhere, along the vast front of the mediteranian, there was a conflict going on almost all the time. Christendom was very fragmented politically during the whole time, Islam was not as fragmented, so it is easy to not view it as one war and there were parts of Christendom that had long periods of no contention with Islam. But overall, it was one long war of aggression by Islam against Christendom, of which the Crusades were part.
I see what you mean. I guess I meant in terms of the crusades themselves, which were officially “declared” with many spaces between them. If we lump all christian and Islamic factions into 2 groups, I can see how there would be conflict throughout that entire time.
 
Hypothetically, let’s say things get REALLY bad for Catholics, and in order to defend the Church that Christ gave us, there is no other option than to take up arms. Didn’t this happen in the Crusades? Will we ever have to draw swords or guns to defend the Church? And if so, will we do it?
Don’t forget that not long ago in Spain it came to this:



And then we fought. And won. Viva Cristo Rey!
 
I have never understood this modern condemnation of the Crusades. No doubt much has to do with the self-indugent post-hippy belief that all war is univerially wrong, but it has more to do with judging the 11th and following century by a world view that is comfortable, affluent and middle-class.

The truth, as mentioned by other posters, is that Europe defended itself against invasion, and I give thanks to God that He allowed His Church in the West to maintain its existence.

If any doubt this, just see what happened to the Christians of what is now modern-day Turkey and the beautiful church of St Sofia: All taken over by Islam.
 
I see what you mean. I guess I meant in terms of the crusades themselves, which were officially “declared” with many spaces between them. If we lump all christian and Islamic factions into 2 groups, I can see how there would be conflict throughout that entire time.
Lumping into 2 groups is the only way to think about it. The problem is a difference in the mindset between today and people of the middle ages. Today, we associate the state, ie the political structure, with much of our identity. That was not the case in the past. If you would have asked someone from France 1000 years ago who he was, he would have had several different answers. He may have replied with his ethnicity, he may have replied with his local political/fuedel structure (eg a Lombard), and he may very well have replied with his religious affiliation, which to him would have been equivilent to his civilization (ie. Christendom).
This can easily be seen in the Crusades themselves, where people from various regions, despite local military/political conflicts, had little problem joining forces against Islam.

Also, lumping them into 2 groups would have been our the Islam civilization would have seen it. They were much less divided politically than Christendom. There is no doubt, they saw it as one, single struggle.
 
Don’t forget that not long ago in Spain it came to this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg

And then we fought. And won. Viva Cristo Rey!
We won in Spain??? No, Franco won. He was a friend of Hitlers, and allowed the German Air Force to practice their bombing on his own people. He was the devil’s own friend. Many bishops did support him, no doubt because the alternative was communism. But in no semse acn we say we - the Body of Christ - won.

besides, doesn’t Viva Christo Rey pertain more to Mexico than Spain? :confused:
 
Lumping into 2 groups is the only way to think about it. The problem is a difference in the mindset between today and people of the middle ages. Today, we associate the state, ie the political structure, with much of our identity. That was not the case in the past. If you would have asked someone from France 1000 years ago who he was, he would have had several different answers. He may have replied with his ethnicity, he may have replied with his local political/fuedel structure (eg a Lombard), and he may very well have replied with his religious affiliation, which to him would have been equivilent to his civilization (ie. Christendom).
This can easily be seen in the Crusades themselves, where people from various regions, despite local military/political conflicts, had little problem joining forces against Islam.

Also, lumping them into 2 groups would have been our the Islam civilization would have seen it. They were much less divided politically than Christendom. There is no doubt, they saw it as one, single struggle.
Well I guess we reached a point where we disagree. 🙂 Lumping the groups together makes some arguments and historical analyzations easier, but it seldom makes things more accurate, and there are many other ways of looking at it. It’s true that today we looks at things in terms of nations, and those did not exist back then, but in the past there were many very distinct kingdoms, and each was autonomous. They were loosely bound together by the church, but even the pope had to do a lot of work to get the different kingdoms to work together…and even then they didn’t all do so. Many kingdoms were at peace while others were at war. You are right in saying that Islam was less fragmented, but there were different autonomous factions there as well. Depending on which particular aspect of the crusades (or any aspect of history from the years 700-1700) one is looking at, it is definately worth considering the different factions at least, the roles they played, and which ones succeeded, which ones failed, and what part each one played. 🙂
 
We won in Spain??? No, Franco won. He was a friend of Hitlers, and allowed the German Air Force to practice their bombing on his own people. He was the devil’s own friend. Many bishops did support him, no doubt because the alternative was communism. But in no semse acn we say we - the Body of Christ - won.

besides, doesn’t Viva Christo Rey pertain more to Mexico than Spain? :confused:
That is very sad. First of all, you have committed the grave sin of calumny against Franco, who has a Catholic man. And yet you call him a friend of the devil?! That is calumny, sir.

Second, you are misinformed regarding Franco’s worldly associations as well. He became a friend of Eisenhower, but he was no friend of Hitler. In fact, Hitler held him in contempt and was enraged by Franco’s refusal to assist in Hitler’s war effort. Franco’s Spain was officially neutral during WWII, just like Eire.

Third, the employment of Italian and German military assistance was necessary for the Nationalists because the Soviet Union was sending modern tanks and aircraft to the Republicans. There was no way that the Catholics of Spain could stand up to the might of the Soviet Union without assistance.

Fourth, the struggle of the Nationalists was a Catholic struggle. Under the Spanish Red Terror, almost 7,000 clergy (including 13 bishops) were put to death by the Republicans, not counting the numerous other Catholic lay people. In some districts, up to 80% of the clergy were killed (the rest going into hiding). It was an orgy of slaughter, church burning and Communist terrorism. The loyal sons of the Church in Spain rose up and struck back. We won… Catholic Christians won.

Fifth, the noble and gallant cry “Viva Cristo Rey” was the rallying call of the Catholic Nationalist militias called Requetes… the “Traditionalists” or “Carlists”. They became part of the political institution of Francoist Spain, joining with the Falange into the FET y de las JONS… the “Traditionalist Spanish Falange”. Franco himself stipulated this union, in part to de-radicalize the more extreme elements in the Falange. It was clear by this move that Spain under Franco was to be Catholic and Traditionalist in nature.

I am sorry that you, sir, have spoken as you have done about the gallant and noble character of Franco, and that you have rejected our authentic and blessed victory in which we as Catholics should all share and rejoice. I will say a prayer to the holy martyrs of the Spanish Civil war to intercede for you. I know that there is much misinformation and Communist propaganda still surrounding the SCW… even Beevor himself noted that it is the great exception to the rule that history is written by the victor.

Holy Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War, pray for us! Sacred Heart of Jesus, make our hearts like Your Heart!

Viva Cristo Rey!
 
If somebody invaded your house and threatened you and your family then you have every right to defend yourself/family by means of physical force, even if it means lethal force. You are not expected by God to remain passive and allow your family and yourself to be harmed. Why would God expect the Church and her flock to be passive if we are physically attacked? We have every right to physically defend ourselves when violence from the enemy is eminent. We still should pray for our enemies and their salvation but we have every right to use force to defend ourselves.

The fact is if we did not use force in the Crusades to defend ourselves from infidel muslims then all of Europe and perhaps the world by now would be muslim.

Islam DENIES the Divinity of Christ and Jesus being the Son of God. The Koran teaches muslims to cut the heads off of people that do not accept Islam and the prophet Mohamed. Yes only a minority of muslims practice this extremism, but the “moderates” generally do not condemn the violence. Rather they turn their heads as if it does not exist. This indifference is just as dangerous and hateful as the violent acts.
 
If somebody invaded your house and threatened you and your family then you have every right to defend yourself/family by means of physical force, even if it means lethal force. You are not expected by God to remain passive and allow your family and yourself to be harmed. Why would God expect the Church and her flock to be passive if we are physically attacked? We have every right to physically defend ourselves when violence from the enemy is eminent. We still should pray for our enemies and their salvation but we have every right to use force to defend ourselves.

The fact is if we did not use force in the Crusades to defend ourselves from infidel muslims then all of Europe and perhaps the world by now would be muslim.

Islam DENIES the Divinity of Christ and Jesus being the Son of God. The Koran teaches muslims to cut the heads off of people that do not accept Islam and the prophet Mohamed. Yes only a minority of muslims practice this extremism, but the “moderates” generally do not condemn the violence. Rather they turn their heads as if it does not exist. This indifference is just as dangerous and hateful as the violent acts.
Hi croix de fer,
A good post.
I recall the controversy when the Holy Father recently referred to an historical Islamic figure. His reference was taken out of context and spun to make news. If such an innocuous allusion can cause a stir is it any wonder there is such virulent anti-Catholicism out there?
In Ireland, we have a weak-as-water Church hierarchy who are anything but “militant” in their defence of our Faith. Some of us are working to change this sorry state of affairs. The Church must “fight” on two fronts: to bring back those who have lapsed; and to counter the rise of militant Islam.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top