Would you join a Crusade?

[elt1956]

Do you know what’s incredibly chilling to me? That you claim to be a Catholic yet if God spoke to the Pontiff and instructed him to enact a Crusade, that you as a Catholic would ignore that order. I guess you only listen to God when it goes with what YOU want to believe?

I am still thinking that command from God to Pope to us would have to be given to us Ex Cathedra by the Pope before I would even think about it. Peace.

 

[Brendan]

Just over 61% of you said you would follow the Pope and kill others in blind obedience!!! That’s incredibly chilling!!!

No blind obedience involved. One can determine the morality using reason as well.

 

[TemplarKnight]

I am still thinking that command from God to Pope to us would have to be given to us Ex Cathedra by the Pope before I would even think about it. Peace.

Isn’t that the entire point? I wouldn’t heed a call unless it was Ex Cathedra. I thought that was the entire point was that an order for a Crusade would only be given Ex Cathedra.

That is what amazes me about “Catholics” that refuse to even consider a Crusade.

 

[elt1956]

Isn’t that the entire point? I wouldn’t heed a call unless it was Ex Cathedra. I thought that was the entire point was that an order for a Crusade would only be given Ex Cathedra.

That is what amazes me about “Catholics” that refuse to even consider a Crusade.

Yep, I refuse and I don’t know about the ex Cathedra. Was that what happened in the first crusades??? What would you consider a legitimte crusade, what instances??? PEACE!!!

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Do they?

Naturally - else it really wouldn’t be “Catholic” and all that, with just one Patriarch.

Both were wrong. You are correct. And both were unavoidable.

No one condones attacks on purely civilian targets. But one must look at the context of the attacks. Again, I go to the OT and look how many times innocent civilians were slaughtered.

But the Church does not endorse this. Hence, your view of war is based on a personal interpretation of the OT…which, bottom line, is really where the Church leaves us when it accepts to dichotomous stances on war.

No, mostly by plane.

Inevitable = unavoidable. Taking the “right” stance does not preclude the inevitable, it only leaves you unprepared.

But precluding the inevitable is not the goal of pacifism - the goal of pacifism is moral rectitude.

I highly doubt you, or anyone, can change my opinions with regard to my faith. Determination =/= fruition.

I’m beginning to concur.

Shall I find another?

Go for it.

Does this end justify the means?

OK, now give me a serious response.

No, the point was you are not the one to decide if and when it happens. Saying that a divine interaction will never happen is a little out of touch don’t you think?

There is no way short of God’s actual re-incarnation to human form and direct diction that you could convince me that the Christ of the Gospels is so misinterpreted as to justify Christian holy war.

I do not preclude its happening, but surely you, as I, find it infinitely unlikely.

Can we take this argument how far back? Are you honestly going to try and argue “if wars never happened??” It’s like a friend of mine said. “If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle”. You can’t theorize how this world “would have been” if there was never a war. No one has that wisdom.

You brought up the annoying “Sieg Heil” argument that I’ve never heard fifty times before. Naturally, one must counter that wars do not occur in a vacuum.

I see your points very clear. Let me summarize it. You don’t like violence, violence is never the answer, and there is never a justification for violence. Am I off base here?

Yes.

I don’t know God well enough to abandon “love thy neighbour” at the claim of another who believes he hears God’s call for a Crusade when that one’s potential political motives are quite obvious.

So you admit you don’t know God’s will, yet you will sit here and say that if God calls for a Crusade, it is wrong? Does that not reek of hypocrisy? You don’t have to understand God’s message to either receive it or act on it.

No, I say it is most likely wrong if the Pope calls for a Crusade.

I already said that God’s calling a Crusade is an entirely different matter.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

.Amen. What is the relevance to this conversation? I never even implied that any human could match God’s wisdom. God blesses men with wisdom and to the level he sees fit. I would believe that God would bless the leaders of His Church here on earth with wisdom.

You would hope, but men are men. Our first Pope even denied Our Lord…if he didn’t set precedent, I don’t know who would.

There is a main view, Just War, and an allowed view, pacifism. It is akin to having that uncoordinated friend that wants to play sports but doesn’t have the skill level. He’s allowed to come along but the team is not judged by his ability.

From the Just War theorist’s perspective. To us, you are a transient novelty.

There are shades of grey here.

In other words, both would have to give up a portion of their core belief in order to co-exist.

We know the truth here. I feel the Pope’s make moral decisions, including the wartime Popes. The opinion that the war time Popes did not make a moral decision is just that, an opinion.

If Christ gave Peter the keys to the Church and to the Apostles the Holy Spirit, did he not also give them the wisdom to guide the Church in the right direction? To say the Church is wrong is to say that everyone from the original 12 has been wrong.

A theology which allows for no errors in the non-doctrinal is like a car without suspension. A fallen world is a fallen world.

Christ is the example we are all to live by. But until we live in a perfect world, his perfection is beyond our reach.

But is it to be sought any less?

Yet you feel that you can claim what is right or wrong when it comes to the Church. If you don’t know God’s will (I don’t either, no one does) then how can you say what God may or may not will?

He may will war, and He may have willed war. As I have no way to know for sure, I will err on life’s side.

Who are any of us to question His plan?

That’s what I’m asking you.

I don’t claim I do. What I do claim is that I believe the Pontiff does. I have to “have faith” in him guiding the Church in the right direction. If he calls for a Crusade, I believe that will be the right direction.

If the Crusades are an exercise of infallibility, they are certainly strange ones, violating the Church’s respect for pacifism whilst waging wars of aggression.

God has used a burning bush, a pillar of fire, a cloud on a mountain to give his message. Can God choose to use a whisper to speak to a peaceful man in silent meditation in a city/state?

I hope so. It’s how he reached His Prophet on the mountain.

Here is your answer. Do all martyrs die at the hands of the evil one?

I know that none dies in the hands of the evil one.

I love this answer.

The French knight Hugues de Payens and his relative Godfrey de Saint-Omer.

Or would you prefer I name another of the many, many Knights Templar that “killed” for their religion and was later martyred?

Killed =/= martyred. You sound like a Moslem extremist.

Relative to you. Again, research the Jesuits, not just your friend.

Will do.

St. Sarcastic, I’m glad you made an appearance today.

What can I say, he’s my patron.

Relative to your morals?

Lacking an absolute morality.

Only pointing out how you don’t have a valid case.

To your mind, hopefully not to God’s.

 

[nsper7]

As I mentioned earlier (and as I voted), I would be reticent to join a Crusade militarily, but not necessarily because I view it as immoral.

1. I am not sure how the Anglican Communion would respond to a member joining a Crusade and risking excommunication is not something to take lightly (of course, I could end up being a ‘spiritual martyr’ in that situation, having forsaken by ‘Church’ for the greater cause of Christianity).
2. As I begin the process of seeking Anglican Holy Orders, it would most likely be wrong for me to serve militarily, although I hope I could serve in a religious capacity (like I said earlier, you can always use another another Anglican Priest)

Now, onto the issue at hand, listening to Servus Pio’s comments, it seems he stands against a Crusade because he feels it goes against the commands of Jesus to love one’s enemy. In response I would point SPXIII towards James Patrick Holding* of Tekton Apologetics Ministries.

In an article in which Mr. Holding is refuting an atheist skeptic named George Smith, he answers the question regarding Luke 6:27-28/Matthew 5:39-41:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Smith interprets these commands as directives to tolerate injustice and be a doormat, and says “such precepts require the obliteration of one’s capacity to distinguish the good from the evil.” [323] Taken in their social context, these commands require no such things. “Resist not evil” is a well-known Jewish proverb (Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:19) and actually means, do not compete with evildoers by trying to outdo them in terms of getting back at them. Three examples for the teaching follow: Turn the other cheek; if someone sues you for your cloak, also give them your tunic; if you are forced to go one mile, go two. All three of these things refer to what amount to inconvenient, but nevertheless perfectly legal, impositions on the person. The “slap on the cheek” is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange. It is not, as many Skeptics have supposed, a license to allow yourself to get beat up. The cloak/tunic bit must be recognized in terms of the ancient Jewish customary process of making good pledge on one’s debts by handing over a valuable item as collateral; for most people in this time, items of clothing were the only thing suitable. In essence, the teaching is to provide surety of repayment of a justly-decided debt, even to those who are enemies. Finally, the double-mileage command refers in context to the legal right a Roman soldier had to make any person carry their belongings for up to one mile. As you might imagine, this was not a popular requirement in the neighborhood of Palestine, but it was the law, and the teaching again is in essence, do it, and do it without complaint, even though the Roman is your enemy. And if you need to know why, consider that your resultant testimony as a member of God’s kingdom (for the Sermon on the Mount is composed of instructions for just that set) is far, far more important than a few mild inconveniences or insults to your person…not that one like Smith would agree, having no recognition of the kingdom in the first place. Nevertheless, Smith’s analysis is completely oblivious to both the context and the intent of the teaching.

For further reading, see Mr. Holding’s other articles on the matter:
Vengeance Can Be Yours – Only $3.99: Is Jesus Contradictory About Revenge?
Tough Love: Was Jesus a Hypocrite About Loving His Enemies?

To summarize, it boils down to the following:

1. The examples Jesus gives (i.e. getting slapped in the face, being forced to give one’s coat and being forced to walk an extra mile for a Roman) were not ‘life-threatening’, merely an inconvenience or a threat to personal honor
2. Looking at the social context and the fact that Graeco-Roman society (as well as Ancient Israelite for that matter) were ‘group-centered’ (as opposed to modern Western/American culture, which is ‘individual-centered’), Jesus is addressing our response to personal enemies, not enemies of the group (i.e., in the case of a Crusade, the Roman Catholic Church and, possibly, the ‘Universal Church’)

*James Patrick Holding holds a Masters of Library Science and currently is affiliated with the Souther Baptist ‘denomination’, although his website is non-denominational in nature

 

[goofyjim]

So if the Pope calls for a crusade it is definitely God doing so as well? What if the Pope said we should all jump off a cliff? Would that be God telling us that as well? I will kill only as a last resort in self defense.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

To summarize, it boils down to the following:

1. The examples Jesus gives (i.e. getting slapped in the face, being forced to give one’s coat and being forced to walk an extra mile for a Roman) were not ‘life-threatening’, merely an inconvenience or a threat to personal honor

So, Jesus’ commands should only be followed when it is easiest to do so, is that a decent paraphrase? When nothing really hinges on their being followed?

1. Looking at the social context and the fact that Graeco-Roman society (as well as Ancient Israelite for that matter) were ‘group-centered’ (as opposed to modern Western/American culture, which is ‘individual-centered’), Jesus is addressing our response to personal enemies, not enemies of the group (i.e., in the case of a Crusade, the Roman Catholic Church and, possibly, the ‘Universal Church’)

Shall swords be beat into plowshares, and neither shall they learn war anymore, except on the largest of possible scales?

Is Christian theology, is the concept of peace only on an individual scale?

What love is there on an individual level when there exists hatred between groups (collexions of individuals)?

So if the Pope calls for a crusade it is definitely God doing so as well? What if the Pope said we should all jump off a cliff? Would that be God telling us that as well? I will kill only as a last resort in self defense.

Thank you!

 

[nsper7]

So, Jesus’ commands should only be followed when it is easiest to do so, is that a decent paraphrase? When nothing really hinges on their being followed?

Again, I believe you’re ignoring the context. Scripture (OT and NT) is a high-context documents (meaning that information that it is assumed listeners/readers would have known or understood is not always mentioned) and, as Westerners, we tend to read things in a ‘low-context way’ (like skimming a newspaper article, we assume that all the necessary information is in the document).

When you say ‘easiest to do so’, you should understand that in an honor-based society, not responding to a challenge of honor would be very difficult and perhaps have long-term consequences. Again, reading the text, he never mentions a serious threat to personal/group safety nor is he discussing someone doing something unlawful to another person.

Shall swords be beat into plowshares, and neither shall they learn war anymore, except on the largest of possible scales?

Shall plowshares be beat into swords? (Joel 3:10)

As the conflicting verses show, the idea is that there is a time and a place for everything. Sometimes, even though it be dreadful and perhaps offensive to our personal ideas, war may be necessary.

Is Christian theology, is the concept of peace only on an individual scale?

What love is there on an individual level when there exists hatred between groups (collexions of individuals)?

Again, it looks like you’re reading an ancient document (Scripture) from a modern perspective. As individuals, we are called to love our personal enemies, yet if you read St. Paul, he even mentions how leaders (thus of a group) have authority to wield the sword as “God’s minister…to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4).

Using Jesus’ own ministry as an example, look at his conflict with the Pharisees. He is very harsh to them because they are enemies of the truth, but he never treats them as personal enemies. When St. Paul is harsh with the Galatian Judaizers, he ‘verbally’ berates them as enemies of the truth and the group (the early Church), but never does he treat them as personal enemies.

Remember, the idea of the importance of the individual is fairly modern and only in Western-type countries. You might want to read Holding’s article where he compares Biblical society to Japanese society (also very group-oriented): Returning Japanese: Some Lessons from Another Culture It may seem odd, but I think a lot of these issues will be clearer if you can understand the context of Scripture.

 

[Potato1]

Again, I believe you’re ignoring the context. Scripture (OT and NT) is a high-context documents (meaning that information that it is assumed listeners/readers would have known or understood is not always mentioned) and, as Westerners, we tend to read things in a ‘low-context way’ (like skimming a newspaper article, we assume that all the necessary information is in the document).

When you say ‘easiest to do so’, you should understand that in an honor-based society, not responding to a challenge of honor would be very difficult and perhaps have long-term consequences. Again, reading the text, he never mentions a serious threat to personal/group safety nor is he discussing someone doing something unlawful to another person.

Shall plowshares be beat into swords? (Joel 3:10)

As the conflicting verses show, the idea is that there is a time and a place for everything. Sometimes, even though it be dreadful and perhaps offensive to our personal ideas, war may be necessary.

Again, it looks like you’re reading an ancient document (Scripture) from a modern perspective. As individuals, we are called to love our personal enemies, yet if you read St. Paul, he even mentions how leaders (thus of a group) have authority to wield the sword as “God’s minister…to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4).

Using Jesus’ own ministry as an example, look at his conflict with the Pharisees. He is very harsh to them because they are enemies of the truth, but he never treats them as personal enemies. When St. Paul is harsh with the Galatian Judaizers, he ‘verbally’ berates them as enemies of the truth and the group (the early Church), but never does he treat them as personal enemies.

Remember, the idea of the importance of the individual is fairly modern and only in Western-type countries. You might want to read Holding’s article where he compares Biblical society to Japanese society (also very group-oriented): Returning Japanese: Some Lessons from Another Culture It may seem odd, but I think a lot of these issues will be clearer if you can understand the context of Scripture.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

The Early Christians, living in context of the culture, may well be trusted to understand the habit and nuance of the culture that they lived in. Their conclusion is quite…peaceable.

Read for yourself:

Tertullian:

“The old law vindicated itself by the vengeance of the sword, and plucked out eye for eye, and requited injury with punishment; but the new law pointed to clemency, and changed the former savagery of swords and lances into tranquillity, and refashioned the former infliction of war upon rivals and foes of the law into the peaceful acts of ploughing and cultivating the earth.”

St. Justin Martyr:

“We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same (reward) from the God who is Master of all.”

Origen:

To those who ask us whence we have come or whom we have (for) a leader, we say that we have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into ploughshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take “sword against a nation,” nor do we learn “any more to make war,” having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of (following) the ancestral (customs) in which we were strangers to the covenants.

For a few. No, I will read the interpretations written in the context of the times, rather than attempt to restore that context to mine own interpretations.

 

[nsper7]

The Early Christians, living in context of the culture, may well be trusted to understand the habit and nuance of the culture that they lived in. Their conclusion is quite…peaceable.

Read for yourself:

Tertullian:

St. Justin Martyr:

Origen:

For a few. No, I will read the interpretations written in the context of the times, rather than attempt to restore that context to mine own interpretations.

Although I respect the faith and wisdom of the Early Church Fathers, they were not doctrinally infallible (in fact, it could be argued, that doctrine and proper iinterpretation at this time was still being formed). You did not actually respond to my statements, you only threw quotes at me and did not synthesise them into an argument. Like you, I pull quotes from sources I respect (i.e. J. P. Holding) but you’ll notice that I add my comments and integrate the quotes into a larger argument.

Now, you seem to reject the OT, claiming that it is superceded by the teachings of Jesus (God the Son), but how do you address the fact that St. Paul declares Scripture (including the OT) “…given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, [and] for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, NKJV) and, again, Paul also recognizes that legitimate authorities have the right to “weild the sword”? Looking at Paul’s statements, it meshes the idea of fighting sometimes being necessary and that a legitimate authority has the right to use force.

Remember that the ECF also have to be looked at in context. In a discussion on the Just War Doctrine, the writer fo this forum’s parent website (Catholic Answers) states the following about the rise of the doctrine:
"Just War Doctrine":

As long as Christianity remained a minority religion in the Roman Empire, it was not forced to put these insights together into a formal theory of when warfare could be used. But as Christianity grew predominant, more attention had to be devoted to this subject. By the time of Augustine (A.D. 354-430) the need for a theory of when warfare was just was keen, and Augustine provided one, crystallizing biblical principles into what is now known as just war doctrine. In the intervening centuries the theory has been refined, but its framework remains as he gave it.

When the Early Church Fathers were writing, Christianity had little-to-no influence on the legitimate governing authorities and was in the minority and it would have been counterproductive to resist the Romans with arms. At the time they were writing, the ECFs would have had little reason to address the issue of war since they were not in the position of leading a governmental/legitimate authority. Please note that they are addressing actions between individuals. The Church was not a ‘legitimate governing authority’ at that point (in fact, they were under persecution by Rome I believe) and nor were they in a position to wage a war as a group; they were advocating that individuals be loving and peaceful (this meshes completely with Jesus commands, but also leaves room for the idea that a group, including the Church, could, if it is a legitimate authority, “weild the sword” if necessary). It should definitely be noted that this was not a time to kill (Ecclesiastes 3:3).

You quote freely from some ECFs, yet you seem to reject St. Augustine’s ‘Just War Doctrine’. Why are the other ECFs to be trusted over St. Augustine of Hippo? Augustine was a recognized Church Father, although he lived after the men you quote, but lived in a time where the issue of war was quite important (Christianity was becoming a legitimate authority and more able to wage war as a group). The Eastern Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodox Church accept St. Augustine of Hippo’s writings.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Although I respect the faith and wisdom of the Early Church Fathers, they were not doctrinally infallible (in fact, it could be argued, that doctrine and proper iinterpretation at this time was still being formed). You did not actually respond to my statements, you only threw quotes at me and did not synthesise them into an argument. Like you, I pull quotes from sources I respect (i.e. J. P. Holding) but you’ll notice that I add my comments and integrate the quotes into a larger argument.

My point was quite clear: I choose to follow the interpretations made in the context of the culture than to attempt to put my own interpretations in context.

It is for this reason, for their intimate familiarity with the times of Christ (moreso than any modern could ever be) that makes the Fathers so valuable a resource - fallible as they may be.

Now, you seem to reject the OT, claiming that it is superceded by the teachings of Jesus (God the Son), but how do you address the fact that St. Paul declares Scripture (including the OT) “…given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, [and] for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, NKJV) and, again, Paul also recognizes that legitimate authorities have the right to “weild the sword”? Looking at Paul’s statements, it meshes the idea of fighting sometimes being necessary and that a legitimate authority has the right to use force.

Tell me, do you stone adulterers? Naturally not, for Christ’s re-interpretation of the Old Testament superceded the old practice.

Not that the Old is invaluable, but that the New is its completion.

Paul’s statements have more to do with the submission of the Christian to legitimate government (as opposed to revolution or criminal actions, as would be expected of a Messianic movement of the time) than with the rights or wrongs of war.

Remember that the ECF also have to be looked at in context. In a discussion on the Just War Doctrine, the writer fo this forum’s parent website (Catholic Answers) states the following about the rise of the doctrine:

They (CA) seem to view Augustine’s writing as a complete and universally accepted action, which is a false perception. Just War Theory was continually expanded upon until the Renaissance, and was never accepted by the whole Church - especially the East (this may be because of the language barrier between the Latin Augustine and Greek East, but the failure to arise of similar doctrines in the East is telling, to say the least).

When the Early Church Fathers were writing, Christianity had little-to-no influence on the legitimate governing authorities and was in the minority and it would have been counterproductive to resist the Romans with arms. At the time they were writing, the ECFs would have had little reason to address the issue of war since they were not in the position of leading a governmental/legitimate authority.

Another telling sign - the Christians were admonished by Paul to submit to legitimate authority, except when it conflicted with Christ’s law.

Why, then, did the Early Christians shun military service to the point of martyrdom (St. Marcellus) and write against it?

Please note that they are addressing actions between individuals.

Read them again, esp. this from St. Justin Martyr:

*"We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe *

He is clearly addressing the “group” mentality to which you so often scurry - he condemns it, preferring instead to judge and act as individuals, instead of as warring groups.

The Church was not a ‘legitimate governing authority’ at that point (in fact, they were under persecution by Rome I believe) and nor were they in a position to wage a war as a group; they were advocating that individuals be loving and peaceful (this meshes completely with Jesus commands, but also leaves room for the idea that a group, including the Church, could, if it is a legitimate authority, “weild the sword” if necessary). It should definitely be noted that this was not a time to kill (Ecclesiastes 3:3).

You argue that the Early Christians argue out of pragmatism, but I say again - read their writings! They find their pacifism the fulfillment of the prophecy that swords shall be beat into plowshares! This is hardly a temporary matter, for them.

You quote freely from some ECFs, yet you seem to reject St. Augustine’s ‘Just War Doctrine’. Why are the other ECFs to be trusted over St. Augustine of Hippo? Augustine was a recognized Church Father, although he lived after the men you quote, but lived in a time where the issue of war was quite important (Christianity was becoming a legitimate authority and more able to wage war as a group).

Two reasons:

1. Augustine is alone in his Just War theory, and all Patristics derive truth from a consensus of the Fathers, as no one is infallible.
2. To my point, the earlier the Father, the closer he is to the culture to which you referred, and the better able he would be to put Christ’s teachings in the context of Christ’s culture.

The Eastern Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodox Church accept St. Augustine of Hippo’s writings.

They have not accepted St. Augustine as infallible.

Although the ECC certainly have, the EO have never accepted (tho some may have used on occasion) the Just War doctrine. As Patriarch Bartholomew said, war is “forgivable” on occasion, but never just.

 

[TemplarKnight]

Here’s the bottom line facts:

If you’re not a Catholic in the Latin Rite, then this poll does not concern you. If you do not recognize the Pope as the Church’s authority here on earth, then this poll does not apply to you.

The original poster talked about a Crusade. Which, for most, means a violent defense of the Catholic faith against those set to destroy it.

The Catholic Church allows for violent defense of faith under very certain and specific circumstances.

Along with most everyone here, I am 99.99% convinced that it may never happen in my lifetime. I am also convinced that it would only happen through Divine intercession.

So the question and premise is rhetorical. If you don’t “believe” in violence, or in a Crusade, then that’s fine; that is your opinion. But don’t waste your time trying to convert others or justify your stance as I am willing to wager that anyone who would commit to fighting a Crusade is not going to be persuaded by weak arguments, a vague interpretation of scripture, or the complete lack of biblical and historic knowledge.

The poll to this point shows the truth by a large margin.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Here’s the bottom line facts:

If you’re not a Catholic in the Latin Rite, then this poll does not concern you. If you do not recognize the Pope as the Church’s authority here on earth, then this poll does not apply to you.

Either the Pope has universal jurisdiction, in which case he most certainly does apply to me, or you deny your own papal claims.

The original poster talked about a Crusade. Which, for most, means a violent defense of the Catholic faith against those set to destroy it.

In that case, there has never been a Crusade.

Along with most everyone here, I am 99.99% convinced that it may never happen in my lifetime. I am also convinced that it would only happen through Divine intercession.

Your opinion. I’m not about to be persuaded away from Christ’s proscriptions by your opinion.

I interpret Christ’s proscriptions as they were interpreted by a consensus of the Fathers - war may be forgivable, but never objectively “just”, which is what a Crusade claims to be.

Why else would the ECF’s have cast aside the military belt (indeed, for more on that, read the text of Nicaea I)? Why would St. Basil, if killing in war were thought justified, have forbidden communion to those who had killed in battle for three years?

Modern scholarship can read whatever it wants into the Scripture in the name of context; but I hold that the most in-context interpretations are those which were truly written within context rather than those modern ones written with context in mind - although these latter are certainly superior to those written without any context.

So the question and premise is rhetorical. If you don’t “believe” in violence, or in a Crusade, then that’s fine; that is your opinion. But don’t waste your time trying to convert others or justify your stance as I am willing to wager that anyone who would commit to fighting a Crusade is not going to be persuaded by weak arguments, a vague interpretation of scripture, or the complete lack of biblical and historic knowledge.

Good thing I possess none of those traits :tiphat:.

However, I hold no part of my faith as mere opinion - especially those parts in which equivocation leads to the debasement of the fundamentals of Christianity - we are not a religion of holy wars and jihads!

Was Christ speaking to the deaf?!

Of course there were wars in the Old Testament - to shew forth God’s power for the elimination of sin for, as St. Basil (again) wrote, “fear edifies the simpler people”:

"And the words, “I kill and I make to live,” you can accept, if you like, in the obvious sense. For fear edifies the simpler people. “I will strike and I will heal.” This also is understood as useful in the same sense. The blow produces fear, while the healing persuades you to love."
-On the Human Condition

But this is not the command of Christ, for (as I have quoted before) it was written that “in disarming Peter, Christ has disarmed every soldier”.

The poll to this point shows the truth by a large margin.

Because we know that Catholicism is a democracy, naturally.

 

[mschrank]

I think pacifists should just be ignored and put into the intellectual looney bin along with fundamentalist materialists, JWs and Mormons.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I think pacifists should just be ignored and put into the intellectual looney bin along with fundamentalist materialists, JWs and Mormons

Right…bye bye, Cardinal Ottaviani. Or have you never read Bellum est Omnino Interdictum?

Remember, as a Christian pacifist, I am not as the secularists - I acknowledge that God has used war in the past, as St. Basil wrote:

Yet even if you understand peace as the freedom from wars, and say that evils are the hardships that follow those who make war, service abroad, labors, sleeplessness, struggles, sweats, wounds, slaughters, conquests of cities, enslavements, abductions, the miseries of captives paraded as spectacles, and in a word all the sufferings that follow war, we say they occur by the just judgment of God, who allots punishment through wars to those deserving of chatisement.
-On the Human Condition

Yet these wars were the result of sin - whether against the sinful pagans or the wayward Jews. War in the Old Testament is fundamentally punitive in nature, not defensive, and is justified as a punitive measure.

War is a curse on man, put on man by his own evildoing, not a blessing.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Ok, upon rereading, my arguments were a little - jumbled.

Let me be succinct:

-War is sometimes necessary, it is never good.

-This is because war is a result of sin, ever present in the world, not the righteous fulfillment of a noble cause. It is a symptom of the fallen world.

-This is most clearly demonstrated by the wars of the Old Testament, which were enacted by God for punitive measures, whether upon Jew or pagan.

-These wars were always followed by a healing of love (esp. the Exile which, recall, was divinely ordained).

-It is fundamentally this loving, healing aspect of God which Christ embodies, and it is this loving aspect of God which we, as Christians, are called to emulate.

-Therefore has Christ disarmed every soldier, therefore must Christianity refrain from war to all possibility or, if recourse to war by the state be necessary, refrain from the blessing of what is objectively an evil.

-In light of Christ’s disarmament of each soldier, in light of the love of God which we are called as the Church to show forth, and in light of the fact that war is fundamentally an evil, the sanctioning by the Church of a Crusade is a failure to live up to the highest ideals of Christianity and, at best, lamentable.

Perhaps this is more clear?

 

[TemplarKnight]

In all honesty, I really don’t care what you think. I believe you are wrong on so many points I will not begin to name them all.

Your logic does not make any sense.

You criticize an opinion then venerate your own. I didn’t realize your opinion = gospel.

I’m not going to bother replying to your fallacious rhetoric anymore as it is obvious your statements stretch well beyond hypocritical opinion and dwell on the absurdly arrogant.

Good luck with your pacifism.

Edit: and BTW, the poll is not a vote, therefore your reference to the Church being a democracy is another example of your problems. It is an opinion poll. We’re not voting. I suppose the is supposed to make it a “joke” but I, personally, find nothing funny about your attitude.