Would you join a Crusade?

[Hrvoje]

I’m not exactly sure at what you are trying to get across. We all want more peace there is no doubt about that, but there are times when a non-pacifist stand is necessary. When you quoted above that in the OT they were guided by God so that they were justified whereas we are not . . aren’t you Catholic? I’m not sure if the source was Catholic or protestant, but we are guided by God, Jesus assured us that we would be guided by the Holy Spirit and that He would be with us and never leave us. The Pope initiated the Crusades because it was God’s Will “Deus vult”
No matter how uncomfortable we may be with some touchy subject, we know that when the Pope makes an infallible statement then we have full knowledge that it is of God.
I understand that the early Christians didn’t use force but there is “a time of war, and a time of peace” this is not a contradiction, just as if God told you to sleep and then later told you to wake up, there are different things called for in different circumstances and at different times, sometimes even if the circumstances are the same or similiar.
God bless you for your zeal for peace.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the call to the crusades was not an infallible decree.
The list of such infallible teachings can be found here - and I can’t find one concerning the crusades. The pope, besides, when he called the European states to do something about the pilgrims getting killed, didn’t define a teaching, rather, he only issued a call.
But, If I’m wrong on it here, please, feel free to correct me - like I said on many an occasion - I’m always open to being wrong and finding out the Truth.

Now, we can discus the crusades another time - but that’s not what I posted about - my central idea was a more general one.

Concerning the time of war and time of peace - some commentary on that:

“‘There is a time for war’ (Eccl. 3:8)”
Again, this is an example of misusing the Old Testament.

The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes (like Job) is a book of speculative wisdom: various sayings are discussed and thought over, but not all are truth. The writer (and the reader) ponders over different angles before arriving at the truth. Consider the following verses:

So the book of Ecclesiastes contains numerous verses which are to be read as human sayings, not as God’s truth. Here are a few obvious examples (all NIV):

'"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.' (Eccl 1:2)

'A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work.' (Eccl 2:24)

'And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is he who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.' (Eccl 4:2-3)

None of the above verses are presented as truth, but as the writer’s speculation as he searches for truth. (Which is deliberately how it was written, because it was written in the style of “speculative wisdom”).

God bless you as well, brother, and may He always keep you in His peace.

 

[Dtmccameron]

God needs defending???

Matthew

Nay, but Christendom, His children, and His word do. Personally, I think the fight against heresy more important that fighting off a bunch of invaders. Let the civil authorities deal with worldly threats.

So rather than we bunch of faithful going off to war, it would be the national armies sent off.

(But I’d swim to Jerusalem if one was called!)

 

[Henning]

Somebody probably already posted these but,

2 Corinthians 10:4 *
For the weapons of our warfare
are not carnal
but mighty through God
to the pulling down of strong holds

Exodus 15:3 *
The LORD is a man of war
the LORD is his name

Jesus…powerful person

 

[historyb]

If hypothetically, the Pope called for a military crusade, would you join it?

And let’s say the cause was a just one, not some crazy political action like the attack on Byzantium.

Basically, it’s the idea of it- is it ever right to use force in defense of the Good? That’s how the question presents itself to me.

I most assuredly would join in a Crusade for my King, the way things are going I wonder if one might come in my lifetime again.

 

[Valke2]

Nay, but Christendom, His children, and His word do. Personally, I think the fight against heresy more important that fighting off a bunch of invaders. Let the civil authorities deal with worldly threats.

So rather than we bunch of faithful going off to war, it would be the national armies sent off.

(But I’d swim to Jerusalem if one was called!)

“Nay”?

 

[Hurricane88]

Absolutely would join a crusade. Take back the holy land!

 

[DiesMikael]

I would like to say: Yes, I would join.

But then again, I’m sure it’s much easier to say yes on this forum then if it were actually an option to join a Crusade.

But I would like to believe I would be willing to join, so I’ll say yes.

 

[John7]

To join?

Yes, but not with Kalashnikov’s

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” 2 Cor 10

 

[Holly3278]

Yes, I would join the crusade in a non-combative position since I am a woman. I would instead be a nurse, doctor, cook, or something like that.

 

[DiesMikael]

Yes, I would join the crusade in a non-combative position since I am a woman. I would instead be a nurse, doctor, cook, or something like that.

Well, women make the best snipers though…

…maybe something to think about.

 

[barb_finnegan]

I voted YES!

If I were younger and had better health, I definitely would…but I guess I’d be of better use at home and ‘backing the troops up’ with Rosary in hand!

Haha, blessed_wife: I’d love to see your German shepherd puppy!

I will follow our ‘human’ German Shepherd if he calls us…if only ‘in spirit’ ! Deus Veult!

Our Lady of Victory, please help us! St. George, St. Louis IX of France, St. Joan of Arc, lead us in battle!

 

[jbelokur]

I have all ready voted yes, but what might this look like? I am an American; would I leave the US and stage for this crusade at the Vatican? What happens to my family? Does the Vatican as a Sovereign State even have the ability or “right” within the world wide community to wage war for lack of better terms?

 

[pickguard1]

I would join. From what I understand the First Crusade was called to protect pilgrims to the Holy Land. It wasn’t a war against Muslims, or Islam per se. It was specifically agains the Seljuk Turks who conquered the area and began persecuting Christians. Prior to that time, while the area was under Muslim control, Christian pilgrims were allowed to peacefully visit the Holy Land.

If our holiest places were taken (by anyone-not just Muslims) and there was persecution and martyrdom of Christians who tried to visit them, I think that would be a just cause to go and try to liberate it.

In the modern world though crusades like the ones that happened in the 11th century couldn’t happen today, simply because of the political systems in place. Back then, there were European Kingdoms, which were Christian by their very nature, and there were (as there still are) Musilim kingdoms, which were (and are) Islamic by their very nature. The existence of the Christian Kingdoms is what allowed there to be a military angle to the Crusades in the first place. Now, all military strength is pretty much concentrated in secular governments outside of the Holy Land, and any intervention would likely be along “humanist” lines (that is, that “humans” are being persecuted), rather than purely Christian motives. The same political forces would (or at least should) intervene if it were the other way around, too (Christians persecuting Muslims, or anyone else).

But if the same situation that existed back then arose now or in the future, and a Crusade was the only feasible way to remedy it, would I go? Heck yeah!

 

[Silvereel]

I must say yes, if there was just need. Remember that the crusades began due to the assaults on pilgrims travelling in the Holy Land. They rapidly got out of control, sadly. But, if we were indeed faced with say an invasion, or even greater violence against Christianity, yes, I would go. :knight2: