Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades

UK Times online ^ | March 20, 2006 | Richard Owen

[annalex]

The scriptures tell us His story

According to you, it is more than one story. One for you, one for me, one for Luther, one for the road...

[RobbyS]

The point being that your interpretation of the Bible has no special authority.

[Uri’el-2012]

..... Judaism are in large measure backwards religions.

Thank God Christ came and freed of us of all that sh*t, no?

327 posted on 03/30/2006 10:51:07 PM MST by Tevin

One day, at the White Throne judgement, you will be judged by YHvH for this belief.

Blessed are you, O L-rd Our G-d, King of the Universe !

[ScubieNuc]

"what about peaceful Joos who are ignorant of commands in the OT such as killing disobedient children or those who work on the sabbath?"

Your interpretation is in gross error! In Islam, Mohammad is the final "prophet" to "clear up the mess made by Jews and Christians." When he tells people to wage war on infidels, that command has not been over-ridden.

When God speaks in the Old Testament (or Torah if you like), He is speaking to a specific people about a specific task at a specific time. It has to do with what covenants are. I am sure that there are many more learned scholars on FR to better clarify what covenants are then me, so I'll just give a small example of what I mean...

If you looked back into orders given by the top military officials in 1943, you would see commands to invade Germany. Those were commands to a specific people for a specific purpose, for a specific reason. Just because you dug up official orders of 1943, doesn't give you the right to follow them today.

"Face it, both Islam and Judaism are in large measure backwards religions."

I couldn't disagree more!!! You are lumping a terroristic religion with a God loving religion. I do believe that a lot of Jews don't recognize that Jesus is their Messiah, but that in NO WAY equates them to the evil that is Islam.

"Thank God Christ came and freed of us of all that sh*t, no?"

I am very thankful that Jesus came to save all people (Jews, Arabs, etc.) from the evil and horrible consequences of sin.

Sincerely

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant."

It is always a good thing for the Church to define, strictly, carefully, and publicly, the criteria for a Just War (as contrasted to "just a war"); and an honest discussion of the Crusades is one way to do it.

Besides, as John Steinbeck said, "The past isn't dead--- it isn't even past. Vocal Islamic academic activists are taking the initiative to push a version of history that demonizes Christians and valorizes Muslims, with the intent of solidifying and justifying the fruits of Islamic jihad.

It's not just a matter of thousands of madrassas arming millions of Muslim students with a militant irredentist view of history (and geography!); it extends to the rewriting of American textbooks to show Christianity as shameful in every one of its historic efforts and achievements.

This islamization of the struggles of the past is an example of the political and psychological use of history: partial, partisan, polemical and propagandistic; or, as the feminist historical revisionists put it, "History in the service of our destiny."

I wouldn't want the Catholic Church to invest itself in this sort of self-serving propagandistic effort. But we live in a world where the European Union contemptuously suppresses its historic-cultural Christian roots, and in which Islamic activists destroy Christian monuments and documents so as to leave no trace of the "infidel." (Bat Ye'or's writings on the lost history of the dhimmi was a real eye-opener to me.) Re-balancing the historical perspective is a kind of intellectual Work of Mercy in defense of truth, and I daresay in defense of peace.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Torie, you made some good points there.

You wrote: "Some of these guys were in it for the money, and this was just a convenient vehicle to pursue it."

This is true as far as it goes; but it is not the whole story, nor even the main story. Historian Thomas Madden, examining documents from the time (including birth/baptismal records, transfers of lands and estates, inheritances) has found convincing evidence that most Crusaders did not expect to gain plunder and power, and in fact gave up everything that they owned in order to sacrificially defend their faith and their fellow Christians of the East.

See:

www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

Yes, there were shameful massacres and betrayals carried out by Crusaders. We must, and have, repented this. But the most egregious examples are, upon closer study, seen to be exceptions to the Crusader pattern.

For instance, the Fourth Crusade --- the sack of Constantinople --- was a bizarre episode which can hardly be listed with the Crusades, if you define the Crusades as ecclesiastically-sponsored military expeditions to rescue the beleaguered Christians of the East and secure the Holy Land.

The spurious Fourth "Crusade" was basically a bunch of plunder-seeking Venetians who found it expedient to attack and sack Christian cities along the way. First, Zara, (now Zadar, Croatia) a Catholic city on the coast of the Adriatic, as well as nearby Trieste, were attacked, even though Zara had placed itself under the dual protection of the Papacy and King Emeric of Hungary.

This led to the condemnation, in writing, of the Venetian "Crusaders" by Pope Innocent III. This did not deter them from joining in an intrigue to restore a contender to the throne in Constantinople; and when that didn't pan out as planned, they brutally sacked the city, which was the greatest and most beautiful city of Christendom. As soon as the news of the Venetians' bloody plundering reached Rome, an infuriated Pope Innocent III excommunicated them.

The fact that the Venetians were first condemned, and then excommunicated, shows that their conduct was not considered legitimate "Crusading," even at the time. Then and now, the Fourth "Crusade" is considered a criminal enterprise.

[Torie]

Thanks for the note. I appreciate it. I don't claim to be an authority on any of this. I got my info from the History Channel, which reenacted the First Crusade. It was quite fascinating. What I don't thing would be wise, would be for the Church to whitewash matters. That just feeds the flames, and in this day and age, would backfire, and won't work. The modern method is to try to persuade, and sheath the sword.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't expect a whitewash.

You wrote: "The modern method is to try to persuade, and sheath the sword."

"Modern" method? The modern method is to blow people up. Persuasion is the ancient method. Traditional method. Christ's method.

[Tevin]

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

[tenn2005]

Since you are so adament lets take a look at what you said. In post #333 to which you now refer you said: He was Pope from 80-96 AD. They didn't keep current records because their papers were burned and they were tortured to death for professing the Christian faith, which happened to include the perpetual virginity of Mary and apostolic succession. I pointed out to you that many records, including the scriptures, did survive that period, so now you say: No, proper records of the sort that would be produced today, did not survive. There are plenty of records to substantiate Clement's succession to the episcopacy of Rome. I pointed out to you the qualifications for a successor to an Apostle in Acts 1:21-22. You were unable to respond to the question concerning whether the men you want to claim are successors to the Apostles can meet these qualifications. You then claimed that those qualifications were changed. The requirements were set by Peter and the other Apostles. With time, they were changed, by the same authority. I asked you to show where in scripture the "same authority" (Apostles) changed the requirements and you responded with: 2 Thess. 2:15. By letter means letter of Paul. Word of mouth means what Paul did not write down. At that time Champion attempted to come to your rescue. Now you are stating: You have not responded to this, so I reiterate the point. In the beginning of the church all of the Apostles taught orally. Some, but not all, later reduced their teachings to writing. That writing is what we now call the Bible. Paul made it clear that whether by writing or by word of mouth their teachings were to be accepted. In the first century Christians received teachings from the Apostles both orally and by word of mouth. Today we still have what they wrote but what they spoke we have no way of knowing. Thus today all we have to go by is the written word; Sola Scriptura. Now you need to do more Bible study so Champion and others do not have to try to come to your rescue when you dig yourself into a hole.

[tenn2005]

You are way over your head sonny boy, and I don't have the time to play with you.

[Pietro]

(I saw that on the History Channel.)

LOL. Open a book sometime if you want to discuss history.

[eleni121]

More than just trashing Xstian towns during the Fourth crusade.

April 13th, 1204: From Wikipedia-a glossed over summary...the actual horrors perpetrated lasted hundreds of years leading to the Fall of Eastern Christendom and the subjugation of Christians into hundreds of years of slavery under the Mohammedans.

"The crusaders inflicted a horrible and savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient works of art were stolen or destroyed. Many important medieval Greek works were lost during the sack of the city. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on. Many also broke their vows to respect the women of Constantinople and assaulted them."

This if the only Crusade for which apologies need to be made. And indeed Pope John Paul II twice expressed sorrow for the events of the Fourth Crusade

[Pietro]

"This if the only Crusade for which apologies need to be made"

The fourth Crusade was a poorly managed affair from the start, if memory serves me. After many false starts and lengthy delays in Europe they finally managed to reach Constantiople where they found the great city an incredibly rich and hollow shell. It proved far to tempting to the mercenaries and adventurers that had stuck w/ the enterprise long after any serious chance of regaining lands lost to the Turks had gone up in smoke.

The advanced corruption and decay of that old city was the greatest reason for its sacking, although the thought of Christian attacking Christian is still unpleasant.

[eleni121]

It proved far to tempting to the mercenaries and adventurers...

---

Too tempting? The barbarity with which the 4th "crusade" undertook to destroy the Byzantine capital defies logic and belief.

It cannot rightfully be called a crusade as it simply destroyed a Christian city instead of trying to regain lost lands from Mohamedanism.

From "The Byzantine Empire" by Edward A. Foord

"The soldiery burned libraries in their campfires, and though nominal Christians, they held ribald orgies in Aghia Sophia, while prostitutes performed filthy actions and dances on the very altar."

"Italians and French alike showed that in 1204 they were barbarians-and barbarians of a very low type."

"Two-thirds of the splendid city of Constantine were heaps of ashes; all that remained was ruined, stripped bare of everything, naked and desolate, three-fourths of the people had fled or perished.....

A very low type indeed.

[big'ol_freeper]

Ping.