Posted on 03/19/2006 6:44:46 PM PST by prairiebreeze
THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.
The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders”.
The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim- Christian reconciliation by asking “pardon” for the Crusades during the 2000 Millennium celebrations. But John Paul’s apologies for the past “errors of the Church” — including the Inquisition and anti-Semitism — irritated some Vatican conservatives. According to Vatican insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope Benedict reached out to Muslims and Jews after his election and called for dialogue. However, the Pope, who is due to visit Turkey in November, has in the past suggested that Turkey’s Muslim culture is at variance with Europe’s Christian roots.
At the conference, held at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, Roberto De Mattei, an Italian historian, recalled that the Crusades were “a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the Holy Places”.
“The debate has been reopened,” La Stampa said. Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 had helped to provoke the First Crusade at the end of the 11th century, called by Pope Urban II.
He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”. He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades “do not know their history”. Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott’s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as “utter nonsense”.
Professor Riley-Smith said that the script, like much writing on the Crusades, was “historically inaccurate. It depicts the Muslims as civilised and the Crusaders as barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” It fuels Islamic fundamentalism by propagating “Osama bin Laden’s version of history”.
He said that the Crusaders were sometimes undisciplined and capable of acts of great cruelty. But the same was true of Muslims and of troops in “all ideological wars”. Some of the Crusaders’ worst excesses were against Orthodox Christians or heretics — as in the sack of Constantinople in 1204.
The American writer Robert Spencer, author of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, told the conference that the mistaken view had taken hold in the West as well as the Arab world that the Crusades were “an unprovoked attack by Europe on the Islamic world”. In reality, however, Christians had been persecuted after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.
CONFLICT OVER THE HOLY LAND
Historians count eight Crusades, although dates are disputed: 1095-1101, called by Pope Urban II; 1145-47, led by Louis VII; 1188-92, led by Richard I; 1204, which included the sack of Constantinople; 1217, which included the conquest of Damietta; 1228-29 led by Frederick II; 1249-52, led by King Louis IX of France; and 1270, also under Louis IX
Until the early 11th century, Christians, Jews and Muslims coexisted under Muslim rule in the Holy Land. After growing friction, the first Crusade was sparked by ambushes of Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius appealed to Pope Urban II, who in 1095 called on Christendom to take up arms to free the Holy Land from the “Muslim infidel”
This article simply reports on the Church's correction of a previous mistake. The "apology" for the crusades, which, just as properly was an unnecessary gratuitous dumb idea in the first place.
I agree, the historians should be the proper reporters.
She was in the womb.
Hint: if you're going to bash Catholicism, you should at least try to gain a nominal understanding of Catholic dogma so that you don't sound like a total fool.
Yeah, and you're sort of a heretic, right?
People seem to forget that Syria, Lebanon, the area called Palestine and especially Egypt were all Christian.
ST:TOS "Omega GLory". "We have taken the last of the Holy places. That which was ours is ours again!"
Brad
Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. She must remain undefiled just as the Ark had to be undefiled.
I am certain that you remeber in the old Testament that when the Ark was being transfered and one of the priests put his hand on it to steady it that he died instantly.
The same would be true of Mary for her and Joseph to have relations would have defiled her.
>Of course, we don't think Mary was "immaculately >conceived," but we do believe in the Virgin birth.
Yes we do. If you are not absolutley certain of your facts then say nothing, or even less
>They did consumate their marriage and had other children
>(Matt 13:55-56). It was before they were married that >Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.(Matt 1:18-20)
They did not. This is an error that Protestants have been pushing from a twitsted view of scripture.
If Christ really did have brothers then he would have given his mother to one of them at the cross rather then to the Apostle John.
It is the Catholic church that has been pushing a twisted view of scripture in order to sustain the false doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Jewish custom they refer to as a sibling taking over the care of a widow refers to the widow of a fellow sibling, not to widowed mothers. It would have been Joseph's siblings, if any were still living. not Jesus', that would have an obligation to care for Mary.
Sorry, got my mysticisms confused. So how old was Mary when "God" impregnated her?
Right on! How can one group get indignant over the same attrocities they themselves have committed?
"If Christ really did have brothers then he would have given his mother to one of them at the cross rather then to the Apostle John."
Maybe because they were to scard to appear in public to support their brother whom they felt was a nut.
There were a variety of factors involved in the decision to expel the Jews. Isabel and Ferdinand had many Jews in their Court; these were both Jews who had converted to Christianity and those who had not. Many of the leading lights of the Church - important bishops and even Cardinals - were converted Jews. However,there was considerable anti-Jewish sentiment among the people, probably stirred up by jealousy on the part of the barons and petty nobility, who did not like the prominence that Jews had achieved or their relative financial well-being (since Jews did not live by farming but by skilled artisanry or by finance or even, in some cases, by "knowledge work" - translators, physicians, etc.). There were riots and attacks on the calls (or semi-autonomous Jewish areas in Spanish cities). Finally, when Isabel decided that the Spanish Crown did not have the resources to protect the Jewish residents anymore, she ordered that they leave. Of course, she also ordered that they surrender most of their wealth to the state when they left, since the Spanish crown was aggressively seeking income to fund its project of unifying Spain, which was one of the sources of its conflicts with the barons, as well.
There was some feeling that the Jews were supporters of the Muslims, at least as far as lending them money for arms, etc., but this was simply another part of the anti-Jewish feeling that had been building among the jealous nobles and civil officials even prior to the victory over the Muslims. Incidentally, if you think Spain is bad, remember that most of Northern Europe didn't even have Jews; England, for example, had expelled its Jews centuries before, in 1290, after years of increasing restrictions and attacks.
In other words, it's a very complex history. The perception that the Jews supported the Muslims may have had something to do with some attacks on them, but a lot of it was much more complicated than that and had more to do with politics and the economic situation than with anything else. In any culture, Jews, who were at that time always perceived as foreigners but at the same time did not have the power of a foreign government behind them, were an easy target for any popular frustrations, fears and resentments.
Yep. A burn-her-at-the-stake heretic. ;)
Although, I'm fairly certain some of my Catholic ancestors were in the Crusades and I can trace my lineage to Charlemagne.
Sorry to have taken the thread off-topic.
Not necessarily. Why would he give her to brothers who did not believe, until much later, that He was the Christ? They thought Jesus was nuts. Jesus was the eldest, it was, until his dying breath, His duty to find the BEST care for His mother. James, Jude, Joses and/or Simon were not it.
It isn't stated anywhere, to my knowledge. However, we know that she was betrothed to Joseph at the time and that would require her to have been at least 12.5 years old at the time of the betrothal. So in all likelihood, she'd have been around 13.
I thought that was a no brainer. Turkey is at best mildly anti Christian, if not totally against it. Of course keeping Turkey out of the EU is like trying to close the door to the chicken coop after the fox was already inside of it.
Moderate islam is not islam. Their core beliefs are that you can kill, rape, or steal from anyone not muslim or under muslim control. Moderates are at best trying to play both sides against the middle.
Obviously, he thinks that the " Immaculate Conception" is the conception of Jesus Christ. The RC doctrine refers to the belief that Mary was immaculately conceived.
Perhaps it is faulty instruction, but I know many Roman Catholics who do not know that this is a RC belief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.