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”
>If you read the scriptures you will see the list of His >brothers. Duplicate names happen. Look at how many "Marys" >there are.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your twisted beliefs.
>Why is it so important to prove that the Mother of Jesus >is not a virgin?
Maybe you mis-read my post.
I do beleeive that Mary remained ever virgin.
I agree with the perpetual virginity.
Q: What are some common misconceptions about the Crusades [and] the Crusaders?
Madden: The following are some of the most common myths and why they are wrong.
Myth 1: The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.
This is as wrong as wrong can be. From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain. In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities -- these were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core. And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest.
Myth 2: The Crusaders wore crosses, but they were really only interested in capturing booty and land. Their pious platitudes were just a cover for rapacious greed.
Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe's population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense. Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades. Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.
After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories. Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land. They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt. They were very mindful of Christ's exhortation that he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ. They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."
Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.
This is a favorite used to demonstrate the evil nature of the Crusades. It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context. The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force from Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack.
Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property and were allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.
Myth 4: The Crusades were just medieval colonialism dressed up in religious finery.
It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region. It was the Muslim East that was powerful, wealthy and opulent. Europe was the Third World. The Crusader States, founded in the wake of the First Crusade, were not new plantations of Catholics in a Muslim world akin to the British colonization of America. Catholic presence in the Crusader states was always tiny, easily less than 10% of the population. These were the rulers and magistrates, as well as Italian merchants and members of the military orders.
The overwhelming majority of the population in the Crusader states was Muslim. They were not colonies, therefore, in the sense of plantations or even factories, as in the case of India. They were outposts. The ultimate purpose of the Crusader states was to defend the holy places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem, and to provide a safe environment for Christian pilgrims to visit those places. There was no mother country with which the Crusader states had an economic relationship, nor did Europeans economically benefit from them. Quite the contrary, the expense of Crusades to maintain the Latin East was a serious drain on European resources. As an outpost, the Crusader states kept a military focus. While the Muslims warred against each other the Crusader states were safe, but once the Muslims united, they were able to dismantle the strongholds, capture the cities, and in 1291 expel the Christians completely.
Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.
No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it. These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate by-product of Crusade enthusiasm, but they were not the purpose of the Crusades. To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for those crimes. But the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes."
The myth concerning the sack of Jerusalem and "streets ran ankle deep with the blood" was a myth created by some Crusaders themselves in efforts to brag about what they accomplished. Muslim historical records (among others) have debunked this myth. There were many civilian survivors of the sack of Jerusalem.
I am sure there are many reasons but I would tend to listen attentively to,and read carefully what,those persons and groups who claimed they were responsible said. I will just state the first two complaints they iterated. They claimed that the United States imposed their 1)morals and 2)values on them in any and all treaties,agreements,pacts,contracts and responses to requests for assistance.
A case in point regarding morals would be the response for medical assistance in the camps that were set up for refugees in the Kosovar dispute. It was said that before they could have access to antibiotics,they were sent contraceptives and birth control pills to distribute,this in accordance with some Women's Reproductive Rights agreements that had to be signed as a condition of medical support.
Regards values,they stated our materialistic,consumer driven mentality undergirded those same pacts,agreements,contracts and etc..
I recall when Iraq was down at the Kuwait border,discussions about how the Anglo/American establishment elites after WWI had divided up countries in the mideast. Iraq was left without access to water because Kuwait was "created" giving the English,who "crowned" members of a family sympathetic to them a big advantage.
For a short while,immediately prior to Desert Storm,our leaders must have forgotten who owned what and that English money was in the Kuwait banks. I say this because it is well documented that Saddam had asked April Glaspie if the U.S. would mind if they went down to the border to resolve some problems they were having down there. I had heard that Kuwait had been tunneling under the border in order to pipe Iraq's oil into Kuwait. Glaspie said she had talked to her superior and it would be no problem. At that point somebody must have remembered that English money was in Kuwait banks and then all hell broke loose.
As an old Human Resource manager,I am convinced that rules must be fair,clear and doable and anything less is going to create a lot of difficulties. As I said before,we are a group or groups of imperfect humans living in a world we didn't make and we need to pursue the truth,to do less is to invite trouble. I think we too often invite trouble.
You are correct, all wars are violent. To single out the Crusades or the Middle Ages shows ignorance and nothing more.
One thing I've been curious about, Did any Popes promise forgiveness of sins or a free path to heaven, by participating in the Crusades?
Sincerely
Q: Do you think the struggle between the West and the Muslim world is in any way a reaction to the Crusades?
No. That may seem a strange answer when you consider that Osama bin Laden and other Islamists often refer to Americans as "Crusaders." It's important to remember, though, that during the Middle Ages -- really up until the late 16th century -- the superpower of the Western world was Islam. Muslim civilizations were wealthy, sophisticated and immensely powerful. The West was backward and relatively weak. It is noteworthy that with the exception of the First Crusade virtually every other Crusade launched by the West -- and there were hundreds -- was unsuccessful. The Crusades may have slowed Muslim expansionism, but they in no way stopped it.
Muslim empires would continue to expand into Christian territories, conquering the Balkans, much of Eastern Europe and even the greatest Christian city in the world, Constantinople. From the Muslim perspective the Crusades were not worth noticing. If you had asked someone in the Muslim world about the Crusades in the 18th century he or she would have known nothing about them. They were important to Europeans because they were massive efforts that failed. However, during the 19th century, when Europeans began conquering and colonizing Middle Eastern countries, many historians -- in particular nationalist or royalist French writers -- began to cast the Crusades as Europe's first attempt to bring the fruits of Western civilization to the backward Muslim world. In other words, the Crusades were morphed into imperialist wars.
Those histories were taught in the colonial schools and became the accepted view in the Middle East and beyond. In the 20th century, imperialism was discredited. Islamists and some Arab nationalists then seized on the colonial construction of the Crusades, claiming that the West was responsible for their woes because they had preyed on Muslims ever since the Crusades. It is often said that people in the Middle East have long memories; it is true. But in the case of the Crusades, they have a recovered memory: one that was manufactured for them by their European conquerors.
Q: Are there any similarities between the Crusades and the war against terror today?
Aside from the fact that soldiers in both wars want to serve something greater than themselves that they hold dear and long to return home when it is over, I see no other similarities between the medieval Crusades and the war against terror. Motivations in a post-Enlightenment secular society are very different from those in the medieval world.
Jews comprised less than 2% of the population of Spain, perhaps less than 80,000 persons. Most lived in small towns in the country-side. Most made their living off the land.
Many of this number had recently fled from North Africa because of the bitter persecution of Jews and Christians by the Muslim Almoravids.
Spain, unlike other European nations, never enforced the anti-Jewish Council of Arles (France) in 1235 which called for Jews to wear a round yellow patch, 4 fingers in length, over their hearts as a mark of identification. Jews in Spain were under the personal jurisdiction of the soveriegn. They were not limited to certain professions or unable to own property. Ghetto laws, so common in Europe during this time, were not enforced in Spain.
In 1290 England expelled all its Jews. In 1306, France followed suit. After the Black Death, Jews faced violent persecution in Spain. Tens of thousands converted during this period. They were called Conversos.
By 1492, their collective annual tax contribution represented only 0.33% of ordinary revenue. Jewish sectors of most major cities were empty or extremely small. In Toledo, the ancient Jewish sector consisted of only 40 houses.
Most of the Jews that left Spain were poor. Only half of Spain's Jews left, perhaps 40,000. They were only forbidden to export gold or silver. Embarkation lists for the ports of Malaga and Almeria show that Jews took substantial sums out of the country. Most, however, were poor to begin with.
Most left for Italy, Navarre, Portugal or North Africa. Few left for Turkey (that would come later).
From: The Spanish Inquisition, A Historical Revision by Henry Kamen, Yale University Press, 1997.
I'd like to aim for a modern relevant point:
Islamofascists are murdering Jews, Christians and co-religionist women and children with blood lust.
Can we agree to oppose the barbaric murdering Muslims today, whatever the history that got us here?
The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence.
The Real History of the Crusades
The Crusades were seen as acts of self-sacrifice and love for Christian neighbors. The indulgence received would be similar to a plenary indulgence.
What is an indulgence:
There was a very funny comment by one poster a couple of weeks ago. In response to an article about an asteroid possibly hitting the earth, he said:
Women and minorities will be hardest hit.
Better. An advocate was assigned to defend the heretics and the conditions were much better. Common criminals were known to blaspheme in order to end up in the jurisdiction of the Inquisition and avoid the secular justice.
Yes. I agree, 100%
Thanks for your response.
Sincerely
Thank you. I'll put these on my profile page for future reference.
They are a hodge-podge of links and quotes from books, etc. I cannot verify everything. I do own a couple of the books and have heard much of that information before. I feel pretty confident about most of the information.
BC>we Jews have a hard time understanding how a Jewish Husband and Wife failed to complete their marital responsibilities and consummate the marriage.
s>This explains the answer, at least in part.
Christian Tradition also says that Mary consecrated her virginity to God at a young age. This vow was undoubtedly known to Joseph prior to his decision to betroth her. Being a just man, Joseph never had any intention of asking Mary to violate her vow, or to profane what had been consecrated to God.
69 posted on 03/19/2006 9:02:03 PM MST by seamole
Man's Tradition is interesting but is is contrary to the Holy Word of G-d.
Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother
Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they
came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.Matthew 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not
want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.Matthew 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord
appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David,
do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because
what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
Jesus, [Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the
YHvH saves (Yahu'shua). ] because he will save his people from their
sins."Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet:
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son,
and they will call him Immanuel" [Isaiah 7:14] which means, "God with us."Matthew 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.Matthew 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.
And he gave him the name Y'shua(He saves).
Matthew 1:25 indicates that Joseph and Miriam had relations after the birth of Y'shua.
b'shem Y'shua
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.