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”
????
Who then did Elijah kill in 1 Kings 18.40? Was Elijah not a Jew? Or were the false prophets of Baal really true Jews?
"A wizard thou shalt not suffer to live" (Exodus 18.22). Are witches and wizards practioners of Judaism?
Exodus 32.26-29. Were the Levites not Jews? Were the apostates of Israel practicing Judaism by worshipping a golden calf?
And what of this whole executing Jesus and stoning St. Stephen and murdering St. James thing for teaching a new religion?
"but when the Scripture is silent, as is this case, the Tradition speaks just as forcefully"
Have any of your traditions been proven to be wrong, or should I say have they been changed because of their error?
Mark 7:7-9
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
(KJV)
Some traditions are just that, traditions, and they change. The manner in which the Holy Communion is received, for example, has changed several times. The Church distinguishes between the Holy Tradition that is a part of divine revelation and as such incroporated in the Christian dogma, and various disciplinary matters that can and sometimes should change.
Since Apostolic time, the capital-T Tradition has been fixed as writings of the Fathers, hymnody and art. But originally, all Revelation was oral.
Has any of your Dogma changed concerning Divine inspiration?
Is your ultimate argument that Christians were right to murder Jews and should continue to do so? Please answer yes or no.
Also, you never explained the following statement:
How is throwing open the gates of the holy city of Toledo to the Moors during the invasion part of "tolerantly living under Islam" and not "collaboration with the invaders"?
Who "threw open the gates" and why is Toledo a "holy city?"
It is also enshrined in the Levitical Legal Code.
Can you think of any time since the prophets that Jews have gone about murdering people for practicing another religion?
The Maccabean Revolt.
You'll have to try and find something besides the Christian Bible to make your case since Jews do not regard it as historical fact.
The existence of Jesus and his execution at the behest of the Jews is not an historical fact? The Talmud thinks it is, and gladly takes credit for it.
Is your ultimate argument that Christians were right to murder Jews and should continue to do so? Please answer yes or no.
No. Where did I ever say that? I said the Inquisition was perfectly legitimate for chasing down Catholics trying to destroy the Church and overthrow the State by breaking their oaths and subverting religion, morality, and public order. I questioned why you called chasing down heretics persecuting Jews. Is every heretic a Jew?
Also, you never explained the following statement:
How is throwing open the gates of the holy city of Toledo to the Moors during the invasion part of "tolerantly living under Islam" and not "collaboration with the invaders"?
Who "threw open the gates" and why is Toledo a "holy city?"
The Sephardi Jews of Spain threw open the gates. See the Sephardi website I linked to up thread.
Toledo is a Holy City because it was the seat of the Primatial Archbishop of Spain, like Lyons for France, Rome for Italy, Canterbury for England.
article for FYI...and some excellent posts
I mistakenly allowed you to sidetrack me from the subject at hand, which is the Inquisition, one of the darkest periods in the history of the Catholic church. You continue to justify the forced conversion of Jews, without acknowledging that there is something inherently wrong with this practice, and even denied that you advocated it, but then advocated it again with a lot of mumbo jumbo about heretics bringing down the church. What RUBBISH. The Jews were told to convert or lose their property, convert or get out of Spain, and then convert or die and then the Church turns around and says 'you didn't convert with sincerity.' No duh. Think about it for a second at least.
I read the link to the Sephardic history website and it doesn't support your claim at all. And try to keep in mind that the Jews had no country, no army, and were struggling to survive against the oppressive edicts in Spain and Portugal. You are twisting history to suit your purposes. Clearly it bothers you that the Inquisition occurred as it did, but nevertheless, it is what it is.
Finally, do you advocate the death penalty for Abdul Rahman who is on trial in Peshawar for converting to Christianity? Surely you can have no philosophical objection to this since he is a heretic and has subverted morality and religion according the muslims.
Compare it to the Albigensian Wars, where the Inqusition was started.
Also, please tell me which page of the Talmud discusses Jesus, I'll look it up. I don't think you will end up with good support for the claims of Christianity from the Talmud.
Sanhedrin 107b "Jesus the Nazarene [who] practised magic and led Israel astray."
See also here, where I saved an American Jewish Committee article from disappearing down the Memory Hole, which deals with the famous Sanhedrin 43a passage.
See also:
http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefs/a/jesus.htm
Which discusses generally such passages as:
Sanhedrin 106a&b, Yebamoth 49b, Shabbath 104b, etc.
I mistakenly allowed you to sidetrack me from the subject at hand, which is the Inquisition, one of the darkest periods in the history of the Catholic church.
I don't think there was anything dark about it at all. Its records and proceedings and rules were open and are still available for inspection.
You continue to justify the forced conversion of Jews, without acknowledging that there is something inherently wrong with this practice
???? Where?
I read the link to the Sephardic history website and it doesn't support your claim at all.
http://www.sephardicstudies.org/islam.html
What is this then?
It was said that immediately after the invasion, the Jewish population of Toledo “opened the gates” of the city, welcoming the North African Muslims (Wexler 218).
Clearly it bothers you that the Inquisition occurred as it did, but nevertheless, it is what it is.
I'm not bothered by it at all. I'd like to see it back, with boy-lover Priests going up in the flames of the pyre.
I don't think so, why?
How about absolutions and indulgences? Were these not established dogma and traditions for quite a time period?
The only thing that changed was that the practice of sale of indulgences has been discontinued; but that was never dogmatically defined. You can get an indulgence today, for charitable and devotional work. I am not sure what you are referring to as "absolutions"; preists give general absolutions at most masses, and you get an absolution at confession today.
What a shameless reach this is. He was a Jewish King in Yemen trying to rid the country of Ethiopian rule. Yemenite nationalist forces under Dhu Nuwas included Jews, pagans, and Christians. Ethiopian propaganda painted the the rule of Dhu-Nuwas as a Jewish religious, anti-Christian action and called for a "righteous war" against Yemen.
Please. That's like saying since John Kennedy was Catholic he sent our first troops to Vietnam because he wanted to stamp out Buddahism.
ping to 299
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.