Crusades And Catholicism, Moved from Euros vs Americans

I moved my reply to a new thread so as not to confuse the old one.

OK, Take 2.

Negative. They only set out to free the Holy Land from those who refused to allow Christian pilgrims to visit. By the way, at the time of the Crusades, there were no non-Catholic Christians. There were only heretics and apostates to fill that category. It was the apostate Christians, who professed belief in Islam to avoid martyrdom at the hands of the invading Moslems, who were counted among the enemies.

Show me the primary document which relates the actual eating of human flesh. All I have ever seen is reference to the boiling of prisoners in pots, which was a common form of torture at the time. The Romans placed some of the Holy Martyrs on grills, to be roasted. Did they eat them? Never seen evidence of it. Same here. Horrible? Yes, torture is a terrible thing. Cannibalism? No evidence presented. As far as the barbarous sacking of Jerusalem, it was indeed barbaric. However, the soldiers breaching the city were the same as the soldiers who breached the walls of Badajoz in 1812. Wellington wrote of the grievous carnage resulting after the walls were breached. They beat and raped and killed; not necessarily in that order. Soldiers were soldiers. Sieges led to massacres. There are too many examples to enumerate. Does this make it right? No. However, when viewed in the historical context, one may see that the actions were typical of armies following a siege.

I would have thought that a Bible scholar such as yourself would have stated it as "Thou shalt not murder," which is closer to the original Hebrew. And, Urban II did not proclaim the Crusade as "penance," but attached an "indulgence" to particiaption. There is a difference. An indulgence is an act made for partial or total remission of the temporal judgement due to our sins. Indulgences are often given for making pilgrimages, etc. Indulgences are voluntary, supplementary acts. Penances are prescribed acts of fasting and prayer for the actual remission of sin. Two totally different things.

Absolutely no argument from me, nor from any Catholic.

Actually, the Holy Father speaks for the Church, through the miracle of Apostolic Succession, as the successor of St. Peter to whom the keys to the gates of Heaven were given. (I foresee an exhumation of the old "Petras" vs "Petra" argument coming up )

.

Actually, the Scriptures say little about it, and what they do say supports the institution of the Catholic Church. History supports it as well, at least until the 16th century and the Protestant Reformation.

Show me the "unbiased" historical records that show this (hint: as a degreed historian, I know that there ain't no such thing as an unbiased record ). As far as enslavement, well, no one is forced to stay, are they? They can go and try to make it on their own. It is just silly to me to try that when there is a Church founded by Christ Himself there to assist you in reaching Heaven. To each his own. As far as anit-scriptural, well, let's not get into the whole sola scriptura debate here. Plenty of time for that debate in its entirety in the future.

Indeed, for my Protestant brothers, this is true. If the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church started by Christ, there is trouble. Show me a historically provable Christian Church prior to the religio-political upheaval that heralded the Protestant Reformation. There isn't one. It is not extant. All that existed were heretical sects which died out after a time. The Church triumphed over all attempts to bring her down. What was that verse about the gates of Hell not prevailing... or something?

Sorry, but they were a defensive measure to regain access to the Holy Land sites which were forcibly taken by Moslem invaders, particularly Jerusalem in 638AD. Offensive measures were taken within the strategic context of a defensive war. Show me proof to the contrary.

Yes, it is pro-Church, and I am not ashamed of it being so. Pope John Paul II has made formal apologies for many of the atrocities committed by the Church. I have yet to hear any apology for the thousands of Catholics murdered by Cromwell and Elizabeth I. That was a Protestant Christian gig, wasn't it?

How many languages do you read? Personally, I read English, German, and French. But these are only the modern equivalents of what was spoken centuries ago. So, we must rely on translations. (I also read Old Norse, Old and Middle English and Latin, but not very well. I love studying languages! ). What you are wanting doesn't exist: the perfect, unbiased historical document. Each author imparts his/her bias into their work. Translators confuse the matter further. Best you can do is read everything and try to sort out who really believed what and how did it influence their writing. (I cannot believe that I distilled Introduction to Historiography into one paragraph. Geez. To think I wasted two terms in that class .)

Actually, the Journal of Anna Comnena is a very good example of Byzantine historiography. Just keep in mind that she felt contempt for "Latins" and that her primary area of interest was in preserving the history of her father, Emperor Alexius. Also keep in mind that her chronology does not jive with other accounts from the same period. That does not mean that it is wrong, just that it differs from other accounts. She also doesn't delve deeply into economic or military matters. But it is a very good read, and enlightening as to the views of a Byzantine princess at the time of the Crusades. I read it about 20 years ago, but I still have a copy somewhere. I have never heard of Fulk the Chronicler. Can you elaborate on that one, Mirri? Could be interesting.

As I stated, John Paul II has issued apologies to many of the people the Church has hurt in its inadvertant zeal over the centuries. Again, have there been any apologies for the murder of thousands and thousands of Catholics over the centuries? None forthcoming. Of course, the people who ordered those acts are dead, so apologies are a bit late, me thinks.

Whew, just my orthodox papist ranting reply to KG's ranting heretical post.


Just my tuppence.

Andy

It worked!! It worked!! It went through despite all of KG's petitions and prayers!!

Andy

woohoo

Anna Comnena was the name I was looking for ... I hate my brain sometimes *sighs*
btw, if you read sources and believe everything it's your own fault (you as a generic term). Because most original texts will be biased in some way or another.

Btw, andy ever read the diary of Victor Klemperer? You might like it. (he was a Jew in Nazi Germany who witnessed the Dresden Bombings. He was protected by his wife's family (a rich traditional one) )

ooh forgot to add... catholicism isn't quite right in the title. the Catholic Church of that time did think of themselves as the only rightful church, protestantism wasn't even invented at that time

I will always have a problem with the concept of one man (ie pope) saying the absolute as was stated in a dogma (if I remember right a fairly recent one). I don't like that concept, another point of my criticism of the catholic church.. (which doesn't mean I don't criticise others as well I just have more experience with catholicism)

Accounts of cannibalism during the Crusades were made by Radulph of Caen and Albert of Aix in 'The Crusades Through Arab Eyes' by Amin Maalouf (translated by Jon Rothschild).

Once again, this could be nothing more than heretical/infidel propaganda, but when you consider both the overall barbaric savagery of the Crusaders, and the ritual that takes place in the Vatican's Roman Catholic Mass... then cannibalism would not be too far-fetched, one would think.

My question - how many accounts did not get recorded????

Hey, andy... all those 'righteous' popes that did the Lord's work during the Crusades... where are they now? Are they in heaven getting a pat on the back for a job well done? What about all those slaughtered 'heathens' whether they be Muslim, Jew, Christian? Men, women, and children!!!!!!!!!!Where are they? What does the Vatican say on that score???

this might not be the right spot to say so, but I heard something today about Pius XII is going to be made a saint??

His cause has been advanced and the Church has agreed to examine it for viability. Of course, that could take SEVERAL years.

Andy

Well, now, let me get ahold of this work, read it, and see if it meets historiographical and linguistic muster.

Who were no more or less savage than any soldiers of the day. And there WAS propaganda on both sides of the conflict. Any account must be viewed with an eye to the historiography of the period.

That statement is rather inflammatory, isn't it? It also shows a surprising amount of ignorance about Catholic doctrine and Tradition. Try reading this article, this article, and this article. Educate yourself before casting aspersions.

If they died in a state of Grace, having honestly repented of whatever sins the may have committed, and having received the Sacrament of Reconciliation, then they might just very well be in Heaven. As far as each individual pope, it is not for me to comment on their possible eternal location. By the way, the only "Christian" heathens who would have been killed were the apostates who left the Church because it was expedient to do so, becoming Moslem. The Church doesn't make any statements as to the final eternal disposition of the souls of those killed in the Crusades, leaving that to the tender Mercies of the Father.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

Not all Crusades were in the Middle East. See, for example, Albigenses Crusade, directed at Southern France.
Up until recent times, the Pope at Rome has been responsible for his followers directing a good deal of brutality toward non-Roman Catholic Christians. A good argument can be made that, particularly at the higher levels of hierarchy, the Roman Church was more political than religious.
YMMV,

[QUOTE=Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas,Feb 24 2004, 05:43 AM]Not all Crusades were in the Middle East. See, for example, Albigenses Crusade, directed at Southern France.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the term Crusade has been applied to these activities as well.

[QUOTE=Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas,Feb 24 2004, 05:43 AM]Up until recent times, the Pope at Rome has been responsible for his followers directing a good deal of brutality toward non-Roman Catholic Christians.

While the Church has been responsible for many bad, even "evil" episodes (see John Paul II's apologies for many of these), there has been a great deal of violence against Roman Catholics, as well (see Elizabethan England, for example). No ones hands are clean when it comes to history.

[QUOTE=Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas,Feb 24 2004, 05:43 AM]A good argument can be made that, particularly at the higher levels of hierarchy, the Roman Church was more political than religious.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. The Catholic Church, while until 1871 also a secular state, the emphasis has ALWAYS been on the spiritual element of its mission. Even today, with the smaller secular state of the Lateran Accords, the emphasis is on the spiritual life of its members. The Roman Catholic Church is first, and foremost, a Church. All else comes secondarily

Just my tuppence.

Andy

Here's what the Holy See has to say on the use of force in the service of truth:

MEMORY AND RECONCILIATION: THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST
I am well aware of continuing discrimination against Roman Catholics, as I discovered when my oldest son graduated from a well-regarded Jesuit high school, and learned that it would be pointless to apply for admission to any Ivy League university. When I asked a former recon crewmember who took up teaching at a Jesuit college after he got out of the Air Force about the Ivy League prejudice against graduates of Jesuit schools, he told me that his biggest disappointment in 20 plus years of teaching was the blatant prejudice by the Ivies against Jesuit graduates.
John Paul II has done much for Christian reconciliation. His confession of past sins is particularly remarkable. IMHO, if anyone now alive is deserving of sainthood, it is the Holy Father.
I am certainly not ant-Catholic, and although a Protestant, have been awarded a Bronze Pelican for my work with Catholic scouts. Nonetheless, my study of church history has convinced me that many medieval Popes, particularly in the 15th and 16th Centuries, were politicians first, and theologians second.

I believe that the record in Fox's Book of Martyrs contradicts this idea. There was no "official protestant" church ala Luther at this time, but history shows that there have always been those who have not gone along with the Roman Catholic church since it's inception. (I realize that this date is a point of contention but I would contend that the Roman Catholic church came into being with Constantine)

For proof of this, you need look no further than the text of various Roman Catholic Councils. See, for example, text of Fourth Lateran Council : 1215, in which it is stated:

This would seem to indicate that at the time of the Crusades, as throughout most of its history, the Roman Catholic Church was asserting primacy over all Christian churches, which means there must have been competing churches the Roman church felt compelled to assert primacy over.

Actually, this was referring to the different Rites of the Catholic Church. The Roman Rite, the Chaldean Rite, the Greek Rite, etc. It was not referring to different faith types, as they all exhibited the same sacramental and eucharistic theology. The 4th Lateran simply stated the order of primacy of the Rites of the Catholic Church, the Roman Rite maintaining primacy, with the Roman Pontiff conferring the ability to ordain bishops to the Patriarchs of the existing Rites.