Heretics

[Don John of Austria]

Well For starters it is Called either by the Pope or by an Ecumenical Council.

Edited November 15, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[popestpiusx]

Yes but there are other wars called by Popes that did not qualify (such as when the Papal Armies attacked Sicily during the reign of King Frederick II.

[Don John of Austria]

Well I'm not sure what you are looking for there are many things unique about Crusades, but probably the fact that Indulgances are offered to those who take up the Cross and fight in them would be the defineing factor in calling a war a Crusade, likewise it must be agianst an infidel and not just an orthodox Catholic in the wrong.

[Don John of Austria]

I anxiously await anything resembleing a response from the " oh you have have to be sweet and spinless to Heretics and Infidels" camp.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Nov 12 2004, 07:36 PM'] The Church has always condemned coercion in matters of religion (cf. Vatican 2, [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u], no. 12), but she has also taught, and continues to teach, that there is a moral duty on the part of civil society to recognize the true religion (cf. Vatican 2, [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u], no. 1). Thus, the State has a moral duty to recognize the truth of the Catholic faith. Now of course the Church, as a prudential matter, does not have to insist upon the recognition of the State in a written constitution; in other words, the recognition given to the Church by the State can be purely a part of unwritten custom, nor does she have to insist upon this divine right, a right which she possesses as the mystical body of Christ. Finally, it must be borne in mind that the State has the duty to maintain the common good, and so, the right to religious exercise based on a malformed conscience is not absolute (cf. Vatican 2, [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u], no. 7).

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
[quote]The Church has always condemned coercion in matters of religion[/quote]

You then go on to quote three times from Dignitatis Humanae. "Since Vatican II" is not "always".

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 15 2004, 09:49 AM'] Well I'm not sure what you are looking for there are many things unique about Crusades, but probably the fact that Indulgances are offered to those who take up the Cross and fight in them would be the defineing factor in calling a war a Crusade, likewise it must be agianst an infidel and not just an orthodox Catholic in the wrong. [/quote]
It is still a Crusade if it's against the Eastern schismatics...

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 15 2004, 09:49 AM'] Well I'm not sure what you are looking for there are many things unique about Crusades, but probably the fact that Indulgances are offered to those who take up the Cross and fight in them would be the defineing factor in calling a war a Crusade, likewise it must be agianst an infidel and not just an orthodox Catholic in the wrong. [/quote]
You are correct. The distinguishing factor is the indulgence granted by the Holy Father for those who go on crusade.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 15 2004, 01:51 PM'] It is still a Crusade if it's against the Eastern schismatics... [/quote]
The Fourth Crusade was not called to sack Constantinople. This is evidenced by the fact that Innocent III excommunicated the leadership after they disobeyed his explicit command not to do it. In fact, he even told them that he didn't want them to take the deal being offered by Alexius because Innocent knew that Alexius could never pay up. It was a bad deal all around and far from a shining moment in Crusader history. I'm not so sure the indulgence would be gained when the action itself resulted in excommunications.

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 14 2004, 11:52 PM']
[/quote]
[quote]Wow! that was singulary incoherent, What Ideas have proved unworkable, when? [/quote]

Thankyou.

It's because sometimes a person's true nature only comes out in moments of self righteousness. You said to yourself, "here, I'll make more sense than you"... And proceeded to show yourself as bloodthirsty.

"Kill the infidels!"

Where have we heard that before recently? Where did they learn it?

My point concerning Joan of Arc is simple. The pharisees said Jesus was in league with the devil. The mighty Roman Catholic church, that, as you said, was mighty enough to destroy all of those idol worshipers, ending thousands of years of human sacrifice and what not, did nothing to save Joan of Arc, and later made her a saint. She was in league with the devil, after all.

That's what is unworkable.

[Don John of Austria]

The Catholic church had nothing to do with the burning of St. Joan as I said the rules of the Church where not followed, here direct appeal to the Pope was never sent.

[quote]It's because sometimes a person's true nature only comes out in moments of self righteousness. You said to yourself, "here, I'll make more sense than you"... And proceeded to show yourself as bloodthirsty.

"Kill the infidels!"

Where have we heard that before recently? Where did they learn it?

[/quote]

Wow Talk about self rightous. I assure you I am anything but self rightous, I am a weak and sinful man, but the Church is Rightous, She is the embodiment of Rightousness on Earth, and when untruths are spoken of her I am filled with indignation, yes rightous indignation. As for your veiled referance to Osama, if only more Catholics where as fully commited to their Faith as he is to his( he has after all gone from luxurious living as a multimillionare to living in caves fighting for his life every day all for what he truely believes his faith demands), still since you obviously lack a basic understanding of history, it was the Mohammedians who started the wars of religion, they attacked us( And I don't mean in 2001, but in the 7th century) so I guess they couldn't have learned " kill the infidel" from us, their religion was born with it.

And I don't recall yelling " kill the infidel" I just said sometimes killing the infidel was required, you are the one making that into a general statement on my part, I did not.

Edited November 15, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[Socrates]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 15 2004, 08:51 AM'] I anxiously await anything resembleing a response from the " oh you have have to be sweet and spinless to Heretics and Infidels" camp. [/quote]
I'm extremely busy now - don't really have time to post, but...

Military action against a non-Catholic military enemy was not really what I was talking about. I was referring to the state executing those deemed heretics.

And Don Juan, your post is insulting. There is quite some between being "sweet and spineless" and killing.

Also, specific political situations were different in medieval Europe. Do you honestly think waging physical violence against "heretics" or "infidels" would bring anyone to Christ in today's world? Do you think Osama bin Laden would be right in his actions/strategy if he were a Catholic?

Remember, there are non-Catholics on this post, and do you you think all this discussion by Catholics of whether we should kill heretics will make them more inclined to accept the Catholic Faith? I know it would make me run in the opposite direction!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Remember, there are non-Catholics on this post, and do you you think all this discussion by Catholics of whether we should kill heretics will make them more inclined to accept the Catholic Faith? I know it would make me run in the opposite direction! [/quote]

You see I don't care if it will make them more inclined to accept the Faith, I care about telling them the Truth, only if they accept the Truth will they truely accept the Faith. I have no desire to suger coat the Faith to make it more appealing, tell the Truth nothing more nothing less.

[quote]
  And Don Juan, your post is insulting. [/quote] Well I found almost every post on this thread insulting, not only personally but to the thousans who have died defending the church from heritics and infidels, not to mention the Magisterium who's past rule everyone here seems more than willing not only to question but openly contradict.



[quote]Do you think Osama bin Laden would be right in his actions/strategy if he were a Catholic?

[/quote]

No but it is actually a matter of his tactics not his strategy, He targets civilians intentionally, that is blatently agianst the rules of war, he is a product of modern times and doesn't have the Tradition of the Church to guide him, so I cannot blame him, but no as a Catholic these Tactics would be unacceptable, but blowing up military targets is not, he could have hit the Pentegon, and even the Tower with the Paramilitary government offices in it, but not the other one and not with civilian populated planes.

[quote]Do you honestly think waging physical violence against "heretics" or "infidels" would bring anyone to Christ in today's world? [/quote]

yes I think it would help the Christians in the Sudan not be forcefully converted( particularly children), and enslaved, same with Christians all over North Africa

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 15 2004, 02:00 PM'] The Fourth Crusade was not called to sack Constantinople. This is evidenced by the fact that Innocent III excommunicated the leadership after they disobeyed his explicit command not to do it. In fact, he even told them that he didn't want them to take the deal being offered by Alexius because Innocent knew that Alexius could never pay up. It was a bad deal all around and far from a shining moment in Crusader history. I'm not so sure the indulgence would be gained when the action itself resulted in excommunications. [/quote]
I know, yes, you are right, but if the Pope called for such a Crusade (with an indulgence), then it would be a Crusade, even against the eastern schismatics.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 15 2004, 02:52 PM'] I know, yes, you are right, but if the Pope called for such a Crusade (with an indulgence), then it would be a Crusade, even against the eastern schismatics. [/quote]
Yes, but a very touchy situation to say the least. I think it much safer to stay within the realm of dangerous heretics and infidels (especially the Mohammedans).

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 15 2004, 01:44 PM'] Well I found almost every post on this thread insulting, not only personally but to the thousans who have died defending the church from heritics and infidels, not to mention the Magisterium who's past rule everyone here seems more than willing not only to question but openly contradict.[/quote]

Died defending the church? You mean like all the jews that were killed in the crusades along the way?

You think I don't know the history?

Edited November 15, 2004 by noncatholicname

[Don John of Austria]

All the Jews that were killed in the Crusades Hmmm. No I don't think they would qualify as dying defending the Church.

Now with the exception of the sacking of Jeruselem during the first Crusade, that really didn't happen to any great extent, but what if it had, so what? Do you have any idea how many innocents we, the allies, killed( knowingly and with intention) to stop Hitler, how badly we violated the rules of war that we had ,of our own free will, agreed to, doest hat mean that stoping Hitler was not in and of itself a good thing, no, it means that some bad things where done in an otherwise noble cause, likwise with the Crusaders occasional overzealousness agianst the Jews as well a the Muslims. If you truely know the History you should know that the Crusaders ussually showed great restraint compared to the Seljuk turks that the where fighting. You would have to know something about the western Europeans experiance with the Mohammedian in Spain and along the Medeterrainian coast ( not to mention the First Crusades military campaign itself) to understand the Crusaders inroads into Total War.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 15 2004, 03:28 PM'] Yes, but a very touchy situation to say the least.  I think it much safer to stay within the realm of dangerous heretics and infidels (especially the Mohammedans). [/quote]
I agree we should focus on the mohammedans, but I don't think it is at all wrong to have a Crusade against any heretic (and they are heretics, not just schismatic, since they deny the Pope's authority, which, since Vat I is a heresy, and they reject the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and other heresies).

I think we are pretty much eye-to-eye here.

Edited November 15, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[Dave]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 15 2004, 07:10 PM'] I agree we should focus on the mohammedans, but I don't think it is at all wrong to have a Crusade against any heretic (and they are heretics, not just schismatic, since they deny the Pope's authority, which, since Vat I is a heresy, and they reject the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and other heresies).
[/quote]
Vatican I is a heresy? It's blasphemy to condemn the Church's ecumencial councils, which are inspired by the Holy Spirit and INFALLIBLE!

[Don John of Austria]

No dave he is saying that since Vatican I it is a heresy ( not just schismatic) to deny the Popes Authority, and therefore the Orthodox Churches are not just Schismatic but Heretical--- he is NOT saying that Vatican I was Heretical.

[noncatholicname]

Bring it on. :angry: