Well We Never Gave Trent Her Crusade

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Who is going to fight this crusade? The UN and the US will not do it. I am just wondering where the man power will come from.

Edited September 17, 2006 by thedude

[Akalyte]

When the call for a Crusade was finally made by Blessed Pope Urban II at Clermont in 1095, he stressed the outrages suffered by fellow Christians at the hands of the militant Muslims:

“They [the Muslim Turks] have invaded the lands of those Christians and have depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; they have led away a part of the captives into their own country, and a part they have destroyed by cruel tortures .… They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent .… On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you?” (6)


The Crusades left a positive mark on the Western imagination. The very expression, crusade, became and has remained synonymous with heroic endeavors in the service of a great ideal. As recently as last month, President George Bush adapted the term to the present situation and called for a “crusade” against international terrorism.

For medieval man, the Crusade was an act of piety and love of God and neighbor. But it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, their religion, and their way of life. Then, as today, men fight for what is most dear to them. Then, as today, it is the right thing to do.

How, then, does one explain the anti-crusade movement in our country? A point of reference would be the pacifist minorities who zealously promote it here and there, often on university campuses. They represent the most deleterious segments of public opinion – communists, hippies, homosexuals, ecologists, feminists, liberal religious, etc., and their voices are echoed loudly in the media. Their obvious goal is to discredit the Catholic Church and her past heroes. It would be difficult to understand how the anti-crusade movement has managed to impose its unhistorical and distorted theses so profoundly on the Western mentality, except for the fact that it was accomplished with the full support of the progressivist current in the Church.

[Era Might]

It won't be America. The President has no delusions of holy war, thankfully:

[quote]The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

--President George W. Bush[/quote]


Just,

You are basically setting yourself up as your own Magisterium. You decide what the past means for Catholic doctrine, what is acceptable for Catholics in Scripture.

Where does the Pope or the Bishops anywhere suggest that religious violence is ok? I have documented numerous times just the opposite, that the Popes have been CONDEMNING religious violence from anyone and everyone, but you persist in this attitude of crusade.

Again, I'm saying this as a brother. You're not thinking with the mind of the Church.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1064769' date='Sep 17 2006, 12:05 AM']
It is not your role to take justice into your own hands. If someone has vandalized your Church or harassed your parish, then let the police know. Civil security is their domain.[/quote]

You are confused dear brother it is the enemy that declares taking "justice" in their hands. We are declaring we must [u]defend ourselves!!!!!!
[/u]
We are not talking about someone spray painting the walls, or cussing out the priest, where talking about Jihadist blowing up parishes world wide filled with women and children, beheading The Pope, a priest or a fellow lay catholic!!!!

[quote name='Era Might' post='1064769' date='Sep 17 2006, 12:05 AM']
Again, we need to listen to the Vicar of Christ, and not our corrupt minds born of misguided zeal and not genuine religion.
[/quote]

We are listening to the Vicar of Christ, it is our and His Holy Duty to protect the sheep. Defence is not misguided zeal, doing nothing or waiting around for a powerless and "too late" "civil security", is truely misguided.

Edited September 17, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[Era Might]

If someone comes to blow up your Church, you are free to stop them.

You have no right to go around killing people in the name of vigilante self-defense. You are not a special ops soldier on a mission to take out a grand mufti. You're a private citizen. You have no authority to kill people in the name of civil law, let alone in the name of God almighty.

Leave the soldiering to those who have responsibility for the common good; the civil authorities.

Edited September 17, 2006 by Era Might

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1064775' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:15 AM']It won't be America. The President has no delusions of holy war, thankfully:


Just,

You are basically setting yourself up as your own Magisterium. You decide what the past means for Catholic doctrine, what is acceptable for Catholics in Scripture.

Where does the Pope or the Bishops anywhere suggest that religious violence is ok? I have documented numerous times just the opposite, that the Popes have been CONDEMNING religious violence from anyone and everyone, but you persist in this attitude of crusade.

Again, I'm saying this as a brother. You're not thinking with the mind of the Church.[/quote]


They've condemned unjust religious violence.


For everything there is a season; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Eccles. 3:1, 3, 8).

I' am dust..Im not my own magesterium. I dont lift myself up. Like Solomon said there is a time for these things, if our pope is attacked and my parish bombed and my fellow parishioners harmed, the william wallace in me is coming out!

[Era Might]

Just, religion is NOT a vehicle for violence. The Church is not a civil society. Protection of the common good is the responsibility of the civil sphere. Even capital punishment is forbidden to the Church, which is why convicted persons were always handed over to the civil authorities by the various Inquisitions for punishment. Such is not the role of the Church.

From Pope John Paul's 2000 address in Egypt:

[quote]In a world deeply marked by violence, it is bitterly ironic that even now some of the worst conflicts are between believers who worship the one God, who look to Abraham as a holy patriarch and who seek to follow the Law of Sinai. Each act of violence makes it more urgent for Muslims and Christians everywhere to recognize the things we have in common, to bear witness that we are all creatures of the one merciful God, and to agree once and for all that recourse to violence in the name of religion is completely unacceptable. [b]Especially when religious identity coincides with cultural and ethnic identity it is a solemn duty of believers to ensure that religious sentiment is not used as an excuse for hatred and conflict. Religion is the enemy of exclusion and discrimination; it seeks the good of everyone and therefore ought to be a stimulus for solidarity and harmony between individuals and among peoples.[/b][/quote]
There is nothing here about "unjust" violence. He says very plainly that "recourse to violence in the name of religion is completely unacceptable".
The Church's weapon is the Gospel. The civil authorities wield the sword, as St. Paul reminds us in Romans 13.

And notice what else he says. "Each act of violence makes it more urgent for Muslims and Christians everywhere to recognize the things we have in common". Are we using this violence as an urgent opportunity to recognize what we have in common with Islam, and work to dispel hatred and barriers? No. We're responding with our own calls for holy war.

Edited September 17, 2006 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1064787' date='Sep 17 2006, 12:22 AM']
If someone comes to blow up your Church, you are free to stop them.[/quote]

My Church is ever single Catholic Church on earth, I am glad you see We have the right to stop our enemies.


[quote name='Era Might' post='1064787' date='Sep 17 2006, 12:22 AM']
You have no right to go around killing people in the name of vigilante self-defense. You seem to have some grand delusion that you're a special ops soldier on a mission to take out a grand mufti.[/quote]

Where have I said I want to go around killing people in the name of vigilante self-defense? I say we have the right to defend ourselfs in the ever growing Holy War declared by jihadist, I may well join the Amry if it gets worse. And eww lowering yourself to personal attacks to [i]try[/i] to prove a point.


[quote name='Era Might' post='1064787' date='Sep 17 2006, 12:22 AM']
Leave the soldiering to those who have responsibility for the common good; the civil authorities.
[/quote]


We all have the responsibitlity for the common good, I stand by The Pope and our Church if they lead me to defead us in war I will go, and protect Christendom.

I also stand with The United States and our Preisdent if they lead me to defead us in war I will go, and protect Liberty.

Edited September 17, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote][b]2309[/b] The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.[/quote]
Does a crusade in the present situation fit these guidelines? I tend to think it does not. I think it would cause way more problems and perhaps not solve any.

[Era Might]

[quote name='thedude' post='1064813' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:56 AM']Does a crusade in the present situation fit these guidelines? I tend to think it does not. I think it would cause way more problems and perhaps not solve any.[/quote]
The very first principle makes clear who is being spoken of: nations. Christians are not a nation, they're a religion. America is a nation. Israel is a nation. Great Britain is a nation. Christians are members of those nations. It is the civil authority of these nations which have responsibility for the common good, including any possible recourse to war. Christians have no right to start a crusade or a war. What we think of as a "crusade" was not a bunch of Christians getting together on their own authority to fight off an enemy. It was a corporate act of the civil authorities, among whom was the Bishop of Rome.

The Bishop of Rome has long since given up any interference in the civil sphere. Hence, the Church is not in anway involved in war.

[Laudate_Dominum]

what about Catholic commandos, or something like the Jedi order? I like the idea of Catholic Jedi Knights who are elite warriors sworn to protect the Pope.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='thedude' post='1064813' date='Sep 17 2006, 12:56 AM']
Does a crusade in the present situation fit these guidelines? I tend to think it does not. I think it would cause way more problems and perhaps not solve any.
[/quote]

Have you researched the Worldwide Jihadist Holy War?

[Era Might]

[Edited by Moderator: Inappropriate content]

*Sorry Holy Father. Please don't excommunicate me. It's all in good fun.*

:

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I think it would be destructive well beyond proportion and have little or no chance of defeating what is basically an underground minority group. Era is correct to point out that at the time of the crusades, the Pope's call was taken up by nations (and I doubt any current nation would take this crusade up). Islam is no longer the more centralized unit it was in the middle ages either.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1064817' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:01 AM']
The very first principle makes clear who is being spoken of: nations. Christians are not a nation, they're a religion. America is a nation. Israel is a nation. Great Britain is a nation. Christians are members of those nations. [/quote]


Vatican City is a nation... each and every Catholic Church is like a embassy, and embassies are part of the Nations they belong too.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1064817' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:01 AM']
It is the civil authority of these nations which have responsibility for the common good, including any possible recourse to war. Christians have no right to start a crusade or a war. What we think of as a "crusade" was not a bunch of Christians getting together on their own authority to fight off an enemy. It was a corporate act of the civil authorities, among whom was the Bishop of Rome.[/quote]

Christendom does have a right to defend Herself.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1064817' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:01 AM']
The Bishop of Rome has long since given up any interference in the civil sphere. Hence, the Church is not in anway involved in war.
[/quote]

The Pope if, that is if he has "given up" any so-called "interference in the civil sphere" he may pick that idea up again, when Catholic Deaths cause by Jihadist start to mount and mount.

Speaking of "interference in the civil sphere", should The Pope apologize for his recent comments? As some [u]demand[/u]?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1064752' date='Sep 17 2006, 12:51 AM']
There is nothing to misininterpret. With all due respect Just, I think you're the one who is ignoring the mind of the Church on this matter. I'm not trying to attack you, just saying as a brother. Take a step back and look at your attitude, and whether or not it really conforms to the message and exhortations from the Holy Father.
The past was the past. We do not live in the 12th century. The Holy Father knows this, and he knows that we must move far beyond violence in the name of God. If we don't take a stand, and we choose to convert with the sword, then all is lost, because we are supposed to be the salt of the earth. We will be no better than our enemies.
[/quote]


The past is not the past, the teaching of the magisterium does not just go away! The Trinity did not cease to exist simply because it was defined in the 4th century, likewise the rightousness of Crusade did not cease because of the flow of time. Infallable councils called repeatedly for Crusades, is the Transubstantiation questioned because it was defined in the 13th century? I will remind you that the very Council that defined it called for a Crusade. And Unam Sanctum makes it quite clear that the Church has recource to both the Spiritual sword and the Temporal sword. Firthermore that same Bull declares that all are subject to the roman Pontiff temporally as well as spiritually.

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" That seems pretty simply the Pope defining in his role as a Pope, and not as a mere bishop or theologian.

The Church is Mother, mothers do not allow there children to be slaughtered, even an animal defends her young, how much more is expected of a human mother, how much more even than that is expected of a spiritual mother.

But you are right we do not live in the 12th century, no longer does a muslim army have to march through the country side to slay Christians, now a mere handfull can do the job just fine. As for doing something constructive--- there is absolutly nothing constructive about trying to work for understanding with the Mohammedians--- they are a universalist religion, a false religion. We are a universalist religion, the True religion, we are destined for conflict, and attempting to avoid that is only insulting them and Christ both. I have read the Koran and I have studied the history of the spread of Islam. They have no desire for peace, they are instructed to conquer us by their own Holy Book. Christ came not to bring Peace but to set us to conflict, only His Peace is truely peace, and attempts to bring a false peace dishonor Him and The Father who sent Him.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='thedude' post='1064825' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:12 AM']
I think it would be destructive well beyond proportion and have little or no chance of defeating what is basically an underground minority group. Era is correct to point out that at the time of the crusades, the Pope's call was taken up by nations (and I doubt any current nation would take this crusade up). Islam is no longer the more centralized unit it was in the middle ages either.
[/quote]
I'm not talking about a crusade, that's lame. I'm talking about something to supplement the Swiss Guard.

Like any important leader in today's world, the Pope needs protection. Why not have dudes in robes who know kung-fu and sword fighting, something like Jedi Knights but Catholics. I think it would be phat personally. They would be peace keepers not soldiers.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='thedude' post='1064825' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:12 AM']
I think it would be destructive well beyond proportion and have little or no chance of defeating what is basically an underground minority group. Era is correct to point out that at the time of the crusades, the Pope's call was taken up by nations (and I doubt any current nation would take this crusade up). Islam is no longer the more centralized unit it was in the middle ages either.
[/quote]

It is not "underground" Jihadist are very much standing right out in front, and in our faces. Would defending Christendom cause destruction? Yes of course, but you and Era are incorrect, it will be destructive well beyond proportion not to defend Christendom, and scream peace, when there is no peace.

You really should research The Holy War declared by the Jihadist, they are much more centralized than you may believe.

Edited September 17, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1064827' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:16 AM']
Speaking of "interference in the civil sphere", should The Pope apologize for his recent comments? As some [u]demand[/u]?
[/quote]
The Pope has nothing to apologize for. These muslim jerks who have been bashing the Pope unfairly need to actually read the speech, and get in touch with reality.
I've seen so much Jew hating, Catholic bashing, America demonizing on Arab tv its almost comical; but hey, that's cool right?

I just think its funny that they can have entire shows devoted to anti-semitism, but the second someone portrays Mohammed in a cartoon all hell breaks loose. Islam is nuts.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1064833' date='Sep 17 2006, 03:22 AM']
I'm not talking about a crusade, that's lame. I'm talking about something to supplement the Swiss Guard.

Like any important leader in today's world, the Pope needs protection. Why not have dudes in robes who know kung-fu and sword fighting, something like Jedi Knights but Catholics. I think it would be phat personally. They would be peace keepers not soldiers.
[/quote]
My post was actually not directed toward your idea, it just worked out that way chronologically! I think the idea is dope. The Vatican scientists should develop a slime to create a race of turtle-men to weild numchucks and bow staffs against wickedness, while staying obscure by dwelling in Roman sewer systems.