Would you join a Crusade?

[Potato1]

Originally Posted by StephenSeeks

TemplarKnight, if my statements give the appearance of reeking in hypocrisy and my willingness to offer personal information to try and make a point of how fragile people can be when coming to (or back to) faith is missing the mark, then I am doing a very weak job of defending this position.

you seem very upset over my weeds statement, I will again apologize .

yes I am in a vulnerable position, which is why I see my parish priest every week, so you can be sure that I am going through a process of reconciliation the right way...thank you for your concern.

if you re-read my last post you will see I do not blame the Church and yes I used to, yes I was and am weak and yes my devotion crumbled. thank you for pointing it out, it is most uplifting.

there is nothing wrong with looking to Brothers and Sisters in Christ to assist us in coming home...that is the very reason I am here.

there is nothing wrong with my heart knowing that Servus Pio XII speaks under inspiration of the Holy Spirit even though I don't know Servus Pio XII in the flesh. his words soothed and calmed my fears.

on that note sir, I will bow out of this debate as my ability to communicate seems lacking but I still hold strong (as I have all my life) that violence is in all situations wrong.

I will however talk to my PP and get his view of this lively ummmmm conversation

God bless you stephen.
I hope your jouney ends in peace and love that only the Church provides. I Am sincere in this regard. You seem hurt. I hope that your fleeting emotions are laid to peace by God in His one True Church. Remember that Catholics can disagree all the while being faithful to Her Guidence. My violence would only protect those who are innocent or could not/would not protect themselves. call me primordial if you wish but I would Gladly fight and die for you and many other innocents. "there is no greater love than to lay down ones life for thier friends" (the actual word iis not friends but tribe/ brothers. So, brother, I pray for you and I ask you to pray for me. For while we do not agree on the ways of the world we agree as Gods Children. And as such we are in Communion with the Church and Her Head. God bless Happy Easter.

[StephenSeeks]

Originally Posted by Potato1

God bless you stephen.
I hope your jouney ends in peace and love that only the Church provides. I Am sincere in this regard. You seem hurt. I hope that your fleeting emotions are laid to peace by God in His one True Church. Remember that Catholics can disagree all the while being faithful to Her Guidence. My violence would only protect those who are innocent or could not/would not protect themselves. call me primordial if you wish but I would Gladly fight and die for you and many other innocents. "there is no greater love than to lay down ones life for thier friends" (the actual word iis not friends but tribe/ brothers. So, brother, I pray for you and I ask you to pray for me. For while we do not agree on the ways of the world we agree as Gods Children. And as such we are in Communion with the Church and Her Head. God bless Happy Easter.

Thank you Potato1 I guess I can respond to this and still be out of the debate ha-ha

I regret my posts in this thread as they have given the wrong impression of what I was trying communicate (and I now have a very red face when I read them the day after )...I do not feel hurt any more, however the effects are still there...I guess it's like war when the battle is long over the effects of battle linger.

I am not in a boo hoo state of mind, there are just mines within my mind and certain things can set them off. (how am I doing with my war/weapon analogy?) this thread set off several mental explosions.

my vulnerability (and no doubt the vulnerability of many others) is an issue of trust. letting go and saying yes I can trust Catholics and the Church.

we need to know that there is a peaceful refuge that is for all who feel a deep yearning for it, a place of safety that all can approach with confidence.

it's also important (I feel) that because many (me included) have been the victims of revisionist history in regards to Church history with a slant towards painting the Church as an institution of blood shed and world domination, this topic might set of mental mines in many people. (hmmmmm am I back in the debate )

we would make a heck of a pair Potato1...if we stood in the same place and under attack, you would be trying to stand in front of me ready to fight and lay down your life for me, and I would be trying to stand in front of you to lay down my life for you without a fight...I have a feeling the enemy would get rather bored with our fight to be the one to die for the other they would walk away in disgust.

Thank you for your post, it put a smile on my face...thank you for your sincerity and prayers (I will absolutely pray for you also)

[Zealous Zeth]

Yes. I think a new crusade is exactly what we need.

Crusading Constantinople wouldn't be bad, it's our holy city, founded by a Saint Emperor.

[A.Pelliccio]

Considering that the total number of moslems outnumber the total number of Catholics, it wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Miles Mariae]

If the Pope were to call for a crusade against anything, I hope I would find the courage to go, regardless of the odds.

[Zealous Zeth]

Originally Posted by A.Pelliccio

Considering that the total number of moslems outnumber the total number of Catholics, it wouldn't be a bad idea.

It's times like these that Jesus would say: "But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword." (Luke 22:36 Douay-Rheims)

If his holiness would like to crusade the middle east, he would first need to wage war against liberalism, as the cursed EU wouldn't support a new crusade. We would need to reinvent feudalism and righteous monarchies. The holy inquisition would need to be reestablished.

I would applaud to a crusade, even though I'm not sure I would be able to join as a 15-year old.

[nsper7]

If the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans teamed up, they would outnumber the Muslim. The problem is that the Eastern Orthodox would probably not listen to the Pope and the Anglicans (some of them at least) would stand against the whole thing (the more theologically conservative provinces in Africa, some of them which are already facing Islamic troubles, might support it).

As I said earlier, if I am ordained as an Anglican Priest, I could not participate militarily, but I would be supportive of it and maybe volunteer in a non-combat capacity at that point. Of course, as I also said earlier, I might find myself excommunicated.

[Crusader4Jesus]

If the Pope made an infallible decision on it, I would.
Although I would discuss it with my Spiritual Director first to see if it is what God is calling me to do, or in what part I should play in it, as I would very willingly to give my life for Christ.

Also if you are really willing to be a Crusader then why not join the current Crusade (an online one).
If you have a basic knowledge of Catholicism and want to share it with others and to correct the errors of those against the Catholic Church then we want you.
Pray about it and pray for our campaign.
Click the link below or contact me for more details.

The Catholic Crusade of Jesus Christ

God bless you,
in Christ.

[Cara Serrano]

I feel that I've already been drafted into a modern Crusade. I'm surrounded by New Age pagans and apostates all day at work. After eight hours of that, I would not volunteer to join another Crusade in my spare time. I voted no!

[Hrvoje]

My God.

Yes, Let's kill for Christ! Glory in the killing for the God who said to love you enemy! Yes! Onward!

Sarcasm end.

No comment. I thought this was a mature Christian forum.

God bless you all the same.

[nsper7]

Originally Posted by Hrvoje

My God.

Yes, Let's kill for Christ! Glory in the killing for the God who said to love you enemy! Yes! Onward!

Sarcasm end.

No comment. I thought this was a mature Christian forum.

God bless you all the same.

Jesus said to love your personal enemies, but a Crusade is against enemies of the group. Remember that the Greco-Roman culture (and thus the context of the Bible) was group-oriented (compare to America which is individual-oriented), thus the command to love your enemies addressed at individuals with no socio-political power does not preclude a group taking action to defend itself and protect 'innocent' civilians (in the Crusades, it was the pilgrims to the Holy Land).

Article

[Hrvoje]

Originally Posted by nsper7

Jesus said to love your personal enemies, but a Crusade is against enemies of the group. Remember that the Greco-Roman culture (and thus the context of the Bible) was group-oriented (compare to America which is individual-oriented), thus the command to love your enemies addressed at individuals with no socio-political power does not preclude a group taking action to defend itself and protect 'innocent' civilians (in the Crusades, it was the pilgrims to the Holy Land).

Article

Sure, you can twist to fit such a nice category.
Heck, you can twist anything to sound the way you want.

Like another thread showed, that's simply not what the early church believed.
I'm sorry, but trying to rationalize around Christ's command to love your enemy as merely stating that He meant to love you personal enemies is inadequate. You need to look at other verses as well, like Mt 5,39: But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
The evil person is anyone evil, not just the personal evil person, whatever that may mean.
Also Mt 26,52: Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword".

I mean, how, o how can one say he follows Christ - the love you enemy and do not resist the evil person and do not take the sword, and then go around slaughtering your brothers.

Also, who gave us the power to decide on the life of another? How do you know that the heretic you are about to kill wouldn't convert and become a great saint a year from now? How can we EVEN dare to make such a judgment? Do we distrust God's plan for all men?

Also, I'm not saying you should have injustice all around the place an tolerate it, as the article you gave argues against.
No. I'm saying none of us have a right to another man's life, no matter how grave the circumstances. Could you imagine the early Christians taking up arms against the evil roman government to protect other innocent Christians?

Please, don't take this as directed against you. It's not.

God bless you.

[nsper7]

Originally Posted by Hrvoje

Sure, you can twist to fit such a nice category.
Heck, you can twist anything to sound the way you want.

Like another thread showed, that's simply not what the early church believed.
I'm sorry, but trying to rationalize around Christ's command to love your enemy as merely stating that He meant to love you personal enemies is inadequate. You need to look at other verses as well, like Mt 5,39: But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
The evil person is anyone evil, not just the personal evil person, whatever that may mean.
Also Mt 26,52: Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword".

I mean, how, o how can one say he follows Christ - the love you enemy and do not resist the evil person and do not take the sword, and then go around slaughtering your brothers.

Also, who gave us the power to decide on the life of another? How do you know that the heretic you are about to kill wouldn't convert and become a great saint a year from now? How can we EVEN dare to make such a judgment? Do we distrust God's plan for all men?

Also, I'm not saying you should have injustice all around the place an tolerate it, as the article you gave argues against.
No. I'm saying none of us have a right to another man's life, no matter how grave the circumstances. Could you imagine the early Christians taking up arms against the evil roman government to protect other innocent Christians?

Please, don't take this as directed against you. It's not.

God bless you.

1) In regards to Matthew 5:39 and 26:52, read Article 1, Article 2
2) Remember that God, in the OT, directly orders warfare and killing.
3) In the Early Church, Christians had no political power and, also, if they had tried to take up arms against Rome, they were heavily outnumbered. Basic military expediency would recognize that if you're in the minority, you don't start a war with the majority power (the Jews tried that against Rome in the 1st Century AD and look what happened).
4) You're profile says you're Catholic, so how do you respond to St. Augustine's 'Just War' theory?

[Crusader4Jesus]

Originally Posted by Hrvoje

Sure, you can twist to fit such a nice category.
Heck, you can twist anything to sound the way you want.

Like another thread showed, that's simply not what the early church believed.
I'm sorry, but trying to rationalize around Christ's command to love your enemy as merely stating that He meant to love you personal enemies is inadequate. You need to look at other verses as well, like Mt 5,39: But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
The evil person is anyone evil, not just the personal evil person, whatever that may mean.
Also Mt 26,52: Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword".

I mean, how, o how can one say he follows Christ - the love you enemy and do not resist the evil person and do not take the sword, and then go around slaughtering your brothers.

Also, who gave us the power to decide on the life of another? How do you know that the heretic you are about to kill wouldn't convert and become a great saint a year from now? How can we EVEN dare to make such a judgment? Do we distrust God's plan for all men?

Also, I'm not saying you should have injustice all around the place an tolerate it, as the article you gave argues against.
No. I'm saying none of us have a right to another man's life, no matter how grave the circumstances. Could you imagine the early Christians taking up arms against the evil roman government to protect other innocent Christians?

Please, don't take this as directed against you. It's not.

God bless you.

Hello Hrvoje,
I know that you feel that war is wrong, but there is at times a need to defend others. Theres a necessity for "a time of war" (Ecclesiastes 3:8) because men and women have free wills they will be violent if they will to be and what should people do when these bad men start to murder their families, neighbours and fellow countrymen?
Of course everyone would prefer peace and harmony, but you cannot force people to be good, its a choice. And when they choose wrongly, against the teachings of Jesus and His Church then there are some circumstances where we must act in resonable force due to charity, what would you do if a grown man was beating a 10yr old boy intending to kill? you would stop him, but not to try would be wrong, it would be a sin of omission. Jesus always taught us to attempt to bear evil if we can, but He was addressing us as individuals, He did not say that we shouldn't protect others. I fully know that He has only one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and He will guide it with His Holy Spirit and always be with it as He promised, and the gates of hell will never prevail - that implies that it (the Church) will never be wrong, but its members can be. The Crusades were a good cause that helped people who were being killed and captured for no reason other than being Catholics (aka 'infidels') So before you complain about the Church (which never can or will be wrong) first thank her for allowing you and countless others to keep their Christian faith, instead of being forced to convert, and live in a world that would have been completely muslim, had not Crusaders died to save people, both physically and spiritually, from the muslims at that time.
No-one denies that there were bad crusaders, who went against the Church's teaching, so what has that got to do with the Church? wasn't Judas an apostle also?
I don't like violence whether it is needed or not too, but I know that it is demanded for at times.
God bless you,
your brother in Christ.


(If anyone wants to join a (non-violent) Crusade, an online evangelizing mission, then click the link in my sig. or 'pm' for more details)

[Hrvoje]

Originally Posted by nsper7

1) In regards to Matthew 5:39 and 26:52, read Article 1, Article 2
2) Remember that God, in the OT, directly orders warfare and killing.
3) In the Early Church, Christians had no political power and, also, if they had tried to take up arms against Rome, they were heavily outnumbered. Basic military expediency would recognize that if you're in the minority, you don't start a war with the majority power (the Jews tried that against Rome in the 1st Century AD and look what happened).
4) You're profile says you're Catholic, so how do you respond to St. Augustine's 'Just War' theory?

Ok, glad you responded.

Now, Article 1.... I've never heard of anything like this author suggests - another layer of tradition which Jesus is refuting - not to mean that it is a priori wrong; I only state that everything I have read being commentaries on Mt 5, 39 have always linked it to the OT rule of "Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth", i.e. Lev 24, 20.

Here's something from a commentary:
Many argue that Jesus taught against personal retaliation, but not governmental retaliation. According to this viewpoint, it is wrong for a follower of Jesus to retaliate personally against an enemy, but it is perfectly fine to use the governmental authorities and courts of law to punish the enemy. It must be noted, however, that even the Mosaic Law did not allow personal retaliation. An individual, to be in compliance with the Mosaic Law, was called upon to report any injury to the authorities, who would then administer punishment. This is what the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye” consisted of: governmental retaliation. Personal retaliation is not condoned under either Testament. The Old Testament, however, did condone governmental retaliation, and this is what Jesus referenced and taught against. Jesus promoted the love of enemies. Retaliation, whether it is personal or governmental, does not convey love to an enemy.

If you could give more evidence of this new layer of tradition Jesus rebuked, I would gladly investigate it, but I don't think I can accept such a viewpoint based on 11 lines of text, while all the theologians I read have argued that Jesus institutes a new commandment here.

Concerning Article 2... Even if you sign off the verse as mere proverbial wisdom, you still have to deal with verses like
Matthew 22, 37-40: ...Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Romans 13, 8-9: Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. For all of the commandments… are all summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
1 John 4, 7-11: Let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love… This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us... Since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
Luke 6, 27-28: …Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
1 Peter 2, 21-23: …Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow in his steps: … When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

... And many others which very strongly suggest a stance of perfect love - incompatible with a warlike attitude.
You can't say: "I love as Christ loved!", and then go on to shoot the brains out of your fellow man, who is you brother.
The second article also notes that, even it may be proverbial wisdom, it still applies as at least advice we should follow, even if it is not potentially given in an absolute form.
Some of the comparisons are silly - seeing "a poet is born and not made" side to side with "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" in weight. It is obviously (to anyone with any literary sense) not so, even if it may be "merely" proverbial wisdom.
Also, the article rebuts the very taken out of context position that another proceeding verse supports war, so, touche.

Even if we accept that there is no direct commandment against war in general, the way of Christ which is the way of Love - absolute Love - is incompatible with killing, be it in a just or unjust war, be it of personal or state matters - we should FIRST follow Christ and then the just state, and not the other way around.