NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, world.
Here's an excerpt from the "Crusades" article on the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

This just shows me how ignorant the world is. But anyway...

Why do we get angry at Christians? Why can't we blame where blame is due (?) and get angry at the priests and "fathers"?

I've got a feeling you're quoting only bits and out of context.
That statement there describes the mindset of the time and the intentions back then pretty acurately.
And the Catholic church has, if memory doesn't fail me, officially apologised and condemned the crusades. Years ago.

I've got a feeling you're quoting only bits and out of context.
That statement there describes the mindset of the time and the intentions back then pretty acurately.
And the Catholic church has, if memory doesn't fail me, officially apologised and condemned the crusades. Years ago.

I should correct myself. Not every member of the Catholic Church, just some priests and "fathers". Usually, apologies are made by the Pope alone and he doesn't usually represent the full clergy's opinion.

But know that that quote came from the first sentence of the article (it was the first sentence).

Unfortunatly, the current Pope is pretty bigoted (IMHO), so we may be seeing more of this.

I should correct myself. Not every member of the Catholic Church, just some priests and "fathers". Usually, apologies are made by the Pope alone and he doesn't usually represent the full clergy's opinion.

Unfortunatly, the current Pope is pretty bigoted (IMHO), so we may be seeing more of this.

I seem to remember the apology was made by the previous pope. He was a great apologiser before the lord :D

See, the thing about the Catholic church is, it does in fact have one opinion. Once voiced, you will find precious few in the clergy to give statments that dissent. And the Catholic Encyclopedia is a medium of the Catholic church to publicise its views.
You will not find an article in there contradictin the theory of evolution, for example, although I'm pretty sure that some Catholics do in fact believe it's incorrect.

When talking about Catholicism, it's advisable to always make it clear if you are talking about Catholics or the Catholic church.

i dont suppose you would save us the trouble of looking up that quote ourselves. you must have the link, you quoted it.

i dont suppose you would save us the trouble of looking up that quote ourselves. you must have the link, you quoted it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

thanks

i dont suppose you looked to see that that article was written in 1908.

i dont know why they have the thing online but its extremely out of date. maybe they havent updated the catholic encyclopedia recently?

im with you. they shouldnt put that kind of inflamatory shit online where it can be read/used by the small minded.

not that an update would change much. it would just be written with a more modern sensibility.

thanks

i dont suppose you looked to see that that article was written in 1908.

i dont know why they have the thing online but its extremely out of date. maybe they havent updated the catholic encyclopedia recently?

im with you. they shouldnt put that kind of inflamatory shit online where it can be read/used by the small minded.

not that an update would change much. it would just be written with a more modern sensibility.

That just about words everything I was thinking :D

I didn't notice it was written in 1908 (which may explain them calling Muslims "Mohammadans"), but they still haven't updated it in nearly 100 years.

Well the one bit surrounding the begining of the crusader movement that I hadn't heard of before was this

Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem. For years thereafter Christians were cruelly persecuted. (See the recital of an eyewitness, Iahja of Antioch, in Schlumberger's "Epopée byzantine", II, 442.) In 1027 the Frankish protectorate was overthrown and replaced by that of the Byzantine emperors, to whose diplomacy was due the reconstruction of the Holy Sepulchre. The Christian quarter was even surrounded by a wall, and some Amalfi merchants, vassals of the Greek emperors, built hospices in Jerusalem for pilgrims, e.g. the Hospital of St. John, cradle of the Order of Hospitallers.


However, a check on wiki turned up this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah)
In 1009, he destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, then under Fatimid control. The church was later rebuilt by his successor with help from the Byzantine Empire. He made Christians and Jews wear a black hat. He made the Christians wear wooden crosses, half a meter long by half a meter wide, around their necks. The Jews were ordered to wear a wooden calf hanging around the neck, so as to remind them of the sin of the golden calf. Although Christians were not allowed to buy slaves, male or female, and had few other privileges, they were allowed to ride horses on the condition that they ride with wooden saddles and unornamented girths.

Other than that this bit seems accurate, if simplified.
The rise of the Seljukian Turks, however, compromised the safety of pilgrims and even threatened the independence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom. In 1070 Jerusalem was taken, and in 1071 Diogenes, the Greek emperor, was defeated and made captive at Mantzikert. Asia Minor and all of Syria became the prey of the Turks. Antioch succumbed in 1084, and by 1092 not one of the great metropolitan sees of Asia remained in the possession of the Christians. Although separated from the communion of Rome since the schism of Michael Cærularius (1054), the emperors of Constantinople implored the assistance of the popes; in 1073 letters were exchanged on the subject between Michael VII and Gregory VII. The pope seriously contemplated leading a force of 50,000 men to the East in order to re-establish Christian unity, repulse the Turks, and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. But the idea of the crusade constituted only a part of this magnificent plan. (The letters of Gregory VII are in P.L., CXLVIII, 300, 325, 329, 386; cf. Riant's critical discussion in Archives de l'Orient Latin, I, 56.) The conflict over the Investitures in 1076 compelled the pope to abandon his projects; the Emperors Nicephorus Botaniates and Alexius Comnenus were unfavourable to a religious union with Rome; finally war broke out between the Byzantine Empire and the Normans of the Two Sicilies.

It was Pope Urban II who took up the plans of Gregory VII and gave them more definite shape. A letter from Alexius Comnenus to Robert, Count of Flanders, recorded by the chroniclers, Guibert de Nogent ("Historiens Occidentaux des Croisades", ed. by the Académie des Inscriptions, IV, 13l) and Hugues de Fleury (in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", IX, 392), seems to imply that the crusade was instigated by the Byzantine emperor, but this has been proved false (Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d'Alexis Comnène, appendix), Alexius having merely sought to enroll five hundred Flemish knights in the imperial army (Anna Comnena, Alexiad., VII, iv). The honour of initiating the crusade has also been attributed to Peter the Hermit, a recluse of Picardy, who, after a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and a vision in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, went to Urban II and was commissioned by him to preach the crusade. However, though eyewitnesses of the crusade mention his preaching, they do not ascribe to him the all-important rôle assigned him later by various chroniclers, e.g. Albert of Aix and especially William of Tyre. (See Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite Leipzig, 1879.)

That said the opening line there seems excessively inflamatory and doesn't match that well with the info in the texts.

That just about words everything I was thinking :D

I didn't notice it was written in 1908 (which may explain them calling Muslims "Mohammadans"), but they still haven't updated it in nearly 100 years.

did you check out his final sentence?

If, indeed, the Christian civilization of Europe has become universal culture, in the highest sense, the glory redounds, in no small measure, to the Crusades.


not too too eurocentric eh?

did you check out his final sentence?



not too too eurocentric eh?

Eurocentrism in the nineteen-zeros(tens?whatever)? :eek: Surely you jest.:rolleyes:

I never heard anything about Pope John Paul II apologizing for the Crusades - or condemning them, either.

Eurocentrism in the nineteen-zeros(tens?whatever)? :eek: Surely you jest.:rolleyes:

yeah go figure.

its like looking straight into the past when no one had to apologize for the horrible things that had been done in the past. they wanted THANKS for taking up the white man's burden of civilizing the rest of the world.

I never heard anything about Pope John Paul II apologizing for the Crusades - or condemning them, either.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N14/col14kris.14c.html

Last Sunday in Vatican City, Pope John Paul II took a historic step towards a “purification of memory” in the reform of the Roman Catholic Church. The 79-year old pontiff gave a public address in which he apologized for the historic sins of Christians everywhere, mentioning seven categories of wrongs committed in the Church’s nearly 2000-year history. Among others, he confessed sins “committed in the service of truth,” and against “the rights of peoples,” “the dignity of women and the unity of the human race,” and “the fundamental rights of the person.”

The Papal event was a fascinating one because of the significance of the Pope’s words and their surprising implications. He spoke out against intolerance against other religions, resolving “to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity,” instead of using violence to enforce belief. (Deuteronomy 13) He condemned the times when people “have violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions.” (Deuteronomy 7) He denounced the historic mistreatment of women, declaring “the equality of [God’s] sons and daughters.” (Exodus 21:7) On all of these issues, John Paul has adopted a system of morality based on human wants and needs instead of divine authority.

The entire apology can be found here (http://biblia.com/islam/pope.htm)