Crusades/ Holy War. Justifiable? : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What about the 4th Crusade. I was told that in the name of a holy war for the promised land, attackers went and sacked Rome's major political and economic rival, and returned home without ever visiting Jerusalem, the 'holy land' which the crusades were supposedly supposed to recover.

What's the truth about the 4th Crusade?

-- Jacob (, November 24, 2003



-- Ty (Helpfor@phatmass,...), November 24, 2003.

you heard wrong. simply put, fourth crusade was a huge failure. dont listen to the protestant propaganda machine so much

-- paul h (, November 24, 2003.

Moral judgements hinge on the 3 following considerations: the intent, the action, and the circumstances.

Thus for a Pope who's intent is to call for the liberation of the holy lands, protection of unarmed pilgrims, and a restoration of peace (as opposed to the status quo of perpetual war on unarmed Christians)... a crusade would not automatically be sinful to preach.

The act: calling for an armed pilgrimage

The circumstance: neither genocidal nor a frontal attack on Islam but exclusely "to liberate and maintain free access to the holy places"...knowing that Christendom was perfectly OK with Muslim control of Jerusalem from 636 to 1090's because pilgrims were respected prior to the Turkish muslims seizing control from other Muslims...

But then you have the actual armies involved with their own intentions and actions which can be judged again according to their intentions, actions, and circumstances.

In the 4th Crusade, I believe the entire army was excommunicated for breaking its oath as well as attacking an ally instead of going to Jerusalem.

The same is true today: A church - for example the Protestants...accepted divorce and remarriage as a good thing (dwelling almost exclusively on the hard cases of two people in a failed and abusive marriage who miraculously become wonderful people once allowed to each remarry someone else). Their intent was only to do good - but the action and circumstances left everything to be desired...and the unintended consequences are vast and terrible.

Yet is there a hue and cry against Protestantism in general for vast human unhappiness caused by divorce and remarriage? No.

It almost seems as though Catholics alone are morally responsible for all the consequences of our actions - including the reactions and free choices of others, whereas no one else on earth is morally responsible for their choices and actions.

-- Joe (, November 24, 2003.

Neither did I.

On a list of divorce rates by occupation, Protestant ministers are in the top ten.

-- Paul M. (, November 24, 2003.

Survey: Baptists have higher divorce rate than any denomination

The Associated Press 12/30/99 1:31 AM Eastern

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) -- Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination, and are more likely to get a divorce than atheists and agnostics, according to a national survey.

The survey conducted by Barna Research Group in Ventura, Calif., found that 29 percent of all adult Baptists have been through a divorce. Among Christian groups, only those who attend non-denominational Protestant churches were more likely to be divorced, with a 34 percent divorce rate.

Alabama, with a population of 4.3 million, has more than one million Southern Baptists and a majority of evangelical Protestants. The state ranks fourth nationally in divorce rates, behind Nevada, Tennessee and Arkansas, according to U.S. government statistics.

Barna Research Group interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 continental states, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent. The survey found that while just 11 percent of the adult population is currently divorced, 25 percent of all adults have experienced at least one divorce, the survey showed.

Twenty seven percent of those describing themselves as born-again Christians are currently or have previously been divorced, compared to 24 percent among other adults.

"While it may be alarming to discover that born-again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time," said George Barna, president of Barna Research Group.

A Birmingham minister, the Rev. Stacy Pickering, said the numbers are skewed because Baptist churches encourage young people to get married -- sometimes before they're ready -- before living together.

"Fewer people are getting married and the number of couples living together has increased," said Pickering, minister of young married adults and director of counseling at Shades Mountain Baptist Church.

He said his church now requires premarital counseling for couples who want to marry at the church.

Of major Christian denominations, Catholics and Lutherans have the lowest divorce rate at 21 percent, according to Barna. People who attend mainstream Protestant churches have an overall divorce rate of 25 percent.

The levels vary among non-Christian groups, Barna reported. Jews have a divorce rate of 30 percent, while atheists and agnostics have a relatively low rate of 21 percent, according to the survey.

The survey found that Mormons, who emphasize strong families, are near the national average at 24 percent.

"What brings people to divorce has so many more important factors than theology," said Bart Grooms, pastoral counselor for the Samaritan Counseling Center of Baptist Health System. He said Christians' expectations of marriage may be too high.

"I believe we expect more out of marriage than we used to," he said. "Gender roles have changed an awful lot. A lot of women are not putting up with boorish louts like they were in the past."

The study found that the South and Midwest had 27-percent divorce rates, while the rates were 19 percent in the Northwest and 26 percent in the West.

Whites are more likely to have had a divorce, at 27 percent, than African-Americans (22 percent), Hispanics (20 percent) and Asians (8 percent), Barna found.

George Barna noted that the large number of divorces have changed young people.

"One of the most striking findings in our recent survey among teenagers is that when we asked them to name their top goals for the future, one of the highest-rated was to get married and have the same spouse for their entire life," he said.

-- J Fernandes (, November 24, 2003.

Protestant churches were the first Christian churches to accept divorce and remarriage as OK from a biblical and theological point of view. They routinely used this as fodder in their polemic against Catholics trying to show how "superior" their approach to scripture is as opposed to the Catholic.

They were also the first churches to allow for artificial birth control, then abortion, then active homosexuality, then ordaining women, then ordaining active homosexuals....

Whereas most Prostantants believe that "what God can sunder", Catholics hold fast to the teaching that once you are validly married (i.e. God has truly joined the two) you are married until death separates you. Nothing - not one spouse's infidelity, nor both being unfaithful, can possibly change the FACT that God joined them in a sacrament and that forgiveness and grace are found only in that union ratified and blessed by Him - not in any whilly nilly creation of men.

Yes, that's right. The irony of Protestants claiming we Catholics believe in "traditions of men" while they themselves are the ones coming up with complete NOVELTIES!

For 1500 years all Christians believed in one Church, founded and built up by Christ through the apostles...but then Luther and all his allies swept that idea away, making churches NATIONAL, co-opted by the local polical forces, making churches "optional" - and writing the rules as they go...inevitably creating new traditions such as "sola scritura" or "sola fide" - or other novel interpretations or beliefs....

-- Joe (, November 25, 2003.

Faith wrote: "No one is immune to sin in this earthly place."

But you are saying that protestants are less likely to sin (adultery, divorce, "re"marriage) than Catholics. When you were proved wrong by the facts, you ignore it and accuse others of hiding from the truth.

Such is the hypocricy of the average protestant.

All Catholics acknowledge that the Catholic Faith is for sinners.

Apparently the protestant religion is for those who think they're too good to be sinners.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (, November 25, 2003.

"Never mind the homosexual problem--you can delete that all you want, it won't make the problem go away. But in all honesty--I am sure you are aware of the mistress problem, right?"

The "homosexual problem" is limited to fewer than 0.5% of priests who have even been ACCUSED of any wrongdoing, and far fewer who have actually been convicted of any wrongful behavior. And yes, those few men do indeed have a problem. The problem is called sin. It's a problem we all have. The incidence of this particular sin among Catholic priests is no greater than in any other group of men, uncluding Protestant ministers and Jewish rabbis.

Undoubtedly there are also a few priests who consort with women, just as there are are ministers and rabbis - both married and unmarried - who do the same. Is this the "mistress problem" you are referring to?? The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a known womanizer. These men too have a problem - that same problem which affects us all - sin. The Apostles on whom Christ built the Church were likewise sinners; yet He used them to convert thousands of people, to work miracles, and to establish the foundation of His Church on earth. He still uses sinners to do powerful works today, when they turn their lives over to Him. If He didn't use sinners, He wouldn't use anyone.

-- Paul M. (, November 25, 2003.

Faith wrote: "Jesus whole point in his sermon on the mount was to show us that no one is good, not one! And that includes your religion."

And yet here and on other threads I have seen you lord it over Catholics because you think you are better than we are. On a personal level, Catholics know that this is not true by the simple fact that you are protestant, so you are at least in doctrinal error = heretical. On the level not-withstanding religion, I don't know.

The point is, you are accusing us of doing precicely what you have done! You've ignored facts and accused us of changing the topic while you blithely change it yourself.

And, for instance, you've told another poster on a different thread that you are a better person than he is because your allegedly- superior false religion teaches you to do favors for people and not expect anything in return (in this life), which you also alledge Catholicism doesn't teach.

So don't accuse us of pointing fingers willy-nilly while attempting to escape blame ourselves. And don't accuse us of having a superiority complex. I repeat: Catholicism is a religion for, and of, sinners.

Now it is time for you to admit the same of your religion. Then we may be getting somewhere.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (, November 25, 2003.

Faith wrote: "no one religion is the "perfect" religion"

Here's where you are a protestant. The Catholic Faith is the perfect religion because it was formed and is guided by God Himself, and God is infinately perfect & therefore can not make a mistake.

The people in & of the Catholic Church are not perfect, not even the pope. This is the third time I will say this: the Catholic Faith is of & for sinners.

But the Faith itself is perfect.

Faith wrote: "and no one is free from the effects of sin."

Except, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary in her Immaculate Conception. I think you mean, "no one ON EARTH TODAY is free from the effects of sin"

Faith wrote: "But it seemed to me that there were some claims being made contrary to that fact [the Catholic Faith is superior & perfect]."

Of course. Because it is.

Faith wrote: "I am glad we cleared that up."

Me too. So when can we can welcome you into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith?

Faith wrote: "The true church of Jesus Christ is spiritual in nature for now, and it cannot be divided--unlike all earthly institutions...."

The true church Jesus Christ founded, i.e. the Catholic Church, is not only spiritual in nature, but also has physical counterparts. Spiritually, there is the Church Triumphant in heaven, the Church Suffering in purgatory, and the Church Millitant on earth. Physicall, there are the members of the Catholic Church, i.e. the Church Millitant, including the pope, the bishops, the priests, other clergy, the nuns, the lay people, and everyone else who has not separated themselves from the Church by heresy, for example, protestants.

The Catholic Church (the one and only True Faith) can not be divided from itself for this would have God make a mistake. There can not be two true religions: only one, as there is only one God, and He is eternally unchanging.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (, November 25, 2003.

Faith wrote: "I am strong in the Word of God.., the only source of truth needed."

If by "Word of God" you mean the Bible, there's where you are indeed a protest-ant, because:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the wold itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. - St. John,ch21v25


Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. - 2 Thessalonians, ch2v14

Also, go to and read.

Faith wrote: "No! I don't just mean that no one alive on the earth is good--I mean what the Bible reveals: No one is good but God, no, not one!! The Bible doesn't say: "Except for Mary that!" "

Ah, Faith, but I just proved through Holy Scripture that Tradition, as well as written word, must be believed. Tradition has always held belief in the Immaculate Conception. (Not to speak of the fact that this doctrine was made infallible by the Church, because I understand that you disbelieve the authority of the Catholic Church to declare infallible Truths.) But since Tradition has always held belief in the Immaculate Conception, and the inspired word of God teaches that we must hold fast to not only the written word of God but also the Tradition learned by the spoken word, you, as a Christian, must acknowledge that Christ's mother Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, i.e. "perfectly good"!

Deny that you are bound to this belief, and you deny the inspired, written word of God in Holy Scripture.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (, November 25, 2003.

Dear Faith:
You claim to be ''strong'' in the Word of God. But precisely there is where you're weakest. You deny many very important revelations clearly given us in the Bible. You cast yourself in the role of an authority, but what makes you that? Nothing. You haven't interpreted anything from the Word of God with accuracy. About the only thing you actually know for certain out of the Holy Bible are, Jesus was born in Bethlehem and crucified in Jerusalem. There is more than a fourth of the things revealed to His Church by Christ plainly written in the gospels, that YOU HAVE DENIED. I'm not making this up!

-- eugene c. chavez (, November 25, 2003.

All of which means: Faith is not really a believer! No one who believes in Christ can call Him a liar or alter the content of His words & teachings. He said very clearly, ''Heaven and earth shall pass away; my words shall not pass away.'' You attempt daily here to tell us that His words aren't true!

-- eugene c. chavez (, November 25, 2003.

Faith wrote: "The verse you quote simply means that though lots of things were said and done by Jesus--it would be crazy to think that every single thing could be written down, and unnecessary at that. For all that is needed to be known is recorded!"

Wrong. St. John ch21v25 does not say "all that is needed to be known is recorded." That is what YOU say, Faith, not the Bible. In other words, quit putting words in God's mouth, and just believe what He tells you. Shame on you, you're not even a good protestant 'cause now you're arguing that the Bible does not say what the Bible obviously says.

What is the deal with all this "but he MEANT to say this . . ." and "but it REALLY means this . . ." and "through personal interpretation I believe THIS . . ."? Hmmm? Why not just believe what the Bible says, Faith?

Faith wrote: "surely any tradition that the apostles deemed necessary, are also recorded."

Then why would St. Paul go to the trouble of reminding the Thessalonians to stand fast and hold the traditions they've learned by word as well as by what's written? You are accusing St. Paul of directly ordering the Tessalonians to do that which you believe is unnecessary and even dangerous, because you say that "word of mouth was not reliable." How could the Holy Bible, the Sacred Scripture, the Inspired Word of God, MAKE A MISTAKE, Faith?

Two words: it can't. You, however, can. And you are.

Just read what the Bible says, and believe it. It's that simple. Any protestant who truly does read and believe the Bible, even the incomplete protestant version, will become Catholic. It's been done before, and it'll be done again, and again, and again.

Don't try to bend Holy Scripture to fit your ideas, Faith. Just believe the Word of God, as God had it written. Don't insert your own "oh but they left out a phrase here" and "but we must interpret this another way" kind of waffling.

What's in the Bible, is in the Bible. What's not in the Bible, is not in the Bible. Don't try to insert and/or remove verses, phrases, words, or whatever, to suit your own beliefs. It is your beliefs which should conform to the Bible, not the Bible that should conform to your beliefs, Faith!

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (, November 25, 2003.

Faith, my dear little one: "that by believing you may have life in his name" says nothing about believing ONLY THESE THINGS AND NO OTHER.

It is true that one must know all of the Scriptures if one wants to understand them. But one must also use one's mind in order to understand . . . which you, Faith, are sadly not doing.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (, November 25, 2003.

Faith wrote: "I think I'll believe God on this, if that's okay with you?"

Then you must believe what St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: we must stand fast and believe the Traditions we have received not only through writings, but also through words.

Otherwise, Faith, thou art a hypocrite and a liar of the worst sort, and Christ shall call you a Sepulcher of lies when you meet Him at your death, and you shall be grouped with the goats rather than the sheep at the last judgement.

G'night, all. Have a good sleep, and I'll see you in the morning.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (, November 25, 2003.

"unrecorded tradition is worthless and questionable at best"

A: So the teachings of Christ were worthless until the Apostles mentioned them in their correspondence? It was the Apostles who gave these teachings their worth, not the Lord God Almighty who originally spoke them? Suppose the Apostles had not written about some of His teachings. Would those teachings have remained worthless for all time? Suppose the Church had not decided to gather some of its writings into a book. Would the contents of what is now the Bible have therefore been worthless because they were not compiled into a book? If GOD said ten things, and the Apostles only wrote down five of them, would the other five teachings by GOD thereby become worthless?

ALL of the teaching of Jesus Christ was given orally - by preaching and teaching. EVERYTHING He said was the Word of God from the moment He said it. NOTHING any Apostle did could possibly give His divine words any additional authority. ALL of that body of teaching which Jesus gave orally was passed on by the Apostles, orally - by preaching and teaching. Eventually they did write down some of it - but that action on their part had no effect on any of the Word of God - not the part they wrote down, and not the part they didn't write down. The written part did not become more authoritative by their actions, and the unwritten part did not become less authoritative. The Church had the fullness of truth from the beginning. What parts were included in the Apostles' correspondence - indeed, whether ANY of it was ever written down - is of no real consequence. If the letters and gospels had not been written, or had not been gathered into a book, the Church would have continued to preach and teach the fullness of truth it had received from Christ, just as it had done before anything was written; just as it had done for 350 years before the Bible was compiled; just as it did for the next 1,200 years, when no Bibles were available to ordinary Christians; and just as it continues to do today. Jesus commanded His Church to go forth to preach and teach. He didn't tell anyone to write anything. The value of His Word is the same today as when He first spoke it - ALL of His Word - regardless of anything men might have done or not done with it subsequently.

-- Paul M. (, November 25, 2003.

"But the truth is that the apostles were inspired by God to write what they did, and their authority was confirmed by the miracles and healings they performed. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Word of man"

A: Absolutely! Did I suggest otherwise?

"We are told in the Scriptures that everything we need to know unto salvation has been recorded in the Written Word of God"

A: Really! Where? That would be a very strange thing for any Apostle to say, given that the only scriptures they knew were the Old Testament Hebrew scriptures! If any Apostle or any of their contemporaries ever said that the written scriptures were all we need, that would be equivalent to saying that the teachings of Christ are not necessary to live a full Christian life. But - no scriptural writer ever made any such statement.

"The Bible is also pretty clear about how untrustworthy word of mouth is after the original prophets and apostles"

A: Really! Where? In my Bible Christ is recorded as telling the leaders of His Church, "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". Nothing there about writing. Jesus told them "he who hears you hears Me". Note - "he who HEARS you", not "he who reads you".

"The fact is that God did give us the Bible and he did not rely on tradition"

A: The fact is that God gave the Apostles the fullness of truth in the form of oral Tradition, the Bible tells us to stand firm in the Tradition we have received - both oral AND written, and everything in the New Testament was already believed and taught by the Church as oral Tradition BEFORE it was ever written down.

-- Paul M. (, November 25, 2003.


We are told in the Scriptures that everything we need to know unto salvation has beed recorded in the Written Word of God. End of story.

That's great Faith. Now only if mankind could learn to read perfectly. Of course we can't and so there's the dilema. Man is flawed. Hey, know what, everything needed for our salvation was in the historic person of Jesus too. HEY, why did we need Jesus here for 33 years when we have that book? He could have sent us that special testament book, air mail of course, and then died in the womb of Mary at the hands of an evil enemy attacking Mary in the night, redeeming us right from there. No need for that whole life of teaching those apostles. And we'd have that great book with absolutely everything in it. Just open it up and whip up a recipe for salvation. Easy as chocolate chip cookies. No messy humans needed. All right, why didn't I think of that? Why didn't God think of that?

The Bible is also pretty clear about how untrustworthy word of mouth is after the original prophets and apostles. The fact is that God did give us the Bible and he did not rely on tradition.

Faith, I've got this Traditional book called the bible. Everybody has it, it's like a Tradition or something. I just can't believe how traditional it is. Has all the handed down beliefs in it. Can't believe I almost got suckered into that.

-- Mike H. (, November 25, 2003.

Faith, you are still ignoring the fact that your “Bible Only” belief is shot down by the Bible itself.


John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

St Paul to the Romans 10-17: So then faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God.

St Mark 16-15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and PREACH the gospel to every creature.

2 Thes. 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Tim. 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.


Faith, you have not provided any answer against these which in any way negates them. Go look them up in your own Bible. They are right there.

Then ask yourself why you believe the way you believe. Is it because you’ve been taught it by protestant preachers? Is it because it’s the only mode of belief which provides for the necessity of religions other than Catholic? Do you hate the Catholic Church that much? Do you believe what you *want* to believe, therefore you must confine the Bible into supporting only your beliefs?

The Truth can not be denied. The Truth is right there, under your own hands, in the Bible. The Truth is that the Word of God has always been handed down, as God Willed, not only through printed word but through spoken word, and this spoken word is called Tradition.

This is what Luther&co. rejected when then left the Church. This is what no protestant religion has. This is what only the Catholic Church has. The spoken, unwritten, Word of God – the “other half” of His message and teachings – Tradition.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (, November 26, 2003.

Only the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures is necessary unto salvation.

False. Not just the Word of God is necessary, but also a proper understanding of that Word. Only Catholicism has the full, proper understanding -- because that understanding has been handed down from the time of Jesus himself. Faith~Myway lacks and/or rejects much of the full, proper understanding because, as Faith's e-mail implies, "I do it 'my way.'" We ignore every false Protestant doctrine of Pope Faith I.

Anything outside of the written Word of God is simply another gospel.

False. The Bible does not teach this "Myway" error. Instead it teaches that not all of divine revelation is written within the pages of the Bible. Jesus entrusted the WHOLE gospel to the Catholic Church, and she continues to preach it to this very day -- both that part of the gospel that is found in the Bible and that part which was not written down by the Apostles.

-- (Proud@ToBe.Catholic), November 29, 2003.

jesus save me in cathlia

-- j.praveenkumar (, August 14, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ