Author Topic: Questions on the nature of the Crusades (Read 1010 times)

Fionn Mac Cumhaill · « **on:** March 19, 2011, 11:51:17 PM »

When a pope calls a crusade, is he infallible in that regard? Does the Holy Spirit inform the decision, or is it solely the prerogative of the Pontiff in his capacity as a human person?

It would seem that acknowledging the righteousness of the Eastern Crusades is not a de fide matter; could a Catholic conscientiously dissent from the popular notion that the Crusades were justified?

Citations welcome. Thank you.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2011, 12:01:45 AM »

Quote from: Fionn Mac cuмhaill

When a pope calls a crusade, is he infallible in that regard? Does the Holy Spirit inform the decision, or is it solely the prerogative of the Pontiff in his capacity as a human person?

It would seem that acknowledging the righteousness of the Eastern Crusades is not a de fide matter; could a Catholic conscientiously dissent from the popular notion that the Crusades were justified?

Citations welcome. Thank you.

I think that it cannot be wrong in principle to call for a Crusade.

As going to war is a political decision, it is not covered by infallibility. But if one thought the Pope must never call for Holy War, I think that would be denying Papal infallibility.

Jehanne · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2011, 09:06:36 AM »

Quote from: Fionn Mac cuмhaill

When a pope calls a crusade, is he infallible in that regard? Does the Holy Spirit inform the decision, or is it solely the prerogative of the Pontiff in his capacity as a human person?

It would seem that acknowledging the righteousness of the Eastern Crusades is not a de fide matter; could a Catholic conscientiously dissent from the popular notion that the Crusades were justified?

Citations welcome. Thank you.

The Crusades were justified, fully. However, it was something that Urban II had to sell to Catholic Europe:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

The introduction sums up things nicely,

"In 1094 or 1095, Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, sent to the pope, Urban II, and asked for aid from the west against the Seljuq Turks, who taken nearly all of Asia Minor from him. At the council of Clermont Urban addressed a great crowd and urged all to go to the aid of the Greeks and to recover Palestine from the rule of the Muslims. The acts of the council have not been preserved, but we have five accounts of the speech of Urban which were written by men who were present and heard him."

More here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html#The First Crusade

Bruno · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2011, 06:03:37 PM »

The Crusades were a delayed reaction to 400 years is Islamic aggression.

Sigismund · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2011, 06:42:25 PM »

Whether it was the right decision or not is debatable. It was certainly not an infallible decision.

Jehanne · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2011, 08:00:42 AM »

If anyone asks you if the Crusades were "justified," ask that person about the Battle of Tours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

In my children's public education, the Battle of Tours has never been mentioned. Of course, "modern" historians like to downplay its significance.