How do you internally reconcile the actions of the church with their professed beliefs? In your mind were all of the various "crusades" (not just the ones against muslims, but the albigensian one, the manichean one, the bogomil one...) justified? Do you not see how the churchs actions vindicated the "heretics" beliefs? anyways, just something thats been kicking around my head for the past couple of days. any input, from anybody really, would be much appreciated. one love
I am Canadian, and I could list any number of actions Canada has taken over the years that I find totally reprehensible. Yet it does not make me feel a need to reconcile anything. I know Catholics, Muslims, Sikhs, Atheists, etc. who are wonderful people, and their faith does not matter to me so much as their own thoughts, words, and actions. I just thought I'd reply, though I am not Catholic.
And by doing so he undermined his own position because the popes are supposed to be 'infallible' (speaking 'ex cathedra') - yet clearly if one has to apologize for the orders given by a predecessor, there is something perceived as incorrect - so therefore, no infallibility.
Well, if a person can believe that, that's their own problem. Anyways, isn't God the only infallible entity, according to Christians?
The pope was declared 'infallible', officially that is, during the 19th century. That is church dogma.
jesus christ your ignorant. The pope is only considered to be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when he speaks about morality and the nature of god. the church has never claimed the pope is infallible when he comments on or engages in political matters (which the crusades were).
ive been researching religions trying to make up my mind and stuff adn can anyone tell me about this: ive heard that if a decision ahs to be made between the bible and the church documents, the church documents always override?
^ well in catholic church, the bible is on equal level with church tradition, one doesnt over-ride the other. also worth note is church tradition documents god relations and teachings to the church after the new testament was comprised, it shouldnt be confused with the tradition of man in which jesus condems, even though evangellicals often try to confuse people about the truth about the catholic church.
Read my posts dude, and you'll see thats what I said. It is absurd in the extreme to say it doesn't apply here.
The pope's apologies are in the Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente, so it looks like this was said 'ex-cathedra'.
the crusades to wipe out the heretics sure seem to me to be an act that has to do with morality and the nature of god, thus infallibility attaches according to your guidelines there
Does anyone know where to find the article from last year where the Pope forgave all the young boys that were abused by their RCC guardians? I read it at the time but didn't save it.
you obviously dont know anything about the crusades if you think they were designed to wipe out heretics. ill give you a brief history lessons. the first crusade occured when the pope appealed to the kings of western europe to stop fighting each other and help the eastern church repel attacks from musslims. the pope hoped this action would help reunify the church, because the eastern part of christendom (the byzantine empire) recently split from the western church. but in order to get the kings of western europe to do this, the pope knew they didnt have much sympathy for the east, he also made a goal of the expedition to reclaim the holy land (palestine) from the musslims. the first crusade was the only one that accomplished its goal of capturing palestine, it did however failed in reunifying christianity. subsequent crusades only happened trying to retain control of the holy land from musslims who fought for its return. the musslims eventually succeded in driving out the crusaders. THEY DID NOT OCCUR TO WIPE OUT MUSSLIMS
well, if you read my original post you will see that i dont mean the crusades in the holy land solely. my last statement refers more to the albigensian crusades and the crusades undertaken agaisnt the manicheans and the bogomils. those crusades solely happened to stamp out heresy, specifically gnosticism. you dont seem to realize that there were many crusades undertaken by the church throughout history
I agree with you. The trouble is, there isn't much awareness of the Albigensian crusade - it's hardly taught about in general history, and the church aren't very likely to want to draw much attention to it. Even so, it was an important historical event, which, many historians argue, ultimately weakened the churches position in France, and had other ramifications. The one and only reason for it was to stamp out the Cathar 'heresy' . Hundreds were burned at the stake - over 300 in one day. All this in the name of Jesus. Must make anyone think.
thats because the old axiom of "the winners write the history" holds true here. Of course the church doesnt want to disseminate the knowledge of events like this, it may cause people to, gasp, question the church. and we cant have that now, can we
I have heard of some journey (probably in the 90's) of christians following the route of the crusades (through Europe, slavic country's, Greece, Turkey, and into the middle east up to and including Jerusalem) apologising to all christian churches and to all the muslims for all the suffering done, the slaughtering and all the hate that was planted which, regretably, is still there deep down. And this journey was eucumenical.
