[paraclete]

The history of Urban II.

JoeT

As I said he was among those who shed blood

[JoeT777]

As I said he was among those who shed blood

I said he was the defender of Jerusalem.

JoeT

[paraclete]

I said he was the defender of Jerusalem.

JoeT

I don't think you get it Joe, from reading the history we see that what was happening in Palastine wasn't an urgent priority with him and that he was actually highly political. We have to see these things in the light of what was happening at the time; schisms, factionalism and the East West split. It is an over simplification to say he was defending Jerusalem

[JoeT777]

I don't think you get it Joe, from reading the history we see that what was happening in Palastine wasn't an urgent priority with him and that he was actually highly political. We have to see these things in the light of what was happening at the time; schisms, factionalism and the East West split. It is an over simplification to say he was defending Jerusalem

The first Crusades, 1095-1101.
In 1070 Jerusalem was taken by the Seljukian Turks who also endangered the safety of pilgrims and threatened the sovereignty of the Catholic Byzantine Empire. By 1095 the majority living in Jerusalem were still Christian and as such reduced to a status below that of a slave and still lower than a dog. Constantinople had begged for the aid of the popes in letters to Emperor Michael VII and Pope Gregory VII. Syria had fallen to the Turks around 1084 which was followed by Antioch. And by 1092 all the major metropolitan Sees of Asia had been taken from the Christians who were reduced the status of infidel. In Spain, Yusuf ibn-Tashfin attached from Northern Africa and at the battle of Sagrajas defeated the Christians. To show his great and wondrous humanity Yusuf cut off the heads of every captive placing them on pike within his payer halls. Cartloads of heads were shipped to the chief Christian cities of Spain as an example of Moor’s compassion. For the next decade or so El Cid (Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar) resisted the Moors nearly driving them out of Spain. Christianity was under attack from the east, south and north by the united forces of the Muslims whose goal is to rid the world of all infidels.

To say the least, Christendom was in dire peril. From the Muslim’s coordinated and integrated attacks from three sides Christendom was fast becoming a blood red blot on the pages of history. Gee willikers! What to do? What to do? Resist? Nuh uh, just lay down your faith your life, maybe convert to Islam. Gee what a man of faith that would have been.

What a mean ol’ goat of a Pope to resist.

Urban II held a synod at Clermont-Ferrand in Auvergne. In attendance was 250 bishops, and 400 abbots a large number of knights and soldiers. It was here that Robert the Monk reports in his Historia Hierosolymitana the words of the Pope:

Jerusalem is the navel of the world; the land is fruitful above others, like another paradise of delights. This the Redeemer of the human race has made illustrious by His advent, has beautified by residence, has consecrated by suffering, has redeemed by death, has glorified by burial. This royal city, therefore, situated at the center of the world, is now held captive by His enemies, and is in subjection to those who do not know God, to the worship of the heathen. She seeks therefore and desires to be liberated, and does not cease to implore you to come to her aid... Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom, p. 521

JoeT

[paraclete]

The first Crusades, 1095-1101.
In 1070 Jerusalem was taken by the Seljukian Turks who also endangered the safety of pilgrims and threatened the sovereignty of the Catholic Byzantine Empire. By 1095 the majority living in Jerusalem were still Christian
JoeT

As I said Joe, Jerusalem and it's Christians weren't a high priority, it took twenty years for Christians in Europe to take any real notice of persecution in the east and seek to do something about it. To suggest Urban was defending Jerusalem when it have been lost for twenty years is ludicous. His motives were something else, probably about cementing his authority. If after twenty years, the majority in Jerusalem were still Christian then they really didn't need defense just civil rights.

It is time we took the cloak off the crusades and realised that this is a period in history when Christians did some very dark deeds which are not to be lauded. Repell the invader by all means, but be honest about why you are doing it

[dwashbur]

As I said Joe, Jerusalem and it's Christians weren't a high priority, it took twenty years for Christians in Europe to take any real notice of persecution in the east and seek to do something about it. To suggest Urban was defending Jerusalem when it have been lost for twenty years is ludicous. His motives were something else, probally about cementing his authority. If after twenty years, the majority in Jerusalem were still Christian then they really didn't need defense just civil rights.

it is time we took the cloak off the crusades and realised that this is a period in history when Christians did some very dark deeds which are not to be lauded. Repell the invader by all means, but be honest about why you are doing it

Joe has given several references to back up what he's been saying and illustrate where he got his info; I'm afraid I don't see you doing the same. What are the sources of your statements that Jerusalem and the "holy land" weren't a high priority and there must have been an ulterior motive?

Considering communication and the perils inherent in travel at the time, 20 years isn't all that unusual, either.

I'm not saying I agree with the crusades, but if you're going to make such blanket statements it would be nice to see some citations to support them.

[paraclete]

Joe has given several references to back up what he's been saying and illustrate where he got his info; I'm afraid I don't see you doing the same. What are the sources of your statements that Jerusalem and the "holy land" weren't a high priority and there must have been an ulterior motive?

Considering communication and the perils inherent in travel at the time, 20 years isn't all that unusual, either.

I'm not saying I agree with the crusades, but if you're going to make such blanket statements it would be nice to see some citations to support them.

All I have done is actually read the detail provided by Joe and offered my intrepretation of his facts. I don't need to add to the narrative. Sorry this is not scholarly enough for you but I'm not into point and counter point.

Your assertion that twenty years is an acceptable delay at that time really isn't reality, twenty years was a generation at that time, it didn't take twenty years for them to know what was happening and one part of the narrative indicates that it took months before Urban acted on the request from Constaninople for help, which came much later. There would be several reasons for delay, not the least of which was the infighting in the Catholic Church at the time, but in reality the crusades were an ill conceived and ill executed enterprise in conquest, pure medieval opportunism under the cloak of religious zeal

[dwashbur]

All I have done is actually read the detail provided by Joe and offered my intrepretation of his facts. I don't need to add to the narrative. Sorry this is not scholarly enough for you but I'm not into point and counter point.

Wow. So when I ask where you got your information, this is the response: "I don't have to tell you if I don't want to." Never mind.

Your assertion that twenty years is an acceptable delay at that time really isn't reality,

If you're going to try and quote me, at least do it accurately. I never said anything about it being "acceptable." I said it wasn't all that unusual. DO NOT put words in my mouth.

There was a LOT going on in Europe at the time, so it may not even have been possible to do something for 20 years. That doesn't mean they didn't care; it means it wasn't possible. Again, I don't know what the whole situation was. But I'm still curious where you get your information about these people's attitudes and such.

[JoeT777]

All I have done is actually read the detail provided by Joe and offered my interpretation of his facts. I don't need to add to the narrative. Sorry this is not scholarly enough for you but I'm not into point and counter point.

Your assertion that twenty years is an acceptable delay at that time really isn't reality, twenty years was a generation at that time, it didn't take twenty years for them to know what was happening and one part of the narrative indicates that it took months before Urban acted on the request from Constaninople for help, which came much later. There would be several reasons for delay, not the least of which was the infighting in the Catholic Church at the time, but in reality the crusades were an ill concieved and ill executed enterprise in conquest, pure medieval opportunism under the cloak of religious zeal

Oh, I do agree. All of us should have our own reality. You can have one, I can have another; when what feels good to either of us we can agree that our truths coincide. After all shouldn't all truth be made subject to our own self-serving view of reality, for that matter even God's.

The reality of the Crusades is that “those who deride this as a Christian objective have lived too long in [movies] and under lamps. [What's being said here is your ideas are a half backed concept – an idea that's laid in the sun too long and like a fish treated this way, stinks.] Real men and women, as distinct from scholarly abstractions, have homes which they love. Jesus Christ was a real man. He had a home. He loved it. His followers, His lovers, His worshippers who came after Him, loved the land and places He had loved and trod, simply because He had loved and trodden them. Utterly convinced that He is God, they could not believe it right that any people not recognizing Him as God should rule His homeland. Furthermore, a large number of people of Palestine-probably a majority-were still Christians in 1095. They had at least as much right to their land as the Muslim conquerors.”

Pope Urban II's decision for the first Crusade when viewed in the light of reality was the only rational and sane choice offered him – the other choice was death of the Christianity. We find that Pope Urban had the right, no the obligation as the only effective commander of the shrinking Christian kingdom and as the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Roman Church. Both Emperor Henry IV and Gregory VII supported the antipope Guibert and had been excommunicated. The Normans marched on Rome to expel Henry and the pretender; a super nefarious action by the faithful Normans, right? Why I've heard tell the Normans hid the sacred 'chalice' [with the wine still in it] and all we need to do is break through a floor in a library, tunnel under a Church, fight off the rats, and run fast from a bunch of killer Catholics. By chance, do you live in a movie?

Now what would you would suggest, that because evil forces surround the Church, from within and without Urban's temporal kingdom and his Churchly Kingdom he should stand around with his thumb up his.. Because the devil appears in the robes of a pretend Pope should he sing platitudes of peace while surrendering Christ's Kingdom? Are you suggesting that because there was a pretend Pope, that the real Pope wasn't legitimate? If that's the case we can say that because there was a Confederate government, then the Republic of the United States isn't legitimate. Because the devil appears as a philander should Urban have ordered everybody to make love and not war then hold up King Eric I of Denmark as an example. Or, should he attack the enemy he knows, confront him face to face, in hopes of rallying his lost sheep back to the flock by combating a common enemy? Gee the choice would be simple to me; but, then again I don't fabricate my own history or produce my own truth.

Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom, A History of Christendom Vol. 2, pp 471-553

JoeT

[paraclete]

Oh, I do agree. All of us should have our own reality. You can have one, I can have another; when what feels good to either of us we can agree that our truths coincide. After all shouldn't all truth be made subject to our own self-serving view of reality, for that matter even God's.

The reality of the Crusades is that “those who deride this as a Christian objective have lived too long in [movies] and under lamps. [What's being said here is your ideas are a half backed concept – an idea that's laid in the sun too long and like a fish treated this way, stinks.] Real men and women, as distinct from scholarly abstractions, have homes which they love. Jesus Christ was a real man. He had a home. He loved it. His followers, His lovers, His worshippers who came after Him, loved the land and places He had loved and trod, simply because He had loved and trodden them. Utterly convinced that He is God, they could not believe it right that any people not recognizing Him as God should rule His homeland. Furthermore, a large number of people of Palestine-probably a majority-were still Christians in 1095. They had at least as much right to their land as the Muslim conquerors.”

Pope Urban II's decision for the first Crusade when viewed in the light of reality was the only rational and sane choice offered him – the other choice was death of the Christianity. We find that Pope Urban had the right, no the obligation as the only effective commander of the shrinking Christian kingdom and as the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Roman Church. Both Emperor Henry IV and Gregory VII supported the antipope Guibert and had been excommunicated. The Normans marched on Rome to expel Henry and the pretender; a super nefarious action by the faithful Normans, right? Why I've heard tell the Normans hid the sacred 'chalice' [with the wine still in it] and all we need to do is break through a floor in a library, tunnel under a Church, fight off the rats, and run fast from a bunch of killer Catholics. By chance, do you live in a movie?

Now what would you would suggest, that because evil forces surround the Church, from within and without Urban's temporal kingdom and his Churchly Kingdom he should stand around with his thumb up his ... ? Because the devil appears in the robes of a pretend Pope should he sing platitudes of peace while surrendering Christ's Kingdom? Are you suggesting that because there was a pretend Pope, that the real Pope wasn't legitimate? If that's the case we can say that because there was a Confederate government, then the Republic of the United States isn't legitimate. Because the devil appears as a philander should Urban have ordered everybody to make love and not war then hold up King Eric I of Denmark as an example. Or, should he attack the enemy he knows, confront him face to face, in hopes of rallying his lost sheep back to the flock by combating a common enemy? Gee the choice would be simple to me; but, then again I don't fabricate my own history or produce my own truth.

Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom, A History of Christendom Vol. 2, pp 471-553

JoeT

Well that was a bit of a rave and rant wasn't it? And it wasn't even your own words

Firstly I don't live in a movie but apparently you do, you are able to describe the plot of a movie or was it movies in detail.
Secondly, all you have done is confirm that there were internal disturbances in the Catholic Church at the time and If I remember correctly this is one of the reasons I gave for delay
Third, I am unsure where your writings begin and those of others end. The use of quotation marks would help or use the tool provided in the editor
Fourth, you have just given a perfect justification for Israel's hold on Palestine
Joe, you shouldn't feel that is necessary to defend the Catholic Church and the Crusades. The Crusades were a very ill conceived enterprise that resulted in many deaths of Christians in places where they weren't threated by muslims and as well as a genocidal attitude which has persisted for centuries. Muslim excesses are not excused by saying that and the "Holy Land" had been in the hands of Muslims for centuries at the time of the crusades and the Church didn't appear particularly troubled by this. The geo-political makeup of the world changes over centuries, civilisations come and go. The Catholic Church is fortunate to have transcended some of those changes, but that doesn't make everything it has done right or its leaders particularly enlightened.

[JoeT777]

you shouldn't feel that is necessary to defend the Catholic Church and the Crusades. The Crusades were a very ill conceived enterprise that resulted in many deaths of Christians in places where they weren't threatened by Muslims and as well as a genocidal attitude which has persisted for centuries. Muslim excesses are not excused by saying that and the "Holy Land" had been in the hands of Muslims for centuries at the time of the crusades and the

I don’t recall being ‘defensive’, I’m sorry you got that impression. I simply stated facts. Until this point I hadn’t argued any point except, just facts. vLinko made the comment, “Remember the Popes who killed a bunch of people”. Which Pope killed a bunch of people? Which bunch of people? Under what condition did he kill a bunch of people. Did he kill 2,500 non-combatents in a pair of towers? Does he condone the killing of all the Jews in Israial with an atomic bomb? You know if you slander somebody by calling him a murderer isn't it a common sense question, who did he kill?

Rhetorically, in the case of the first Crusade, if the Muslims had been so sensitive, so moral, or so gallant why didn’t they leave from Jerusalem; why did they attack and occupy Jerusalem in the first place? How does Islam have a moral argument to the right to occupy Jerusalem, weren't the Christians there when they started killing, enslaving and occuping Jersulem before they arrived?

The geo-political makeup of the world changes over centuries, civilizations come and go. The Catholic Church is fortunate to have transcended some of those changes, but that doesn't make everything it has done right or its leaders particularly enlightened.

So you think it’s time for God’s Church to go; just fade off into the sunset; maybe go to the place where old soldiers who never die go. You know God has been around for a long time; maybe He should pack His bags too? When it’s your time to ‘come and go’ are you just going to give up your faith too? You’ve made your hatred for the Catholic Church known in the past, is this your advice to Catholics, ‘just move over’ you’ll replace Catholic with a faith more to your liking, whether God be damned or not? Once we get rid of the Church and God do we come to you for the ‘new and improved’ version?

JoeT

[paraclete]

Rhetorically, in the case of the first Crusade, if the Muslims had been so sensitive, so moral, or so gallant why didn't they leave from Jerusalem; why did they attack and occupy Jerusalem in the first place? How does Islam have a moral argument to the right to occupy Jerusalem, weren't the Christians there when they started killing, enslaving and occuping Jersulem before they arrived?

Joe you say some strange things at times, maybe it is because you don't know history. No one suggested the Muslims were anything but conquerors, and the crusades were prompted by certain muslims attacking pilgrims but when the Christians took Jerusalem they slaughtered all the muslims who they regarded as pagans
This might give you perspective
The Crusaders Capture Jerusalem, 1099

So you think it's time for God's Church to go; just fade off into the sunset; maybe go to the place where old soldiers who never die go. You know God has been around for a long time; maybe He should pack His bags too? When it's your time to 'come and go' are you just going to give up your faith too? You've made your hatred for the Catholic Church known in the past, is this your advice to Catholics, 'just move over' you'll replace Catholic with a faith more to your liking, whether God be damned or not? Once we get rid of the Church and God do we come to you for the 'new and improved' version?

JoeT

Where did I say anything about the Church going? I said you don't need to defend it and that is scriptural. Is God's arm so short he needs you to defend him? History is history and it is filled with blackguards and murderers, some of them religious killing in the name of Christ. What I have done in the past is argue against error and lack of moral fortitude and if that falls at the door of the Catholic Church, so be it

[JoeT777]

Joe you say some strange things at times, maybe it is because you don't know history. No one suggested the Muslims were anything but conquerers, and the crusades were prompted by certain muslims attacking pilgrims but when the Christians took Jerusalem they slaughtered all the muslims who they regarded as pagans
this might give you perspective

I'm sorry but I can't give much credibility to your article. The article is based primarily on the Reverend George W. Cox's, (1827 – 1902), Crusades (1886) who seems to have written a very myopic and prejudicial history. While Crusades, is substantially correct in its fact finding, the accompanying commentary seems to lack any understanding of Catholicism, or for that matter Catholic History. Another problem is the unnamed manuscript comprising half of the article [“The name of the author of the following eyewitness account is unknown, but it is considered a reliable description published before 1101” - I can't find anybody but four internet authors who have cited this work - none cite the manuscript, itls location, it's title - how reliable can that be]. I can't find any creditable historic source, not even in our biased Rev. Cox's book. Combined, they present an unreliable history distorting the events, the cause of the event, and the outcome of the events.

Let me explain, a dead giveaway concerning an authors biased view of Catholicism is whether he capitalizes the word, 'Pope'. In 280 pages, there are 147 instances of the word 'Pope', not a single one is capitalized in Crusades. The words “Holy Catholic Church” appears only once and then only to say that the caliph Omar and the Muslims had markedly higher morals than Catholics; and this only after 'spinning' the facts. Urban II is discussed only in the negative, his opponent only in the positive. The word Catholic is used 4 times; one instance has already been noted, the other appearances were usually preceded with derisive terms related to the faith. Oh, it was done with scholarly finesse, but in my opinion Crusades seemed to have little relationship to real history of the Catholic Church's undertaking in the Crusades.

JoeT

[paraclete]

Le Oh, it was done with scholarly finesse, but in my opinion Crusades seemed to have little relationship to real history of the Catholic Church’s undertaking in the Crusades.

JoeT

Have it your way Joe I didn't expect it to be otherwise but remember the victors always get to rewrite history to show themselves in a favourable light, whether that is the church or anyoneelse

[JoeT777]

Have it your way Joe

Ok, that works for me.

[belovedgift]

Your second reference was from James,called a brother of Christ,not Christ himself. Any who, one sure way to tell a believer from a christianite,ask if the person has eternal life,if the answere is yes believer!!