[Salvation]

Video

[Salvation]

Monsignor Pope Ping!

[Texas Eagle]

Seldom are historical events identical to present realities.

Au contraire, mon Friar.

It is written somewhere that there is nothing new under the sun.

It escapes my mind right now where I read that. I'll do a Bing search and get back to you.

[Biggirl]

Saw the whole video and it was like making a pilgrimage, but you do not leave home.

[cuban leaf]

Some more good info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

[stars & stripes forever]

William Federer (American historian) has been exposing the history of the Muslim Religion.

American Minute for February 16th:

“The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco,” stated President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009.

Morocco began recognizing American colonists in 1625, as Governor William Bradford wrote of the fates of a Pilgrim ship sent back to England carrying dried fish and 800 lbs of beaver skins to trade for supplies:

“They...were well within the England channel, almost in sight of Plymouth. But...there she was unhapply taken by a Turkish man-
of-war and carried off to Morocco where the captain and crew were made slaves.”

Muslim pirates of Morocco raided European coasts and carried away over a million to the North African slave markets, where also tens of millions of Africans were sold into slavery.

In 1627, Algerian Muslim pirates, led by Murat Reis the Younger, raided Iceland, and carried 400 into slavery.

One captured girl, who had been made a slave concubine in Algeria, was rescued back by King Christian IV of Denmark.

On June 20, 1631, the entire village of Baltimore, Ireland, “The Stolen Village,” was captured by Muslim pirates. Only two ever returned.... excerpt

http://americanminute.com/

[GreyFriar]

Thank you for this post and the Monsignor giving a historically accurate report on the origin of the Crusades. I remember learning in my public high school world history class that the Crusades were to reclaim the Holy Land after it had been taken by the Moslems. Of course that was back in 1962, before the leftists took over the school systems.

[annalex]

plunder was commonly permitted in ancient times

At the end of World War II the Soviets took German industries wholesale and moved them to the USSR, and the Western Allies did not seem to disapprove. That was hardly "ancient time".

[redleghunter]

Recent and persistent attacks by radical Muslims, especially the most recent beheadings of 21 Egyptian Christians, have many asking what can or should be done to end such atrocities. Military actions by numerous countries, including our own, are already underway. Most feel quite justified in these actions and many are calling for more concerted efforts to eliminate ISIS and related zealots who seem to know no pity, no reason, and no limits. I do not write here to opine on the need for or limits on military action. I only point to the “just war” teaching of the Church as a guide for such actions. Obviously, there is a clear and present threat that needs to be repulsed, even with force.

I am one who believes the initial crusades were one of defense. An ally (Byzantium) called the West for help and we went. As the crusades lingered on they became the passions of men of power, land, holdings. That along with sacking our allies in the course of fighting the Muslims put us out of being the 'good guys.' Eventually, we, the West got drawn into city-state kingdom fights over land while the Byzantine empire continued to crumble. Our interior lines of supply and communication were fragile from the beginning, where the Muslims had two main sources of interior lines to bring weapons, men and supplies. The strategy should have been to defend within our interior lines until the Muslims fought over scraps in Palestine, Egypt and other places. Then as reconstituted with a more steady interior lines take the fight to the disparate Muslim factions. So yes, the crusades, IMO, were justified to fight off the Muslim hoards. But again, human ambition got in the way of doing it strategically.

The other piece I would opine on is that the position of the Pope in the West should have been more pastoral then 'kingly.' Understanding the political power and construct of Europe at the time, the Pope was a unifying factor. Only Urban II could be a unifying factor for warring/competing kings. However, as Christians we do not have the authority to call wars, or call men to arms. We can counsel them that there is a great evil that should be dealt with. However, it should have been the kings of Western Europe convening unified to call the crusades not in the Name of Christ but as a defense of their nation-states...which just happened to be Christian. Akin to a US congress declaring war in WWII with a majority of them being Christian.

God gave the sword to government to deal with criminals like ISIS and the Muslims invading Byzantium. For Christians He gave us the Gospel and for bishops/elders he gave the command to shepherd His called out ones with love and kindness.

So yes, ISIS must be dealt with. But not as a Christian holy war. We should pray for our leaders to make wise and just decisions.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— Muslims had been attacking Christians for more than 450 years before Pope Urban declared the First Crusade. -—

Fair and balanced history. The great tragedy of the Crusades was the sack of Constantinople.

I’ve been here long enough to see the Freeper assessment of the Crusades reversed.

Once people view the Inquisition as an aspect of the Crusades, and learn the facts regarding its prosecution, Freeper opinion may change there as well.

[Dick Bachert]

[NorthMountain]

“Recall how many died in the 20th century for secular ideological reasons.” English historian Paul Johnson, in his book Modern Times, places the number at 1oo million.

The late Prof. R. J. Rummel made a career of studying and documenting government mass murder.