POPE FRANCIS CONDEMNS EUROPE’S ANCIENT WALLS AGAINST ISLAM

Pope Francis continues to argue for two interrelated points that, while seemingly humane, compromise Western nations and expose their citizens to danger.

He reiterated his first point earlier this month when he said, “I appeal not to create walls but to build bridges.” Francis has made this appeal frequently, both figuratively (when imploring Western nations not to close their doors against more incoming Muslim migrants), and literally—including by characterizing Donald Trump’s proposal to build a U.S.-Mexico wall as “not Christian.”

Francis reiterated his second point a few days ago when he said, “Muslim terrorism does not exist.” His logic is that, because there are Christians who engage in criminal and violent activities—and yet no one blames Christianity for their behavior—so too should Islam not be blamed when Muslims engage in criminal and violent activities.

In this, the Catholic pope appears unable or unwilling to make the pivotal distinction between violence committed in accordance with religious teachings (Islam) and violence committed in contradiction of religious teachings (Christianity).

But there’s another relevant and often overlooked irony: every morning Francis wakes up in the Vatican and looks out his window, he sees a very large and visible reminder that gives the lie to both his argument against walls and his argument in defense of Islam. I speak of the great walls surrounding Vatican City, more specifically the Leonine Walls.

Context: A couple of years after Islamic prophet Muhammad died in 632, his followers erupted out of Arabia and conquered the surrounding lands of non-Muslims in the name of Islamic jihad. In a few decades, they had conquered two-thirds of what was in the 7^th century Christendom. They took all of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain, until they were finally stopped at Tours in central France (732). By the late 9^th century, jihadi incursions had transformed the Mediterranean into a Muslim lake; the major islands—Sicily, Crete, Rhodes, Malta, Cyprus—were conquered, and the European coast was habitually raided for booty and slaves.

According to the most authoritative and contemporary Muslim chronicles—those of al-Waqidi, al-Baladhuri, al-Tabari, al-Maqrizi, etc.—all this was done because Islam calls on its followers to conquer the lands of “infidels.”

It was in this context that, in 846, Muslim fleets from North Africa landed near Rome. Unable to breach the walls of the Eternal City, they sacked and despoiled the surrounding countryside, including—to the consternation of Christendom—the venerated and centuries-old basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Muslim invaders intentionally desecrated the tombs of the revered apostles and stripped them of their treasures, including a large golden cross. Pope Leo IV (847-855) responded by building large walls and fortifications along the right bank of the Tiber to protect the sacred sites from further Muslim raids. Completed by 852, the walls were in most places 40 feet high and 12 feet thick.

Further anticipating the crusades against Islam by over two centuries—and thus showing how they were a long time coming—Pope Leo decreed that any Christian who died fighting Muslim invaders would gain heaven. After him and for the same reasons, Pope John VIII offered remission of sins for those who died fighting Islamic invaders. Such was the existential and ongoing danger Muslims caused for Christian Europe—more than two centuries before Pope Urban’s call for the First Crusade in 1095.

Today, many Muslims, not just of the ISIS-variety, continue to boast that Islam will conquer Rome, the only of five apostolic sees—the other four being Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople—never to have been subjugated by jihad. Similarly, Muslims all throughout Europe continue exhibiting the same hostility and contempt for all things and persons non-Islamic, whether by going on church vandalizing sprees and breaking crosses, or by treating “infidel” women as theirs by right for sex and rape.

In short, Pope Leo’s walls prove Pope Francis wrong on both counts: yes, walls are sometimes necessary to preserve civilization; and yes, Islam does promote violence and intolerance for the other—far more than any other religion. This fact is easily discerned by examining the past and present words and deeds of Muslims, all of which evince a remarkable and unwavering continuity of violence for “infidels.”

More ironically, had it not been for Pope Leo’s walls—and so many other Christian walls, such as Constantinople’s, which kept Islam out of Europe for centuries, and Vienna’s, which stopped a full-blown jihad as recent as 1683—there might not be a pope today to pontificate about how terrible walls are and how misunderstood Islam is. And when Francis accuses those who want to protect their people by building walls of not being Christian, as he did of Trump, he essentially accuses his betters—men like Pope Leo IV, who did so much to protect and preserve Christendom at a time when Islam seemed to be swallowing up the world—of being no Christians at all.

Seriously. Imagine how shocking it is from the inside!

But I’m confident orthodoxy will eventually triumph....if we believed Christ’s Church could be destroyed by a bad Pope, we couldn’t really call ourselves Catholic anymore.

Demographically, as well, this seems to be the last gasp of liberalism in the Church. Its adherents are entrenched, yes, and very powerful, but also old and dying. There are no hordes of young, liberal Catholics to succeed them

All the young scrappy fighting spirit now is in the traditionalist camp. Francis, like Obama, is provoking a huge backlash.

.if we believed Christ’s Church could be destroyed by a bad Pope, we couldn’t really call ourselves Catholic anymore.

Unless of course, it was never Christ's real Church.

Then it's prophesy fulfilled.
Acts 5:
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

When the people chose Linus I to lead their "Church" after the death of Peter, God went and spoke face to face with His real authority on the earth, John. God never spoke to Linus, nor has He ever spoken to any Pope.

Linus I couldn't have been the real leader of the Church, because John, an apostle, chosen and authorized by God Himself was still alive on the earth. Again, God backed that up by going and speaking to John face to face. Linus had no authority from God, never did.

This is why there have never been any prophets in the Catholic Church. Even though Rev 11 clearly states there will be prophets in the last days. They aren't Catholic.

Really? You want to do this now?

What are you talking about the “people chose Linus”?? The very oldest source we have (Irenaeus, ca. 160-180) says that the Apostle Peter personally appointed Linus, Cletus, and Clement over the Roman Church. Clement who, by the way, may well be the Clement mentioned by Paul, and who in any case was written to by the Church in Ephesus to settle a conflict while the apostle John was perhaps still alive—interesting in itself.

Also, two Eastern bishops: Polycarp, who sat at the feet of St. John, and Ignatius who likely did as well, both went to Rome, and both spoke in glowing terms about the Roman Church. Neither had any notion that the leaders who followed Peter “were not of God” of Christ’s Real Church as you claim.

I dunno where your got your church history from, but you’ve been fed a lot of bad information.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.