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.

Really? You want to do this now?

Why not? It's a legitimate point.

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.

Rome was not the leadership of Christ's Church. The Church had a congregation in Rome and Linus was a Bishop over that congregation. You're confusing today's definition of the Catholic church with the Christ's church organization. They no way close to being the same thing.

Bishops in the original church were responsible for their local congregations. And that was Linus' responsibility.

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.

Again, Rome had a congregation. It was not the head of the Church. It wasn't the "Roman church", it was the congregation in Rome.

Neither had any notion that the leaders who followed Peter “were not of God” of Christ’s Real Church as you claim.

The Catholic church retrofitted those titles and positions in order to claim legitimacy. There was a Bishop in Ephesus and Corinth, etc... They were the leaders in there respective locations.

However, the leadership of the whole of Christ's Church remained with a Prophet who held the position of an Apostle. And that was John.

Linus could not be the leader of the Church because John was alive. And God proved that by speaking to John face to face.

Linus lead an apostasy movement that became the Catholic church. You are seeing the results today. That's why God doesn't and hasn't ever spoken to a Pope face to face.

[Stormprepper]Linus lead an apostasy movement that became the Catholic church.

[Claud]Bull. You find me one ancient historical source that says that.

A logical fallacy on so many levels. You're asking me to go back in history and find a document that was, for millennia, controlled by the Catholic Church that states that the Catholic Church is an "apostasy movement". mmm k

All anyone, that is actually seeking truth, has to do is compare the actions of the Catholic Church through history, with the instructions and teachings of Christ and His Apostles. No where did Christ tell His Church to burn people at the stake or start wars in His name, just to name a few differences.

What I said earlier is all true. The Apostles were given authority under the hand of Christ Himself to lead His people. While the Catholic Church claims that Linus was the head of the Church, John, a living Apostle was still on the earth. And was talking to God face to face.

Therefore, Linus could not have been the head of the Church. Nor was Linus an Apostle. Nor have there been any Apostles in the Catholic Church. Nor prophets for that matter.

God's pattern from Adam and all through human history has been to raise up prophets and speak to them face to face to remove any confusion. The prophet then relays the message to the people.

Rev 11 is very clear that there are prophets in the last days. Again there are no prophets in the Catholic Church. That tells me that the Catholic Church cannot be Christ's true Church.

A logical fallacy to demand historical evidence of a historical assertion?

That’s not how this works my friend. You don’t get to invent your own history because you don’t like the sources we have. If you don’t like what Eusebius, or Irenaeus, or anyone else wrote, then show me how and where they were wrong.

And competent historians know how to pull out the opposition’s arguments from the Catholic sources. When Origen wrote “Against Celsus”, he cited many of Celsus’s arguments. Augustine’s works are full of Manichean beliefs that he refuted.

A logical fallacy to demand historical evidence of a historical assertion?

It's a logical fallacy to appeal to authority. Not too mention a red herring and a straw man.

I don't need a historical source to give authority to an already well established timeline of historical events.

The time frame of the book of Revelation as written by John is known. The time of Linus and Clement are also known. I don't need a historical source to over lap the two.

Nor am I obligated to find a Catholic source proclaiming the Catholic Church being apostate. Unless you count Martin Luther...

I can however, look at documented historical events involving the Catholic church and evaluate those events as compared to the teachings of Jesus Christ on my own. Such events like the Spanish Armada, which was an attempt by the Catholic Church to win back England from the protestants by way of war. This event is not in dispute. And completely contrary to the commandments of God as given by Jesus Christ Himself.

I look at the writings of Paul, where he explicitly says that in the last days there would be false churches teaching the doctrines of the devil. Paul saw this in vision and stated that a sign would be that they forbid to marry. Being these are the last days, the very time Paul saw in vision, which of all the churches have any laws forbidding marriage? The Catholic church forbids every member of it's leadership from marrying. There's no one else Paul could have seen in that vision. That certainly doesn't describe my Church.

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.