Pope and heresy

[rkwright]

Wheres the lie in what I said? Not all crusades were good. The 4th killed many christians and furthered the schism between the East and West (and some eastern orthodox I know are not letting that go anytime soon)

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

that wasn't the result of the Church or the Pope but a greedy venetian merchant. you obviously don't understand the primary goal of the crusades. nor why they were carried out. Yes some bad stuff happened. People make mistakes but the overall idea and practice carried out during the crusades was a good one.

here read this:

[url="http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm"]http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm[/url]

[rkwright]

have you read that article??? It hardly puts the Crusades in a good light.

The crusades were well intentioned, and maybe carried out by some people who really believed in those intentions.

But regardless of what the intentions were, the results were bad, even your author says so.

From a military perspective, utter failure. The author points out 2 goals of the crusades,
1- Save the eastern Christians
2- Recapture the Holy Land

Both failed. And the first goal was so badly botched it furthered the schism into something the author says even JPII has been able to do little to fix.

The only crusade that I would consider a sucess is really the 1st one. The author shows how the 2nd in his words failed miserably. The 3rd seems to have mixed results, King Richard did ok but never really captured jerusalem. The 4th, as I showed was a terrible blunder that totally defeated the crusades purpose. The author notes how the 5th or other crusades did little better.

Intentions good, but crusades in actuality were a bloody mess. Vietnam had good intentions also, but execution was poor (due to many factors). Intentions are only 1/2 the story.

Edited February 3, 2006 by rkwright

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Feb 2 2006, 07:52 PM']the crusades were not about Killing Christians. In fact the atrocities of the fourt crusade were no good. Pope Inocent III exommunicated all praticipants in that. But thats not what the crusades were about. they were about a holy pilgramige to Jerusalem to rescuse the Holy City from Moslems.
[right][snapback]873855[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is true.....

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Feb 2 2006, 07:45 PM']would you agree that Liberals bash the Crusades?

I would say so. I have a lot of contact with liberals.
[right][snapback]873844[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I wouldnt know that. I dont associate with them, except on phatmass.

...Well, I know a few, but the crusades never came into our conversations.

[qfnol31]

The crusades were for a good reason, but at least the fourth got a little outta hand. There wasn't any reason to sack Constantinople, and actually the Orthodox have gotten pretty upset about this...it helped lead to the destruction of Byzantium.

[Ora et Labora]

It seems even good things have bad moments...

[JoeB]

Let's not forget the Children's Crusade.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='JoeB' date='Feb 8 2006, 02:34 AM']Let's not forget the Children's Crusade.
[right][snapback]879957[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
...but they looked so cute in those little suits of armor.

Although, reading some of these threads, it feels as is if we've got a couple of "Stephen of Cloyes" in the group.

[Ora et Labora]

What is that?? "Stephen of Cloyes?"

[bx_racer]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 1 2006, 10:27 PM']You're mixing up a few different things....

The Pope can only teaching infallibly when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals.  This has only happened twice (I'm pretty sure on this... though someone may correct me) and these statements are infallible, without error.

The Pope can have other teachings, that are not considered infallible teachings.  These teachings or opinions can have fallacy and are not free from error.  Even if the Pope were to hold to some opinion that was in error, we don't have the authority to call him a heretic, and would continue to follow him.  Thats what the cannon laws are talking about. 

At least thats how I understand it, though I'm waiting for one of those Church scholars to jump on it.
[right][snapback]872698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hmm so the cc is fallible?

[bx_racer]

[quote name='JoeB' date='Feb 7 2006, 11:34 PM']Let's not forget the Children's Crusade.
[right][snapback]879957[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

definitely

[Donna]

...if the earth is not the center of the universe, why can't I feel it move in the 24hours of a day.

Why do we say "sun's going down"?

Sunrise, sunset.

...now back to your topic

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Feb 8 2006, 04:50 PM']What is that?? "Stephen of Cloyes?"
[right][snapback]880766[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Don't you mean 'who'?

He was the one who led the children's crusade. I think he was either 12 or 14.

[rkwright]

[quote name='bx_racer' date='Feb 9 2006, 10:47 PM']hmm so the cc is fallible?
[right][snapback]882546[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It depends on what exactly we're talking about here. I think its better to look at each teaching and determine infalliblity vs fallible teachings. To make a broad statement like 'the cc is fallible' or 'the cc is infallible' would be both incorrect. The Church and its leaders can hold opinions that are fallible (ie the Sun revolves around the Earth type deal) but it does also set out infallible teachings which are free from error (from the ecumenical Councils and infallible teachings of the Pope)