Crucinatia Theologia: Crusader Theology

[Fidei Defensor]

In the year 1095 A.D. Pope Urban II offered a plenary indulgence for total remission of all sins for those who took the cross and fought the Turk in Palestine. The indulgence was long in the making, Urbam’s predecessor Gregory VII had dreamed of sanctioned violence for the warrior class of Europe, but the reality of a holy war was beyond his wildest ambitions. 

The Crusader Indulgence, a term more for our benefit than the posterity of history. The terms Crusade and Crusader would not exist until 17th Century, five hundred years after the fall of the last crusader stronghold in 1291 A,D.. The Crusader would have known themselves by the term pelegrin (pilgrim), milites christi (soldiers of Christ) and Crucinatius or Crucinatia (one signed with the cross). 

The holy wars and the Crusader Kingdoms would last two hundred years. What kept nobles, Knights, peasants and Kings obsessed with this foreign outpost in a hostile Islamic and Byzantine Pangaea? To understand what compelled people to caste aside their titles, lands, homes, gold and eve lives for the Crusade, we must delve into mind of the warrior. The knightly caste served the king and church with the sword; their occupation was murder. For the church this was unsettlingly because God forbid murder, “Thou shalt not murder.” Abbot Cluny devised a moral code for these warriors called Chivalry which helped guide knights to virtue and the defense of holy mother church: The Problem is the warrior class was doomed to purgatory or worse for their profession. Enter Pope Gregory VII, who envisaged an indulgence to help the knight attain paradise through just war. Basing theories on Augustine of Hippo’s extrapolations of Cicero, Gregory had found a kernel that might save the knight, but alas it would have to wait tell Pontifcate of Urban II for this to grow into the full Crusader indulgence. 

Urban had been a monk prior to becoming pope, and monkery was the surest way to heaven in the Middle Ages. The problem was kingdoms and the Church needed defenders, warriors and because they profession was bloodshed they were denied Salavation. Urban found a loophole, in his studies of just war he found sanctioned violence, a concept that God would bless violence if it destroyed the enemies of the saints and protected his church. Urban extrapolated this further and decided “why not make a plenary indulgence where if a knight or men at arms fights against the infidel they if they should perish in conbat attain full remission of sins and enter paradise, and if they prevail have all the sins in their life time whipped out (no purgatory.” 

If this sounds familiar, that would be due to the fact that Islam teaches the same concept as Jihad Akbar, and promised all Mujahideen paradise if they die in cause of holy war (Surah 9:111). In fact, there is evidence the Q’uran was translated and placed in monasteries in as early as the 6th Century. Did the Crusader indulgence evolve from Jihad Akbar or was it simultaneous and parallel development in Christianity and Islam that had the warrior classes become forefront of theological experiment? 

[Fidei Defensor]

One Crusader I respect said this when offered the kingship of Jerusalem, “Raymond was offered the crown of the new Kingdom of Jerusalem, but refused, as he was reluctant to rule in the city in which Jesus had suffered. He said that he shuddered to think of being called "King of Jerusalem".(Wikipedia)

[DignifiedResponse]

17 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

In the year 1095 A.D. Pope Urban II offered a plenary indulgence for total remission of all sins for those who took the cross and fought the Turk in Palestine.

Neither Urban II (Otho), nor any other has any such authority, nor power to 'offer' a 'plenary indulgence', let alone a limited 'indulgence'.

17 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

milites christi (soldiers of Christ) and Crucinatius or Crucinatia (one signed with the cross). 

That was the wrong 'cross' to take up.  They should have taken up this cross, Luk. 9:23.

Serving Christ, is never about 'wearing' a cross, but in 'taking up his cross' and following Christ's life as He demonstrated it.

17 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

The knightly caste served the king and church with the sword; their occupation was murder. For the church this was unsettlingly because God forbid murder, “Thou shalt not murder.”

Which 'church' are you referring to?

Jesus surely does say,'Thou shalt do not murder.', citing Ex. 20:13.

17 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Abbot Cluny devised a moral code for these warriors called Chivalry which helped guide knights to virtue and the defense of holy mother church

He should have read the Holy scriptures instead and implemented the word therein.

I do not recognize 'holy mother the church' as such, if you refer to the Papacy.  For if so, the word 'holy' as seen in scripture, is far from being an adjective or reality of that system.  Do not take too much offense, I speak from an historical and scriptural position.

17 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

The Problem is the warrior class was doomed to purgatory or worse for their profession.

'Purgatory' doesn't exist, even if they believed in it, but is an erroneous (unscriptural) doctrine that has led to many problems.

17 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

through just war

A very Papal doctrine.  They have taken up Augustine's theology of 'two swords'.

Christ Jesus taught otherwise in Mat. 26:52; Jhn. 18:11.  The body of Christ Jesus has no business with the sword of the state (Rom. 13:1-7; Rev. 13:10) in its hands, or directing it (as they so say).

They should have relied upon God, repented of their many sins, and God would have delivered in a mighty manner, as done in several examples in scripture, see the Exodus for a primary one.

Therefore, the 'indulgence' was an error, added to an 'error' (purgatory), which led to a further error ('crusade'), and now to a further error of justfying each, instead of repenting from each and acknowledging error and confessing and forsaking it.

17 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

If this sounds familiar, that would be due to the fact that Islam teaches the same concept as Jihad Akbar

Basically true.  Islam is the more recent theology, and thus borrowed its theology from those around it, including the Papal doctrines.

17 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Did the Crusader indulgence evolve from Jihad Akbar or was it simultaneous and parallel development in Christianity and Islam that had the warrior classes become forefront of theological experiment? 

Easy to determine.  Consider that the Papal existence was before the Islamic doctrine.

[Fidei Defensor]

2 hours ago, DignifiedResponse said:

Neither Urban II (Otho), nor any other has any such authority, nor power to 'offer' a 'plenary indulgence', let alone a limited 'indulgence'.

That was the wrong 'cross' to take up.  They should have taken up this cross, Luk. 9:23.

Serving Christ, is never about 'wearing' a cross, but in 'taking up his cross' and following Christ's life as He demonstrated it.

Which 'church' are you referring to?

Jesus surely does say,'Thou shalt do not murder.', citing Ex. 20:13.

He should have read the Holy scriptures instead and implemented the word therein.

I do not recognize 'holy mother the church' as such, if you refer to the Papacy.  For if so, the word 'holy' as seen in scripture, is far from being an adjective or reality of that system.  Do not take too much offense, I speak from an historical and scriptural position.

'Purgatory' doesn't exist, even if they believed in it, but is an erroneous (unscriptural) doctrine that has led to many problems.

A very Papal doctrine.  They have taken up Augustine's theology of 'two swords'.

Christ Jesus taught otherwise in Mat. 26:52; Jhn. 18:11.  The body of Christ Jesus has no business with the sword of the state (Rom. 13:1-7; Rev. 13:10) in its hands, or directing it (as they so say).

They should have relied upon God, repented of their many sins, and God would have delivered in a mighty manner, as done in several examples in scripture, see the Exodus for a primary one.

Therefore, the 'indulgence' was an error, added to an 'error' (purgatory), which led to a further error ('crusade'), and now to a further error of justfying each, instead of repenting from each and acknowledging error and confessing and forsaking it.

Basically true.  Islam is the more recent theology, and thus borrowed its theology from those around it, including the Papal doctrines.

Easy to determine.  Consider that the Papal existence was before the Islamic doctrine.

The church in all cases in this thread is the RCC or Roman Catholic Church unless otherwise described. 

Ths list you contend with Scripture is merely me summarizing what the RCC and average Crusader believe from 1095-1291 A.D.  I do welcome your repositae to these medieval views and piety; let me be clear that I do not hold the Crusader views I am merely articulating them for discussion purposes. 

The Quran was translated and placed in monasteries in Europe in 7th Century by a monk. Monks read it and Other Writings like Aristotle as much and more than Holy Scripture. In fact, much error and harm comes from old philosophers. Aristotle taught there is substance and relationship, and he believed substance was greater than relationship. A substance was a tree, water, organs, and etc, while relationship was Father, Son and etc. Aristole teaching is counter Scriptural and antotrinitarian. God Himself is described in relationship, “Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20):  The Godhead Holy Trinity has relationship: Father and Son (John 10:30) and Holy Spirit (John 20:20-22). 

God The Trinity is described via relationship which is what Aristotle thought secondary to substance. Thus there was grave problems at the onset as the Roman Catholic Church adopted Aristolean views which Augustine of Hippo supported. You then get a church (RCC) that favors substance or matter rather than relationships; doing deeds that create substance take primacy over relationships and so we can see Aristotle not only helped shape the RCC, but the very ideology that would make Crusading and ofs theology work; substance, Kingdom, stone castles, instead of relationship with Jesus and one another (Matthew 22:36-41). 

[DignifiedResponse]

32 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

The church in all cases in this thread is the RCC or Roman Catholic Church unless otherwise described. 

Ok.  Are you a Roman Catholic member?

35 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

you contend with Scripture is merely me summarizing what the RCC and average Crusader believe from 1095-1291 A.D.

I understand.  I am simply pointing out that what they believed was, and still is, in error, which helped them to do what they did, even as the beliefs of the turks, brought them to do what the turks did.

38 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

let me be clear that I do not hold the Crusader views I am merely articulating them for discussion purposes.

Do you believe in the 'just war' theology, as Roman Catholicism defines it?  Would you support another crusade today as many desire to advocate?

[Fidei Defensor]

18 minutes ago, DignifiedResponse said:

Ok.  Are you a Roman Catholic member?

I understand.  I am simply pointing out that what they believed was, and still is, in error, which helped them to do what they did, even as the beliefs of the turks, brought them to do what the turks did.

Do you believe in the 'just war' theology, as Roman Catholicism defines it?  Would you support another crusade today as many desire to advocate?

I am not Roman Catholic. I am Protestant Solae Scriptura. 

I am glad you are engaging with the subject matter and making your case for the errors in Crusader Theology: this thread is open to debate. 

Do I believe in Just War? Honestly I am formulating my views on war. On one hand I deplore violence, that God’s images (Genesis 1:26)  are cutting each other to pieces. On the other hand I do see the need to defend, and do not shame our military who protects our rights while they last. 

Would I support a Crusade? No. Absolutely no. 

Whether it was simply a war with some religious pomp or full Crusader indulgence war on level of the First to Seventh Crusades, a Crusade is a violation and presents God The Trinity in a Baal light which he hates, “It will come about in that day," declares the LORD, "That you will call Me Ishi (husband) And will no longer call Me Baali.” (Hosea 2:16). 

The only true just war will be when Jesus Christ comes on the clouds and wages war against the nations, “Then I saw heaven opened, and a white horse was standing there. Its rider was named Faithful and True, for he judges fairly and wages a righteous war. 12 His eyes were like flames of fire, and on his head were many crowns. A name was written on him that no one understood except himself.13 He wore a robe dipped in blood, and his title was the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven, dressed in the finest of pure white linen, followed him on white horses. 15 From his mouth came a sharp sword to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod. He will release the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty, like juice flowing from a winepress. 16 On his robe at his thigh[a] was written this title: King of all kings and Lord of all lords.” (Revelation 19:11-16). That war will be intitated and led by Jesus, not by men claiming to do it in name of God. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Fidei Defensor

[DignifiedResponse]

59 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

I am not Roman Catholic.

Ok.

59 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

I am Protestant Solae Scriptura.

Ok.

So you would agree with the statement that the Bible is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice?

59 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

I am glad you are engaging with the subject matter and making your case for the errors in Crusader Theology: this thread is open to debate.

Oh sure.  I just want to make sure I did not misunderstand your position in the OP.

59 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Do I believe in Just War? Honestly I am formulating my views on war.

Fair enough.  I would recommend looking at Rev. 12, and the original war there, also mentioned (as continued unto the end) in Dan. 9:26 and elsewhere.

59 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

On one hand I deplore violence, that God’s images (Genesis 1:26)  are cutting each other to pieces.

Like Cain and Abel.  The first human 'war' and persecution.

59 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

On the other hand I do see the need to defend

Maybe we should take a look at this (defend) in scripture.

59 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Would I support a Crusade? No. Absolutely no.

Good to hear.  One is coming, soon.  Cain and Abel is to be re-played out on a global scale.

59 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Whether it was simply a war with some religious pomp or full Crusader indulgence war on level of the First to Seventh Crusades, a Crusade is a violation and presents God

Rev. 13 & 17., among other places, speaks of such a religious war, where those claiming to worship the Lamb, persecute those who really are worshipping the Lamb, as Jhn. 16:2 shows in two ways.

59 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

The only true just war will be when Jesus Christ comes on the clouds and wages war against the nations (Rev. 19:11-16 cited) That war will be intitated and led by Jesus, not by men claiming to do it in name of God.

Yes, Jesus will come with millions of angels and 'execute' judgment, Jud. 1:14-15.

Edited August 21, 2018 by DignifiedResponse

[Fidei Defensor]

28 minutes ago, DignifiedResponse said:

Ok.

Ok.

So you would agree with the statement that the Bible is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice?

Oh sure.  I just want to make sure I did not misunderstand your position in the OP.

Fair enough.  I would recommend looking at Rev. 12, and the original war there, also mentioned (as continued unto the end) in Dan. 9:26 and elsewhere.

Like Cain and Abel.  The first human 'war' and persecution.

Maybe we should take a look at this (defend) in scripture.

Good to hear.  One is coming, soon.  Cain and Abel is to be re-played out on a global scale.

Rev. 13 & 17., among other places, speaks of such a religious war, where those claiming to worship the Lamb, persecute those who really are worshipping the Lamb, as Jhn. 16:2 shows in two ways.

Yes, Jesus will come with millions of angels and 'execute' judgment, Jud. 1:14-15.

Aye. Solae Scriptura means you base all theology, doxology (doctrine), teaching and beyond on what the Holy Bible states and you test all sound docfije with Scripture (1 John 4:1-3). I believe the Scriptures are God breathed, “All Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness..” (2 Timothy 3:16) and come from God, “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21). 

[Fidei Defensor]

Crusader Theology is evidently flawed. The idea that a knight or men at arms could earn salvation by works is folly (Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 15:11, Galarians 2:11, Galatians 5:4, Phillipians 3:9, John 6:40, Romans 10:9-10). 

The question is what happens to the Crusader? Are they as an individual condemned for their faulty theology or is the Pope, crusading preachers like Bernard of Clarvaux, and Medieval Church accountable for leading people astray? 

Is the teacher or the taught or both held accountable for error?