The Official Bishop Helmsing Institute Blog

Myths About the Crusades, Part 2

2012-01-20T09:43:41-06:00

In part one of this series I discussed two common myths about the Crusades - that the crusades were unprovoked wars of Christian aggression, and that they were waged by unprincipled greedy men who used religion as a pretext to kill, conquer, and steal from Muslims. Those are, however, far from the only myths concerning the crusades. Some myths actually incorporate very modern political understandings of the world which have nothing to do with the Middle Ages. Take, for instance, the following:

Myth # 3: The Crusades were really wars of European colonialism.

Clearly this myth is anachronistic . Was there even something we could call ‘Europe’ through much of the Middle Ages? Oh, certainly there was a Christendom, and that Christendom did in fact incorporate all of modern Western Europe as well as Central and Eastern Europe stretching into Russia and even south into the Mediterranean, but ‘Europe’ was in many respects a budding idea rather than a solidified reality. Medieval Christians living in Europe also had much different beliefs regarding race and ethnicity than did colonialists in the modern period. Racism of the kind so common among colonialists in the modern period simply had no place in the Middle Ages.

Throughout history richer, more sophisticated, more technologically advanced societies colonized those peoples and places which were far poorer, less sophisticated, and technologically backward. There are some exceptions to this rule, of course, such as when the nomadic Mongols colonized much of Asia even though they were definitely a rougher hewn lot than the peoples they conquered. These exceptions were rare. The Muslim world in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was dramatically more sophisticated, wealthier, and technologically advanced - especially in fortifications - than the Crusaders who challenged it. And since the lands in question were once Christian lands, who really were the colonialists? Wouldn't it be the Muslims themselves?

Even the very reason for the Crusades separate those wars from colonial endeavors started at a much later date. European colonists in the modern period conquered overseas territories largely to enrich themselves seizing control of resources and creating markets among native peoples. The Crusaders neither accomplished, nor apparently imagined, anything like that. The states they created were founded for the purpose of defending pilgrimage routes and holy sites. Local resources were exploited to build up local fortifications, or to support local rulers. Resources and revenues were rarely sent to Europe, and since the Crusaders themselves were essentially multinational in origin - and in fact a number of Muslim soldiers were employed for the defense of these Crusader states - there was no particular colonial master nation on which the Crusaders depended as was common in latter-day European colonialism.

Myth #4: The horrors and atrocities caused by Crusaders justify Muslim hatred of the Western world, and specifically Christians, even to this day.

This myth is one of the more oddly conceived we might encounter in regard to the Crusades. Even if the Crusaders committed innumerable atrocities in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and certainly atrocities were committed, how could any of those crimes justify hatred or violence against Westerners or Christians today? The real issue is the common misunderstanding of the Crusades, a misunderstanding held by both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Many Muslims believe a number of myths which play into similar erroneous beliefs held by modern Westerners. Muslims, for instance, commonly believe Jerusalem has a very central place in the history of Islam since it contains the third holiest place in Islam – the Al Aqsa Mosque. In reality, however, Jerusalem was often ignored by Muslims and treated as a backwater. The modern politicization of Jerusalem - through the wars between Israelis and Arabs - has given Jerusalem a central place in the Islamic world which it never held before modern times.

Likewise, the modern antipathy towards Westerners, Christianity, imperialism, colonialism, and almost every other ism around - an antipathy propagated by Westerners themselves - has created a bizarre situation in which Western readers are told not to believe their own eyes. When a Westerner reads Usama ibn Munqidh’s twelfth century autobiography, Kitab al-I'tibar, he is told to ignore the incredibly disparaging and hate filled comments against Crusaders as mere hyperbole. That same Westerner, however, is told to take at face value – rather than as hyperbole – stories of crusader atrocities so monstrous that veritable rivers of blood are said to have flowed in city streets.

In the concluding part three we will examine two more myths about the crusades.

Dr. Tim Brennan

Another journalist who doesnt get it about faith and science

2012-01-12T16:19:47-06:00

Yesterday Google celebrated a pioneer in the field of geology, Nicholas Steno, who some call the “Father of Geology” by giving him front page status with the Google Doodle of the day. As I am currently teaching three sections of Apologetics I am more in the mood to respond to ridiculous misreporting in the news than usual.

Bl. Nicholas Steno was a physician and scientist who identified the workings of the salivary gland, explained the mystery of “tongues of serpents” (fossilized shark teeth) and observed and explained how layers of rock show the passage of time (thereby providing the first principles of geological science). He was beatified by John Paul II in 1988. You can read more about him in this fairly well done article on Wikipedia.

The Los Angeles Times gives us an article on this momentous event that seriously misses the mark on fairly representing Catholicism. The writer displays a common misunderstanding of the relationship between faith and science. In her article she outlines the above scientific achievements of Steno and then (shaking her head in astonishment) writes:

“After making such scientific observations -- at the time underappreciated -- Steno got religion. He became Roman Catholic in 1667 and tossed aside science. In 1675, he became a priest and in 1677 a bishop.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/nicolas-steno-geology-pioneer-and-myth-buster-gets-google-doodle.html

Of course in order to have become a Catholic priest Steno must have set aside his scientific convictions. He could not possibly have held to such scientific views once becoming a Catholic and then worse yet a priest and bishop. This is the “company line” at the LA Times so it must be true.

Several factual errors beg to be identified and refuted.

First, he didn’t “get religion” in 1667. He was raised Lutheran and encountered thinking Catholics (many of whom were scientists) while studying in Florence. Thus began a search for truth. While wrestling with his difficulties with Lutheranism he then became interested in the Catholic Church’s claim to be the Church founded by Christ. So he was already a man of faith when he became Catholic.

Second, he didn’t leave science behind when he embraced Rome. He read the Church Fathers and found that Catholicism not only won out in the area of continuity with the Early Church but it also was more compatible with his scientific views. Bl. Nicholas Steno, rather than being a good example of the supposed conflict between faith and science, serves as a perfect example of the total compatibility of them. He became a Catholic precisely because Catholicism is not just compatible with the work of science, but was, and arguably still is, its greatest patron.

Finally, as a Catholic priest and then bishop he never denounced his scientific discoveries nor made any pronouncements that rejected his own scientific work or even science in general. He simply was not ashamed of this part of his life. He only lived 11 years after his priestly ordination and spent 9 of them as a bishop working in Protestant territories as a leader of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. It is true that he was now too busy as a bishop to engage in regular scientific inquiry, but this hardly makes him an opponent of science.

In the Wikipedia article on Steno they report: “In 1683, Steno resigned as auxiliary bishop after an argument about the election of the new bishop, Maximilian Henry of Bavaria and moved in 1684 to Hamburg. There Steno became involved again in the study of the brain and the nerve system with an old friend Dirck Kerckring.” Oh, I see, he was doing brain research because he left science behind when he became a Catholic. Why couldn’t I figure that out? I’m glad I have the LA Times around to help me read between the lines. I’m sorry, please pardon the sarcasm.

A word of advice to the writers at the LA Times, perhaps you should start reading Wikipedia for some much needed balance and information before reporting on people of faith like Nicholas Steno.

Dino Durando, BHI Instructor

Hmm, What do you think?

2012-01-12T16:15:55-06:00

Here is a picture of the new baptismal font at the Sistine Chapel courtesy of http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

Yes that is a baptismal font! Rorate Caeli says;

A metal globe on a metal olive tree lookalike on a rock shipped from the river Jordan. It was designed by Father Salvatore Vitiello, professor at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart and at the Lateran University, and head of the M.A. program in "Architecture, Sacred Art, and Liturgy" of the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum.

posted by Scott McKellar

Understanding the New Translation of the Mass (4)

2012-01-06T11:28:54-06:00

The Concluding Rite

The final part of the Mass, the Concluding Rite, exists to provide the faithful an opportunity to reflect upon the mystery they have just participated in and to prepare them to carry the love of Christ into the world. The words for the prayer after communion and the final prayer over the people or solemn blessing are both newly translated. The dialogue between the priest and people is the same as elsewhere in the Mass when the people respond: “And with your spirit.” The dismissal includes four new options prayed by the deacon (or priest if no deacon is present). All four phrases begin with the word “Go” to indicate forcefully the meaning of the word Mass which literally means “sent out.” Two examples: “Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord” and “Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life.”

Dino Durando, BHI Instructor

Understanding the New Translation of the Mass (3)

2011-12-20T21:21:31-06:00

The Communion Rite

During the Communion Rite those who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion may do so. The most significant change in the new English translation of the Communion Rite is the dialogue following the Agnus Dei or Lamb of God. The priest says, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.” The people respond, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” Notice the greater emphasis on biblical language in both parts; the words of John the Baptist at Jesus’ baptism ‘the Lamb who takes away sin’, Holy Communion described as a participation in the heavenly “supper of the Lamb” from the book of Revelation, and the direct quote of the Centurion’s words, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof,” from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Dino Durando, BHI Instructor

Myths about the Crusades, Part 1

2011-12-19T11:58:43-06:00

Recently several members of a banned British Islamic organization called Muslims against Crusaders were arrested after unruly protests outside the U.S. embassy in London. The very name of the organization - Muslims against Crusaders (MAC) – is bound to attract attention. Has anyone seen any bona fide crusaders in the last few hundred years? A cursory investigation of the group’s beliefs makes it clear that its members have bought into a series of myths often propagated as historical facts. The following myths, however, are not held by radical Muslims alone. Even Catholics sometimes mistakenly hold them:

Myth #1: The crusades were wars of unprovoked Christian aggression.

In reality the Crusades were a response to more than three centuries’ worth of Muslim aggression. By the time of Muhammad's death in the year 632, much of what would be modern-day Saudi Arabia already was brought under the black flag of Islam. After Muhammad's death, Muslim conquests accelerated at an alarming rate. Within a matter of decades all of North Africa, much of the Middle East and Central Asia, almost all of Spain, Sicily, and a number of Mediterranean islands were conquered. All of this territory, excepting Central Asia, was inhabited almost solely by Christians.

Muslim authorities imposed restrictions on the conquered Christian populations. All Christians were treated as second-class citizens - in their own countries - and were forced to pay a special tax merely because they were not Muslim. Christian pilgrims, who once freely traveled to and from the Holy Land, suddenly found their access to holy sites in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth, threatened or seriously restricted. Even the holy sites themselves were not always safe. In the year 1009, the Muslim leader who controlled Jerusalem ordered the destruction of one of the holiest of Christian places - the Church of the Holy Sepulcher - a shrine dedicated to the protection and veneration of the tomb of Christ. To add insult to injury, Christians were not only forbidden to worship at the ruined site, but were not even permitted to visit it.

After a Muslim army dealt a crushing defeat to Byzantine Christians in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, all of Asia Minor was suddenly open to Muslim conquest and the free practice of their religion was suddenly in doubt for millions of Christians. The Byzantine Emperor wasted little time in appealing to the Pope for help in raising mercenary armies. It took almost 25 years, however, for a Pope to come to the aid of Eastern Christians, and when Pope Urban II did so, it was not with a call for mercenaries, but with a call to pious men to risk their lives to free Jerusalem for the glory of God and the benefit of Christian pilgrims.

Almost completely forgotten in all of this today, is the fact that the Crusades were partly the byproduct of two great medieval peace movements fostered by the Church. The Peace of God and Truce of God movements were intended to end unnecessary violence, destruction of church property, and harm done to innocent noncombatants. Although the Catholic Church recognized the need for well-trained armed soldiers to preserve the peace and to serve their secular lords, she believed that the knights could serve a much greater purpose in defending the poor, the unarmed, and the Church herself for the glory of God. Decades later knights influenced by the peace and truce movements rallied to the cause of freeing Jerusalem from Muslim domination. Far from being wars of unprovoked aggression then, the crusades actually were responses to Muslim threats and conquests.

In part two we will examine another myth about the crusades. For more information please consider taking the four week course “The Crusades” offered by the Bishop Helmsing Institute beginning on January 11. Go to www.mybhi.org or call 816-714-2331 to register.

Understanding the New Translation of the Mass (2)

2011-12-19T11:30:23-06:00

The Creed

The words we pray in the Mass express what we believe as Catholics. Following the Prayers of the Faithful we pray the Creed. Ordinarily at Mass we say the Nicene Creed. The new translation of the Creed for Mass includes many changes. For example, the Latin original begins with the word, “Credo” which means “I believe.” We no longer say “we believe.” While it is true that we share the same belief in God with our fellow Catholics, the new translation emphasizes our personal act of faith to indicate that while we do believe within the Body of Christ, His Church, we do so as individuals who must take ownership of our own profession of faith in Jesus Christ Our Lord who is also “My Lord and my God.”

Another noticeable change in the Creed is the phrase “Creator of heaven and earth.” We no longer say “of all that is seen and unseen.” Instead we say “of all things visible and invisible.” This part of the Creed is a reference to the existence of the natural or visible world and supernatural or invisible creation like the angels. The old translation could allow for a misunderstanding because there are many unseen things which might normally be seen, but are unseen because they have been hidden. By using the words visible and invisible we indicate our belief in those things which are in fact always invisible in nature like the angels and saints in heaven.

We also no longer say, “eternally begotten of the Father,” instead we say, “born of the Father before all ages.” There are two reasons for this change. First, in the previous line we now say, “the only Begotten Son of God,” rather than simply “the only Son of God.” And so, repeating “begotten” is unnecessary. Second, the new translation more accurately describes the reality of the eternal Son who dwelled with the Father before the world (or for that matter time) was created and calls to mind the beginning of the Gospel of John “He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:2-4)

Another change in the new translation of the Nicene Creed for Mass is the word consubstantial. We now use very accurate language to speak about the full divinity of the Father and the Son. The old translation used the phrase “one in being.” While true, this phrase was a translation of the Latin term “consubstantialis” now “consubstantial” in the new English text which simply means having the same substance. The Church also uses this method of translation for other technical terms like baptism. We don’t translate the word baptism in our bibles or liturgical texts as “immerse in water” or “dunking” even though this is what it means. In using consubstantial do the same and pray: “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

Lastly, we no longer say the words born, fulfillment, worshipped, or acknowledge when we pray the Mass using the new English translation. The new words and phrases that replace them carry deeper meaning as expressions of faith. Let’s look at a few. Rather than simply “born of the Virgin Mary” we will declare the Son who “was incarnate of the Virgin Mary.” This is a direct statement describing the Incarnation: the event in which the Son took on flesh or became incarnate. “In accordance with the Scriptures” replaces “in fulfillment” to indicate that the entirety of the Bible, not just the Old Testament speaks about the Incarnation. We will also now use the word Adored to describe this particular kind of worship and “I confess” to express our conviction and belief in the saving power of baptism.

Dino Durando, BHI Instructor

Understanding the New Translation of the Mass

2011-12-15T15:26:10-06:00

The Liturgy of the Word

There are very few changes in the Liturgy of the Word because the new translation does not affect the Lectionary, or scripture readings at all. There are two significant changes. First, our response to the proclamation “The Lord be with you” as in other parts of the Mass emphasizes the scriptural language “And with your spirit.” At the announcement of the Gospel the new response is “Glory to you, O Lord.” “O” is a traditional English expression used when referring to God which helps express awe and wonder in His presence. The homily can focus on the readings of the day, the liturgical season or even on a particular prayer of the Mass.

Dino Durando, BHI Instructor

The Gloria (Part 2)

2011-10-02T09:58:09-05:00

[As we prepare for the new translation of the Roman Missal this Advent, the BHI blog has posted a series of blogs on the new translation of the Roman Missal. Here we repost a previous blog on the Gloria from 12/2/2010] Editor

What the Gloria says now:

Lord Jesus Christ,
only Son of the Father,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
you take away the sin of the world:
have mercy on us;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father:receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

New translation:

Lord Jesus Christ,

Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us;
you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Much of the new translation for the second half of the Gloria is more of a matter of rearranging clauses into a sequence that better reflects the original order of the Latin. There are, however, several interesting things that might go by otherwise unnoticed. Jesus is twice mentioned as God’s Son. This not only better reflects the Latin, but reminds us that Jesus is unbegotten – a theological point which we will discuss when we examine the Nicene Creed. We also see that the phrase “you take away the sins of the world” is repeated twice. This should remind us of the Agnus Dei which we recite shortly before receiving communion:

Lamb of God, you who take away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.

Lamb of God, you who take away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.

Lamb of God, you who take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.

The new translation makes clear that one of the great reasons to proclaim the glory of Christ is that He is indeed our Savior who took away the sins of the world with His redemptive passion. The words themselves are taken from the Gospel of John 1:29: “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” Not coincidentally John the Baptist baptized Jesus at this time and God in Heaven is heard to say, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17) Thus, we are again reminded that Jesus is the Son of God. The phrase, , “Behold, the Lamb of God,” was so closely associated with John the Baptist in the very biblically minded Middle Ages that it became part of his iconography. Often John was portrayed with a cross topped staff flying a thin pennant or banner inscribed with the words Ecce, Agnus Dei. The Latin word, Ecce, “Behold”, is used on another occasion in the life of Christ in the Vulgate: when Christ is shown to the crowd by Pontius Pilate who exclaims Ecce Homo or “Behold the man.” (John 19:5)

Dr. Tim Brennan

The Gloria (part 1)

2011-09-30T09:32:33-05:00

[As we prepare for the new translation of the Roman Missal this Advent, the BHI blog has posted a series of blogs on the new translation of the Roman Missal. Here we repost a previous blog on the Gloria from 12/1/2010] Editor

The Gloria, perhaps the single most beautiful prayer of the Mass, currently reads as follows:

Glory to God in the highest,

and peace to his people on earth.

Lord God, heavenly King,

almighty God and Father,

we worship you, we give you thanks,

we praise you for your glory.

With the new translation, however, the first part of the Gloria will read as follows:

Glory to God in the highest,

and on earth peace to people of good will.

We praise you, we bless you,

we adore you, we glorify you,

we give you thanks for your great glory,

Lord God, heavenly King,

O God, almighty Father.

The new translation will wonderfully restore a traditional rendering drawn from the Gospel of Luke. In Luke 2:14, an angel of the Lord appears to shepherds to deliver the good news that, “today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord…you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.” Suddenly “there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” This rendering might sound odd to us at first hearing. After all English speaking Christians – even Catholics – have grown accustomed to the rendering as it is drawn from the Protestant King James Version of the Bible. That rendering pops up so often on signs and cards at Christmas time: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” There is a tremendous difference between God granting peace to those He favors and granting peace toward men whether they are favored or not. The second KJV’s rendering might sound more generous to us, but it is not the best translation.

A restoration of the traditional sense of the Gloria is important because the prayer is – like so much about the Mass – more than it seems. The Gloria is referred to as the Greater Doxology. A doxology is a hymn or formulaic praising of God. Many of the great attributes of God are enumerated in the Gloria: He is Lord, God, the heavenly King, almighty God and Father, and so on. The first attributes are perhaps taken directly from the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in God, the Father almighty…”

Whereas Mary sang the Magnificat after the conception of Jesus in her womb, and Zachariah sang the Benedictus after the birth of his son, John the Baptist, the Gloria is a song not from human beings but from the very angels who serve God. The Gloria came from heaven. It was the heavenly announcement to men that the Savior was born to them. It must be admitted, however, that although ancient and medieval Christians often envisioned angels delivering this message to the shepherds by way of song, angels – according to a strict reading of scripture in the Greek – (and as recently pointed out by our own Alex Weber), are nowhere depicted as singing. That may be a surprise for many as it was for me.

Who received this heavenly announcement – whether sung or said? Kings? Generals? High Priests from the Temple? No, just simple shepherds tending their flocks. But as Mary said of God in her Magnificat, “He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly.” (Luke 1:52) The lowly were lifted up just as we lift up our voices in singing the Gloria which long ago became the song of the Church as well as the angels. Our response to that heavenly message should be the same as the shepherds, “Let us go, then, to Bethlehem to see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us." (Luke 2:15) The shepherds do not hesitate to go to see the gift given them by God. The place complete trust in the heavenly message. We too should place our trust in that same message: “…I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.” (Luke 2:10-11),

Dr. Tim Brennan