OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 03:53:41 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Thou Art Peter"  (Read 43231 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2003, 09:04:16 PM »

Byzantino

I'm sorry if my post was rather heated.  This is the convert forum and I shouldn't even post here.  It's just that I find a lot of RC-bashing going on and while I realize you didn't intend it I just had it.  

Why is it that to convert someone people feel impelled to bring down the faith of another church?  This is not the way this thread started I know.  I mean you may have someone who is RC or was raised RC they post on this board because they are interested in Orthodoxy.  They see quite a few posts about the wonderful heritage of the "big O" but they also see people really going after the church they grew up in.  I have seen some posts beating up on the Prots but no where near as many as those beating up on the RCs.  What is it?  Are you guys still upset about 1204 when we sacked New Rome?  Or what?  Are you envious because we are a larger church with the glitzy Vatican?  

I came to this board when I was a chrismated member of ACROD and was a little shaky about being a newbie as far as the big O is concerned.  I learned alot but also got offended a lot.  I read here posts soundly condemning RCC and all it stood for.  These posts made me start to think about what I'd left behind (I was an RC) and start reading up more on things.  These posts actually lead me to return to the RCC.  Now don't get me wrong this is a great forum and I've learned a lot and my faith has deepened as a result for which I am grateful.

Sorry Byzantino! to unload this on you.  You and many others on this board are good people and it's good to exercise the brain cells in some open honest dialogue. It's just that the attacks on my church get me down sometime.

I'll post again to answer some of the points you raised.

Peace
CR

PS.  I didn't think you were an anti-papist.
Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #46 on: November 16, 2003, 09:34:25 PM »

carpo-rusyn,

I, as a Roman Catholic who has looked into Orthodoxy, would have to agree with your assessment.  I have encountered two distinct things about Orthodoxy on the 'net:

1. extreme hostility towards Catholicism, especially by converts.  One thing that slays me is the mention of 1204 by converts, as if the Sack of Constantinople actually happened to them.

2. the anger and hostility expressed Orthodox Christians towards Catholics by Orthodox Christians in almost every forum where the two meet.

I have been close to converting on more than one occasion but have retreated because of the ugliness of Orthodox Christians.  There is an old saying - you draw more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.  Why should I convert if all I get is kicked in the face while I am Catholic?  Truly, Orthodox Christians do not seem happy or joyous in their faith.  Why the hell would anyone want to become Orthodox if they see this ugliness, even if the Orthodox Church is the "True Church"?

Laments from someone who has considered Orthodoxy.

Rob
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #47 on: November 16, 2003, 09:42:33 PM »

Hey! Wait a minute!

I am a convert from Lutheranism, and I am the farthest thing from anti-Roman Catholic. In fact, God used a good Roman Catholic friend of mine to lead me to the Apostolic Faith. I pray for the reunion of all the Apostolic churches (that may not be worded properly enough to satisfy hardliners, but so be it).

My grandmother, aunts, and cousins on my Dad's side are all Roman Catholics, so I would be in big trouble if I had some kind of major beef with their church!

God bless you guys! Stick around here. Just ignore any extremism you may encounter.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #48 on: November 16, 2003, 09:53:48 PM »

I as a former Catholic totally disagree with you. There us a RCC board right now with a real nice thread entitled "The Sins of Orthodox". It goes both ways.

As far as the sack of Constantinople goes it still upsets people because the ramifications of it are still felt. There is no country of turkey. The turks are squatting on Asia Minor which is Greek. No Greeks there because of the genocide committed there by the turks. The only turkey is around is the fact the the 4th crusade weakened the Byzantine Empire to the point it was never able to recover. All the loot taken has still not been returned.
carpo-rusyn,

I, as a Roman Catholic who has looked into Orthodoxy, would have to agree with your assessment.  I have encountered two distinct things about Orthodoxy on the 'net:

1. extreme hostility towards Catholicism, especially by converts.  One thing that slays me is the mention of 1204 by converts, as if the Sack of Constantinople actually happened to them.

2. the anger and hostility expressed Orthodox Christians towards Catholics by Orthodox Christians in almost every forum where the two meet.

I have been close to converting on more than one occasion but have retreated because of the ugliness of Orthodox Christians.  There is an old saying - you draw more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.  Why should I convert if all I get is kicked in the face while I am Catholic?  Truly, Orthodox Christians do not seem happy or joyous in their faith.  Why the hell would anyone want to become Orthodox if they see this ugliness, even if the Orthodox Church is the "True Church"?

Laments from someone who has considered Orthodoxy.

Rob
Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2003, 09:54:11 PM »

All too often it seems that Orthodox Christians on the 'net define themselves by "not being Catholic".  Okay, I know you're not Catholic but why makew that your source of being?  Check out the Usenet Newsgroup.  So many of the threads revolve around Catholicism it's not funny.  You mean to tell me that's all there is to talk about - Catholicism and how the Orthodox aren't Catholic.  That's lame and no reason for me to convert.

As for me, I can't imagine any reason for Catholicism to be a subject in any Orthodox forum or newsgroup - unless someone inquiring asks.  Otherwise, Catholicism should be a mute point.  Instead, it seems to be a major focus of discussion.  Not only is that a turn-off but it makes Orthodoxy insignificant and seemingly a second fiddle to Catholicism.

If you ever want to convert this Catholic you better do a better job of convincing me than belittling the Catholic Church and the laity or hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  I won't be converted by being told that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon or by illustrating the sins of particular Catholics - every church has its sinful members.  Rather, you better be able to show me the truth of Orthodoxy, without belittling the Catholic Church.  Doing so in a charitable manner would also be helpful.  Being a Christian and belittling other Christians does little to support your cause.  Act like a Christian and you will be surprised by how many "flies" you draw to your honey.

Can an Orthodox Christian be charitable in converting others?  I have yet to see it but would welcome it.

Rob
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #50 on: November 16, 2003, 09:59:19 PM »

CR,

If RCC bashing is going on then I share your sentiments in denouncing this hideous practice. I know all of us get a little out of control in the heat of anger, but if converts to Orthodoxy from RC or Protestantism for that matter are still clinching to resentments and antipathy then they should ask themselves why they converted to Orthodoxy in the first place and consider the words of Jesus in Mark 9:38-40. Orthodoxy isn't a refuge for angry former RCs or Protestants, but a spiritual hospital for all of us who need healing from our sin and their effects, a hospital which would not have been arrived at if it weren’t for the ambulance provided by the Holy Spirit - which in my case was the RCC, to which my entire family belongs. My intentions are to engage in fruitful theological and historical debate about the tenets of any church tradition, without in the least directly attacking any person or the church in question as a whole, which I hope will be distinguished from honest criticism of whichever church’s doctrines. I admit at times i've overstepped the line in my appraisal of some well known RC apologists which is definitely improving.  As for 1204, in no way am i dismissing the gravity of the event, but we have to learn to "leave useless controversies behind" and learn to "listen to one another keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing to be deeply moved by his plea "that they may all be one" as Pope John Paul II rightly said. Down with anti-Catholicism!
Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #51 on: November 16, 2003, 09:59:38 PM »

Innocent,

You can disagree with me all you like.  I don't care.  You, as an Orthodox Christian, ought to be willing to be more charitable than any Catholic if you want to convert Catholics to the "True Church".

So, as a convert to Orthodoxy you feel the pain of the Sack of Constantinople?  Give me a break.  How about the way that Latins were killed in Constantinople in 1182?  Should I still feel the pain of that?

I'm not here to debate.  I am here telling you that if you want to convert Catholics who are considering conversion then you ought to do so in a charitable and Christian manner.  All I see is garbage, anger and hostility.  Why would I give two hoots about anyone calling me a heretic?  Why would I want to join a Church who's members have been getting in my face and treating me like . . . . . .  Well, like a jerk?

Rob
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #52 on: November 16, 2003, 10:03:10 PM »

I agree with all Rosborn's excellent points.
btw, buddy i'm still very sorry about my stupid behaviour towards you in the past.  Sad
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2003, 10:04:51 PM »

Hey!

You guys all ignored my NICE, conciliatory post (as well as the same kind of post by Byzantino).

What gives?

I have nothing but love for my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

We agree on way too much to squabble all the time.

Let us think that Mother Mary is reading these posts. Would we want to cause her grief?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2003, 10:07:48 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #54 on: November 16, 2003, 10:05:05 PM »

Maybe they are treating you like a jerk because of your attitude.  If these posts are any indication that might be the problem. I was NEVER treated bad in an Orthodox Church! Even when I went to Orthodox Churches where there was a language barrier I was made to feel welcome.


Innocent,

You can disagree with me all you like.  I don't care.  You, as an Orthodox Christian, ought to be willing to be more charitable than any Catholic if you want to convert Catholics to the "True Church".

So, as a convert to Orthodoxy you feel the pain of the Sack of Constantinople?  Give me a break.  How about the way that Latins were killed in Constantinople in 1182?  Should I still feel the pain of that?

I'm not here to debate.  I am here telling you that if you want to convert Catholics who are considering conversion then you ought to do so in a charitable and Christian manner.  All I see is garbage, anger and hostility.  Why would I give two hoots about anyone calling me a heretic?  Why would I want to join a Church who's members have been getting in my face and treating me like . . . . . .  Well, like a jerk?

Rob
Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #55 on: November 16, 2003, 10:05:48 PM »

Byzantino,

Please, don't worry about it.  All is forgotten/forgiven.  I consider you a friend and you are one of the reasons why I am still on the fence.

Rob
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #56 on: November 16, 2003, 10:09:08 PM »

I repeat:

Let us think that Mother Mary is reading these posts. Would we want to cause her grief?
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #57 on: November 16, 2003, 10:09:22 PM »

Linus,

Look at the attitude in Innocent's posts.  He is actually discounting my own experiences and saying that it is my problem.  That's like telling the victim of abuse, "Hey, you know you deserved to have the crap beaten out of you."

Perfect example.

I appreciate your example and Byzantino's example.  However, for everyone of you there is an Innocent that makes us wonder if "this" is what Orthodoxy is really like.

Rob
Logged
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #58 on: November 16, 2003, 10:12:53 PM »

My attitude? Hehe 5 posts and your already attacking Orthodoxy. Go look over my posts I said nothing mean to RCs.

Linus,

Look at the attitude in Innocent's posts.  He is actually discounting my own experiences and saying that it is my problem.  That's like telling the victim of abuse, "Hey, you know you deserved to have the crap beaten out of you."

Perfect example.

I appreciate your example and Byzantino's example.  However, for everyone of you there is an Innocent that makes us wonder if "this" is what Orthodoxy is really like.

Rob
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2003, 10:14:21 PM »

Well, hang in there, Brother Rob.

I like the friendly interaction with Roman Catholics here.

I wouldn't want this forum to become some kind of dry mutual admiration society where we all just agree with each other all the time, and our posts get reduced to simple "amens."

I'm kind of pro-RC, and that can get me into hot water with my brethren sometimes!

God is love!
« Last Edit: November 16, 2003, 10:16:19 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #60 on: November 16, 2003, 11:13:09 PM »

Innocent

[As far as the sack of Constantinople goes it still upsets people because the ramifications of it are still felt. There is no country of turkey. The turks are squatting on Asia Minor which is Greek. No Greeks there because of the genocide committed there by the turks. The only turkey is around is the fact the the 4th crusade weakened the Byzantine Empire to the point it was never able to recover. All the loot taken has still not been returned]

The sack occurred in 1204 and by this time the Byzantine Empire consisted of what is now Greece, a little portion of the Balkans, the area around New Rome and a small protion of Asia Minor.  The Empire was already on it's way down due to military, and economic reasons and political infighting.  There was a short lived Latin occupation of New Rome which ended when the Byzantine ruling house (their name escapes me) re-took the city.  The empire continued to decline until the Turks took the city.  The Greek population was left alive and it was only in the 1920's that the Turkish govt embarked on a purge of the Greeks as the Greek govt was doing the same thing and invading Turkey.  I'd recommend John Julius Norwich's 3 volume history of Byzantium it's quite good.  So don't blame the Latins for causing the fall of the Byzantine Empire they may have been a factor but only one among many.

[a real nice thread entitled "The Sins of Orthodox". It goes both ways]

I think this is just as wrong as RC bashing here.  But please don't tell me that because it happens on an RC board you want a thread entitled the 'Sins of Catholicism" here.  Shouldn't we rise above this?

CR


Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #61 on: November 16, 2003, 11:13:35 PM »

I'm glad to see that those who are objective agree with the questions I posed earlier in this series. However I was told by the moderators that The Catholic opinion regarding this was not welcome in this area, so I stopped posting in this thread. However Linus you have said exactly what I would have said If had continued.
Thanks,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #62 on: November 16, 2003, 11:16:00 PM »

[I like the friendly interaction with Roman Catholics here]

Well said Linus

CR
Logged
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #63 on: November 16, 2003, 11:31:22 PM »

As far as the Sack goes I'm not even debating on this anymore. I've grown tired of this RC and EO debating.   This was not my reason to come on an Orthodox board.  If you believe that the actions of the Latins in the 4th crusade had no impact on the final collapse of the Byzantine Empire more power to you.

The one thing I did want to say is no I do not think we should have a thread for the sins of Catholics. My point was the animosity goes both ways. Not that its a good thing!

Innocent

[As far as the sack of Constantinople goes it still upsets people because the ramifications of it are still felt. There is no country of turkey. The turks are squatting on Asia Minor which is Greek. No Greeks there because of the genocide committed there by the turks. The only turkey is around is the fact the the 4th crusade weakened the Byzantine Empire to the point it was never able to recover. All the loot taken has still not been returned]

The sack occurred in 1204 and by this time the Byzantine Empire consisted of what is now Greece, a little portion of the Balkans, the area around New Rome and a small protion of Asia Minor.  The Empire was already on it's way down due to military, and economic reasons and political infighting.  There was a short lived Latin occupation of New Rome which ended when the Byzantine ruling house (their name escapes me) re-took the city.  The empire continued to decline until the Turks took the city.  The Greek population was left alive and it was only in the 1920's that the Turkish govt embarked on a purge of the Greeks as the Greek govt was doing the same thing and invading Turkey.  I'd recommend John Julius Norwich's 3 volume history of Byzantium it's quite good.  So don't blame the Latins for causing the fall of the Byzantine Empire they may have been a factor but only one among many.

[a real nice thread entitled "The Sins of Orthodox". It goes both ways]

I think this is just as wrong as RC bashing here.  But please don't tell me that because it happens on an RC board you want a thread entitled the 'Sins of Catholicism" here.  Shouldn't we rise above this?

CR



Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #64 on: November 16, 2003, 11:55:36 PM »

I'm glad to see that those who are objective agree with the questions I posed earlier in this series. However I was told by the moderators that The Catholic opinion regarding this was not welcome in this area, so I stopped posting in this thread. However Linus you have said exactly what I would have said If had continued.
Thanks,
Polycarp

You are most welcome.

Pray for the reunion of all apostolic Christians.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #65 on: November 17, 2003, 01:45:57 AM »


Quote
+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é :
Successors to Peter's authority, yes. But this begs the definition of that authority. Even at the First Council at Jerusalem, with Peter present, it was James as bishop who settled the dispute.
Linus7 the Rock:
I don't mean to argue for arguing's sake, so pardon me. But I've heard that "St. James presided at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15" argument before, and I don't buy it.

OK, you and Blessed Theophylact disagree (you don't think I write my own material do you?)

Quote
At the conclusion of "much debate" (verse 7), St. Peter spoke first. He was the one, after all, who had inaugurated the mission to the Gentiles. St. James spoke last, as Bishop of the host city, Jerusalem. He gave his judgment, but there is no indication that it was what "settled the dispute."

No indication either way.

Quote
+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é : So the precedent of the role was set as arbiter. The source of the First among Equals definition. The Bishop of Rome had the authority to settle disputes BETWEEN the other four patriarchs, but not authority over EACH nor could he meddle within their respective sees. Once the Pope removed his see from the Orthodox Church that primacy went to Constantinople where it still is today. (I often wonder when I read posts here lambasting the EP if some newbies understand his role in the Church as 'First among Equals'). Bishop Kallistos (Ware) maintains and I AGREE that should the Pope bring his church back to Orthodoxy, he would again be "First" under this definition.
Quote
I agree with most of what you said, especially with that last sentence, but I still think the bishops of Rome had more authority in the early Church than you are allowing here.

And I still don't. Without doubt Peter was given the 'keys' with binding authority. And it is clear that the Church gave the 'primacy' to his successors- but that "successor" primacy was as I described.

Quote
Linus7:
I am not advocating a full-blown, modern RC doctrine of the papacy; yet I think many Orthodox have adopted what amount to ahistorical Protestant arguments because of their aversion to RCism.

Quote
+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é : I'm not sure here, but the last time I was in Greece there were about 9 million Orthodox who know nothing about Protestant arguments and they're even more anti-RC.
I do think you're frustrated by the jurisdictional morass here in America, but the Pope ain't the cure.
Quote
It doesn't matter whether or not they know their arguments are Protestant. The argument that the early popes had no more authority than any other bishop is a Protestant argument and an extremely weak one at that. So is the argument that "the Rock" was solely St. Peter's confession or solely Christ Himself.

I STILL don't think I described the Popes' early authority as you've taken my description here. But as far as this "protestant thing" here, I give up. I'm not a protestant, never been one, never debated or discussed 'papal" issues with any (past or present) until I joined this forum...so what do I know?

Quote
You're right about my frustration over the jurisdictional morass in America.

Aren't we all...

Quote
Linus7:
I think the bishops of Rome acted in a sort of executive role in the early Church but not as absolute monarchs with over-arching, universal jurisdiction.

That "sort of" is our problem here, Linus7.

Quote
Christianity is "corporate." That is one of the reasons the Church is called the Body of Christ.

Apparently you didn't 'read' my attempt at irony (and there's no ironic smiley face to the left here.)

Quote
I think Christ made St. Peter the presiding Apostle and that He meant for that role to continue in the bishops of Rome.

I violently disagree here. This smacks of pre-destiny here with all   successors pre-ordained to rightly guide the Church negating Free Will. Sorry, no way. Just your opinion and mine, of course.

Quote
I do agree with you about later papal failures; but I think that when it comes to the Great Schism there's plenty of blame to go around.

Sad but true.

Quote

I think our argument with Rome is a matter of the degree of papal authority, not whether or not the popes had any more authority than any other bishop.

We know they did.

I only THINK we disagree here. If degree means 'extent' -yes, that was 'universal' within the whole Church. But the nature of that authority, universal in extent, was not OVER the whole Church;i.e., within the other sees.
If you read his 'power' was different tah this, then I do think you misinterpret. Maintaining that Christ meant to extend Peter's successor's authority to within the other Apostolic sees seems to belie the basis of the Body of the Church. What?... The Holy Spirit need only be revealed to the Pope; who needed councils at all.?

{Let's continue this if you like over email, I'm sure we're boring everyone else and I'm dizzy from inserting tags}

+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #66 on: November 17, 2003, 02:04:22 AM »

Can anyone here provide or post Matthew 16:18 from the Holy Apostles Convent New Testament?

I am specifically interested as to how they translated the Greek word +¦+¦. Seems every single English translation I have ever seen translates it as "also" which is would be correct if there were no preceding +++¦++. The meaning does change with differing contexts and I am curious.

Thanks,
Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #67 on: November 17, 2003, 06:02:14 AM »

Rob, thankyou so much, your charity is so greatly appreciated.
God bless,

Byz
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #68 on: November 17, 2003, 06:03:37 AM »

Linus 7 said:
Quote
I have nothing but love for my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. We agree on way too much to squabble all the time.
Quote


Peter has spoken through Linus!!  Grin
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #69 on: November 17, 2003, 08:48:22 AM »

Justinianus

Ambrose may have held more respect in the West but the Pope was still the Pope and Ambrose would've been and was the first one to bend the knee to Peter's successor.

[and was regarded more as a church leader than the Pope of Rome]
Could you cite your source?

Wow!  Cardinal Newman!!! Amadeus is bringing out the bigs guns!

Carpo-Rusyn

I use primarily Ambrose's letters to both Valentinian, Gratian, and Theodosius.  The bishops of the church asked Ambrose to communicate to these emperors on behalf of the church and to correct them.  They did not ask the Pope to counsel the emperor's.  If the pope was really the head of the church, why did he not carry out these actions as head of the state?

In fact Theodosius as the first Nicean emperor paid little attention at all to the Pope in Rome.  He mainly interacted with Ambrose in the west and Gregory in the east.  Curious that such an Orthodox emperor would act in this way.  He took on the Arians and pagans and called the Second Ecumenical council all without the Pope.

We should not be debating this topic in this room.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #70 on: November 17, 2003, 08:55:23 AM »

Innocent

[As far as the sack of Constantinople goes it still upsets people because the ramifications of it are still felt. There is no country of turkey. The turks are squatting on Asia Minor which is Greek. No Greeks there because of the genocide committed there by the turks. The only turkey is around is the fact the the 4th crusade weakened the Byzantine Empire to the point it was never able to recover. All the loot taken has still not been returned]

The sack occurred in 1204 and by this time the Byzantine Empire consisted of what is now Greece, a little portion of the Balkans, the area around New Rome and a small protion of Asia Minor.  The Empire was already on it's way down due to military, and economic reasons and political infighting.  There was a short lived Latin occupation of New Rome which ended when the Byzantine ruling house (their name escapes me) re-took the city.  The empire continued to decline until the Turks took the city.  The Greek population was left alive and it was only in the 1920's that the Turkish govt embarked on a purge of the Greeks as the Greek govt was doing the same thing and invading Turkey.  I'd recommend John Julius Norwich's 3 volume history of Byzantium it's quite good.  So don't blame the Latins for causing the fall of the Byzantine Empire they may have been a factor but only one among many.

[a real nice thread entitled "The Sins of Orthodox". It goes both ways]

I think this is just as wrong as RC bashing here.  But please don't tell me that because it happens on an RC board you want a thread entitled the 'Sins of Catholicism" here.  Shouldn't we rise above this?

CR




You are totally wrong in this assumption.  I have studied Byzantine history extensively for my graduate degree.  The sack in 1204 is one of the largest contributors for the decline and fall of Byzantium.  The sack eliminated some of the key factors that would enable the empire to rebound as it had done in times past.  


While John Julian Norwich' book is an entertaining read, it is more on the level of popular history rather than academic history.  I like the book and recommend it, but for scholarly research, I would recommend others.  Warren Treadgold's History of the Byzantine State and Society would be a much better resource as would the works by Jane Hussey.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #71 on: November 17, 2003, 09:10:57 AM »

Can anyone here provide or post Matthew 16:18 from the Holy Apostles Convent New Testament?

I am specifically interested as to how they translated the Greek word +¦+¦. Seems every single English translation I have ever seen translates it as "also" which is would be correct if there were no preceding +++¦++. The meaning does change with differing contexts and I am curious.

Thanks,
Demetri

Here ya go:

"And I say also to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church"

From the notes:

"On this rock" (tante te petra)  - feminine demonstrative pronoun and article - does not refer to the person of Peter. Christ would have used the masculine if He were referring to the person of Peter


Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #72 on: November 17, 2003, 09:23:49 AM »

In fairness CR, I will say that the Pope did not order the sack of Constantinople in 1204.  It was an action motivated by politics and greed. He did condemn it after he learned of it.  

The Pope did not stop the deposing of the patriarch and other bishops and replacing them with Latin bishops. Either the Pope did not have the practical authority to stop it or approved of the action.   Under what authority could such an eccesiastical action be taken?

We should not dedate this here, it belongs in the Orthodox  Catholic forum.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #73 on: November 17, 2003, 09:45:59 AM »

Innocent,

I think you are taking what I have written too personally.  I was referring to my experiences with Orthodox Christians, not the Orthodox Church.

Rob
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #74 on: November 17, 2003, 10:34:31 AM »

Can anyone here provide or post Matthew 16:18 from the Holy Apostles Convent New Testament?

I am specifically interested as to how they translated the Greek word +¦+¦. Seems every single English translation I have ever seen translates it as "also" which is would be correct if there were no preceding +++¦++. The meaning does change with differing contexts and I am curious.

Thanks,
Demetri

Here ya go:

"And I say also to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church"

From the notes:

"On this rock" (tante te petra)  - feminine demonstrative pronoun and article - does not refer to the person of Peter. Christ would have used the masculine if He were referring to the person of Peter




That problem - the Petros/petra problem - disappears when one realizes that our Lord Jesus named Simon bar Jonah Kepha - Rock - in Aramaic.

Matthew 16:18 would have gone something like this:

"And I say to you that you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

The Fathers taught that both St. Peter and his confession were the Rock upon which Christ built the Church.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2003, 10:35:17 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #75 on: November 17, 2003, 10:52:09 AM »

Quote
+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é :
Successors to Peter's authority, yes. But this begs the definition of that authority. Even at the First Council at Jerusalem, with Peter present, it was James as bishop who settled the dispute.
Linus7 the Rock:
I don't mean to argue for arguing's sake, so pardon me. But I've heard that "St. James presided at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15" argument before, and I don't buy it.
Quote

Quote
+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é : OK, you and Blessed Theophylact disagree (you don't think I write my own material do you?)

I guess it's a good thing we both regard the Blessed Theophylact as about as infallible as any pope.  Wink

Quote
Linus7:
I think Christ made St. Peter the presiding Apostle and that He meant for that role to continue in the bishops of Rome.

Quote
+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é :I violently disagree here. This smacks of pre-destiny here with all   successors pre-ordained to rightly guide the Church negating Free Will. Sorry, no way. Just your opinion and mine, of course.

Whoa!

I never said our Lord "predestined" anything or took anyone's free will away!

He meant for St. Peter's office to continue in the bishops of Rome. The fact that some of them exercised their free will to fail in that assignment is the problem, not what our Lord willed in that regard.

It is our Lord's will that all people live righteous lives and be saved.

Do they or will they?

No. But it is His will just the same.

No fatalism or predestination involved.

Where did you get that idea?

Predestination was and is the furthest thing from my mind.

I am a big fan of of Sts. John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, and Faustus of Riez and their refutation of the extreme fatalism implicit in the works of St. Augustine.

Quote
+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é : Maintaining that Christ meant to extend Peter's successor's authority to within the other Apostolic sees seems to belie the basis of the Body of the Church. What?... The Holy Spirit need only be revealed to the Pope; who needed councils at all.?

{Let's continue this if you like over email, I'm sure we're boring everyone else and I'm dizzy from inserting tags}

+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é

No need to continue.

One comment, however.

You seem to be critiquing a Roman Catholic strawman rather than what I believe.

I do not believe the popes are or ever were infallible, just as St. Peter himself was not infallible.

I do not believe the early popes exercised autocratic authority.

I do believe they acted as presidents or executive officers within the College of Bishops, however. Councils could overrule or depose them if necessary.

I am not finished learning and studying, so I cannot supply the exact limits of papal authority within the Church. I think that authority went further than most Orthodox will acknowledge and not near as far as modern RCism asserts.

That last sentence of yours could be altered slightly and applied to the authority of bishops in general.

Why bother with presbyters?

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #76 on: November 17, 2003, 12:11:23 PM »

I've taken nothing you said personally. What I do take offense to is your attitude and your coming onto a Orthodox board with all guns blazing. If you do not understand why there is still bad feelings because of the sack then you will not understand Greeks in a Greek Church. Most Greeks I've meet still consider Constantinople their capital.

I agree with Justinian that the Pope (Innocent III?) did not sanction this action he also did nothing to remedy it. All of the leaders should have been excommunicated. The put whores on the alter of the Hagia Sophia! By all accounts he was horrified at this but he used it as a political means to get his own Bishop in there. Also the subsequent Popes have not returned the stolen property. This is something that Popes have always done. Take religious property then use it as a bargaining tool later on.

There is not going to be a peace and reconciliation between Rome and Greece until the stolen items are returned and a public acknowledgment of this deed is done. When you see RC people such as CR try and say that this action had nothing to do with the final fall of the Byzantine Empire you can see why Greeks are still upset. They want there capital back and when people say just get over it they are hurt.  The greatest Church ever build was turned into a mosque! This is not something that will be forgotten.

Innocent,

I think you are taking what I have written too personally.  I was referring to my experiences with Orthodox Christians, not the Orthodox Church.

Rob
Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #77 on: November 17, 2003, 12:28:28 PM »

Innocent,

I'm tired of your generalizations and accusing me of coming on this forum with "guns blazing".  Trust me, if I had wanted to do that I could have been truly rude and disruptive.  I wasn't.

Your attitude is obvious and I will now leave the forum and I will advise any other Catholics I know, who are interested in learning more about Orthodoxy, that this is not a welcome place.

Thank you,

Rob
Logged
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #78 on: November 17, 2003, 12:34:26 PM »

Your welcome Rob! Take a look at my first post to you. Nothing mean or unwelcoming about it. I disagreed with you. That happens on a discussion board.

In truth this is a very welcoming board to Catholics. They get much more latitude in their posts than on other Orthodox boards. Also its much more welcoming than some Catholics boards are to Orthodox. I don't think that should be changed. Its good to have at least one board for dialogue.

Innocent,

I'm tired of your generalizations and accusing me of coming on this forum with "guns blazing".  Trust me, if I had wanted to do that I could have been truly rude and disruptive.  I wasn't.

Your attitude is obvious and I will now leave the forum and I will advise any other Catholics I know, who are interested in learning more about Orthodoxy, that this is not a welcome place.

Thank you,

Rob
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #79 on: November 17, 2003, 12:59:54 PM »

Innocent

[I agree with Justinian that the Pope (Innocent III?) did not sanction this action he also did nothing to remedy it. All of the leaders should have been excommunicated.]

I believe the pope did excommunicate the leaders of the sack.

[ Also the subsequent Popes have not returned the stolen property. This is something that Popes have always done. Take religious property then use it as a bargaining tool later on.]

Could you let me know they property taken?  I know that Pau VI returned to Athenagoras the relics of St Andrew.  I know the Venetians made off with the bronze horses from the Hippodrome but that was the Venetians apply to them for their return. When have the popes used religious items as bargaining tools?

[There is not going to be a peace and reconciliation between Rome and Greece until the stolen items are returned and a public acknowledgment of this deed is done. When you see RC people such as CR try and say that this action had nothing to do with the final fall of the Byzantine Empire you can see why Greeks are still upset. They want there capital back and when people say just ]

I really thin that JP2 has apologized for this and Paul 6 might have too.  How many mea culpas are needed?  Also Innocent come on do you really think we'd reconcile if we just returned some things and apologized.  That's being overly simplistic.  I didn't say the sack had anything to do with the fall it may have been a contributing factor but not the sole cause.  We Latins tend to lionize our medieval period and gloss over the warts.  The Byzantine Empire shouldn't be lionized either. Well that's up to you.  But...By 1204 the Turks had kicked their butts out of alomost all the former empire.  The Byzantines even had to hire foriegn mercenaries to prop themselves up, including some Latins.  Why are we even dicussing a political unit like the Byzantine Empire?  Because the east took a road the West never did, caesaro-papism.  The EO church is bigger than some political state.  

[This is not something that will be forgotten]

Ok that's fair.  We won't forget that it was EO soldiers that helped the Turks lay siege to Vienna.  You've forgotten that it was we westerns that helped in the Greek War of Independence.  I didn't see any Greek ships at Navarino it was instead the English Prots and the French RCs.  You've also forgotten the contingent of Westerners that stood shoulder to shoulder with the Byzantines in the last defence of New Rome.  And more towards our times.  You've forgotten the actions of the Greek army in the 1920's in attempting to ethnically cleanse those Turkish cities they saw as being in Greater Greece.  Let's avoid jingoism and talk about the faith not a flag.

CR

PS Thank God someone moved this thread
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #80 on: November 17, 2003, 01:13:50 PM »

Quote
Rosborn: . . . I will now leave the forum and I will advise any other Catholics I know, who are interested in learning more about Orthodoxy, that this is not a welcome place.

Man, don't do that!

I would really like for you to stick around.

You are welcome here, but you've got to expect to butt heads with someone now and then. Don't take it personally.

This is all internet *stuff*. Most of us don't even really know each other.

Please rethink your decision to leave. Come on back and give us your perspective. We need it, even if some of us don't know it.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #81 on: November 17, 2003, 01:21:48 PM »

Rosborn

Please don't leave.

[You are welcome here, but you've got to expect to butt heads with someone now and then. Don't take it personally.

This is all internet *stuff*. Most of us don't even really know each other.]

Linus is right.

CR
Logged
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #82 on: November 17, 2003, 01:31:17 PM »

You are right CR the Pope did excommunicate the leaders. But they had received absolution beforehand. Here is an article that I think conveys how the Orthodox look at this.

Quote
The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America
Copyright 2000 St. Michael the Archangel Church

Did you know that the classical Gothic Cathedral of Notre Dame in Amiens, largest in France, was built to contain the head of St. John the Baptist. stolen during the commission of one of the greatest crimes in history: the sack of Constantinople by the Latin West at the time of the Fourth Crusade? It is but one of the countless examples of treasures looted from that Orthodox city after its capture. This is an account of that event. telling what has to be told, about which the Orthodox Church long has been silent.

The Crusades were fought with several aims in mind: to free the Holy Land, to stop the spread of Islam, and to unify the Eastern and Western Churches. They failed in all of these: the holy places remained under Mohammedan control, Islam extended its influence, and a deeper wedge was driven between the two churches. If anything, the Crusades hastened the demise of the Byzantine Empire and its ultimate fall into Moslem hands. Overall, the Crusades had a devastating effect on the Orthodox Church.

Pope Innocent III called the Fourth Crusade in 1196. Essentially, it was a French enterprise, supported by Swabians, and later, by Venetians. Because Mohammedan power had shifted from Palestine to Cairo, the objective was to take Egypt. This meant launching a maritime campaign, requiring ships and related supplies, which the French did not have. They turned to Venice, ruled by the aged, blind doge Enrico Dandolo, who hated the capital city and envied its wealth and success in commerce. Constantinople and Venice were old rivals.

Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

Their own historian wrote that the Crusaders never had imagined that there could be a city like this anywhere in the world. These men, who came from mud huts with thatched roofs, gaped in astonishment. Here it was: the imperial city, called "Tsargrad" by the Russians, greatest in the world, hub of culture and commerce, center of the civilized world. Here was more wealth than in all of Europe put together. This was the inheritor of the Roman Empire. Here was a city of churches, monasteries, palaces, towers, forums, arenas, bazaars, baths, libraries and monuments. Here stood Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom), crowning glory of the city, marvel of the world, built by Justinian six centuries earlier. The Theotokos being the patron and protectress of the city, over a hundred churches were dedicated in her name. Her maphorion, which twice had saved the city: once from the Avars and once from the Russ', was kept in the Blacharnae Church, as was her wonder-working icon. The Theotokos' belt (zone) was preserved in the Chalkprateia Church in the copperware district. In the center of the city stood the Church of the Holy Apostles, built as a shrine for St. Luke, and which also was the custodian of the relics of Sts. Timothy and Andrew, as well as the head of St. John the Forerunner, in whose name there were some 35 churches. St. John Chrysostom was brought to this church from far-off Armenia for burial eight centuries earlier. Elsewhere were the relics of St. Stephen and St. James, as was the wood of the True Cross found by St. Helena. The Pantacrator Monastery was the guardian of the Icon of the Theotokos of Nicopeia, which preceded the emperor into battle. At Blacharnae stood two gigantic pillars, on the tops of which sainted stylites in past centuries had spent the remaining years of their lives in prayer and meditation. Throughout the city were numerous other churches and monasteries which guarded the many relics of Apostles, martyrs and Church fathers. Such was the city before which the western armies stood in awe and disbelief.

After receiving absolution, the Crusaders attacked. Constantinople fell after three days of the final, furious attack by land and by sea. Once inside the walls, the Crusaders began an orgy of carnage, brutality and vandalism not seen in Europe since the barbarians invaded seven centuries earlier. No one was spared: not bishop, priest, nun, man, woman or child. Few women escaped being violated, whether at home, in the street, or in the convent. Fires were started throughout the city. The butchery ended only when the Crusaders were so tired that they no longer could lift their swords. Then began looting and profanation on a scale unparalleled in history. A mob rushed into Santa Sophia. With the Image of the Pantacrator looking down upon them from the great dome, they broke up the altar for its gold content, smashed the icons, threw the Holy Gifts to the floor, seized the church vessels for their Jewels, and tore mosaics and tapestries from the walls. Horses and mules were brought into the church the better to carry off the sacred vessels, gold, silver, and whatever else they could gather. Drunken soldiers drank from chalices and ate from patens while riding asses draped with priestly vestments. A mocking prostitute was placed on the Patriarch's chair to dance and sing obscene songs. This pattern of pilferage and desecration was repeated in churches, monasteries and palaces throughout the city. The tombs of the emperors were rifled, and all of the classical statues and monuments which had survived from ancient Greece and imperial Rome were destroyed. One writer wrote that never in history had so much beauty, so much superb craftsmanship been so wantonly destroyed in so short a space of time. What was not carried off was burned, smashed, melted down for its precious metal content, or stripped for its jewels.

After the killing, after the city had been subdued, there began a slow and steady removal of treasures out of the Orthodox temples and into the cathedrals, churches, monasteries, convents, cities and towns of Latin Europe. Some of these items had been venerated, cherished, and protected for centuries, others for a millennium. Now they were being carted away from over a hundred and fifty churches: altars, altar screens, tabernacles, antimins, icons, icon frames, processional, pectoral and altar crosses, gold and silver chains, panagias, mitres, croziers, chalices, patens, star covers and spears, Gospels, Epistle books, ladles, church plate, censers, votive lights, relics, candelabra, epitaphia, fans, reliquaries, vestments, banners, manuscripts, miniatures, ivories, carvings, mosaics, thrones, tapestries, furniture and architectural items. Cartloads of gold and silver from Santa Sophia found their way into the Vatican treasury. Constantinople had become the gold mine which supplied Latin Christendom.

The wealth was so great that the looting continued for sixty years. A century earlier, after the First Crusade, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Edessa were similarly stripped for a period of forty years. Now it was happening to the imperial city. A scandalous traffic in relics was started. The head of St. John the Baptist was carried off to Amiens. Amalfi, Italy took the head of St. Andrew the First-Called from the Church of the Holy Apostles, along with a set of heavy bronze doors. The bishop of Soissons shipped home the head of St. Stephen and a relic of St. John. The remains of St. Clement, pillaged from the Church of St. Theodosia, were taken to Cluny. St. Albans received the relics of St. Marina. Halbstadt claimed the relics of St. James. The True Cross was divided up among the barons, with a portion sent to the pope, and another fragment taken to Paris. A priceless gold and enamel reliquary encrusted with jewels, containing a fragment of the Wood wound up in a nunnery in Steuben. King Louis IX of France paid 10,000 silver marks for the "true" Crown of Thorns, for which he built St. Chapells in Paris.

Gone was the maphorion of the Theotokos, as was her zone and the wonder-working icon. Gone or destroyed--the relics of St. Luke and St. Timothy; no trace of the relics of St. John Chrysostom. An altar cloth with the relic of St. Paul was missing. Nothing is known of the stone seat of St. Mark.

The Venetians were the most discriminating--they knew exactly what to take. From the Monastery of the Pantacrator they appropriated a group of exquisite gem-crusted enamel cameos, (a vast collection of panagias), to enhance the Palo D'Oro, an elaborate Byzantine bejeweled gold screen which was used in the Cathedral in Venice to cover the relics of St. Mark. (We will recall that St. Mark was stolen from Alexandria in the ninth century). They also carried off the Icon of the Theotokos of Nikopeia, as well as a relic of St. Stephen (the feet already were in Venice). The golden tabernacle from the Church of the Holy Apostles, a replica of the church itself, was added to their booty. Venice's prized possessions are the four magnificent glided bronze horses, cast in Constantine's time, which once stood in the Hippodrome; today, except when removed for cleaning, they stand atop the gallery of St. Mark's basilica. The porphyry statue of four tetrarchs, taken from a palace, stands in a corner of St. Mark's treasury.

Venetians valued craftsmen, and they took away the best: goldsmiths, silversmiths, jewel workers, iconographers, woodcarvers, stone and glass workers. Much of the Venetian glass technique so famous today originated in Constantinople. St. Mark's contains the finest collection of Byzantine craftsmanship in the world. It includes 32 Byzantine chalices, plus assorted relics, reliquaries, altar pieces, Gospels, Jewels, vestments, manuscripts and church plate. The collection includes the Veroli casket, the finest Byzantine carved ivory in the world, and the Psalter of Emperor Basil.

Dandolo sent home shiploads of mosaics, panels, stones, pillars, precious marbles, columns of rare stones and the many building components which have gone into creating the texture of the city which today is Venice.

Pope Innocent was very distressed when he heard about the outrages in Constantinople. He denounced the perpetrators harshly, and excommunicated most of them. The pope was unaware that, before the attack, his legate had absolved the Crusaders from their original vows. Later, when confronted with the possibility that he might have a unified church on his hands, Innocent acquiesced and went along with the reality that what was done was done. He did nothing to stop the flow of desecrated wealth into Latin cathedrals and churches.

Baldwin of Flanders was put on the throne and a Latin kingdom was established in the East. A Venetian replaced the Patriarch . Orthodox bishops were deposed and replaced by Roman prelates. Pressure was put on priests to submit to the papacy, but they resisted firmly. There was no union.

Dandolo demanded for Venice "one half and one quarter of the Roman Empire" as its share of conquered lands. Along with other territories, Venice took over all of the Greek islands, which it was to four centuries. On Crete all of the churches were seized, the bishops were thrown out, and the priests forced to submit to Latin prelates. The Greek language was forbidden in the churches. A precious relic, the head of St. Titus, was taken away to Venice, (A century earlier, Venetians carried off the head of St. Isidore from the island of Chios, and the relics of St. Donatus from the island of Cephalonia, as well as a marble slab on which Christ was supposed to have stood. ) The looting continued on the islands as on the mainland. The empire was being stripped bare.

Enrico Dandolo performed his final and lasting profanation of Hagia Sophia by being buried there. Recently, when asked whether he knew the location of Dandolo's tombstone, a Greek scholar replied, "Yes, I go there to spit on it".

One might ask, "Why bring up something which happened so long ago? It is past history." The answer is simple. These church items were not taken from a dead, vanquished emperor; they were taken from a living, active, performing Orthodox Christian Church. They were stolen from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in whose care they were placed. The Patriarchate of Constantinople still exists. It is a viable, active body which has been functioning without interruption since it was rounded by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 AD. This is not the first time such depredations had taken place. Of the five sees extant after the Second Council, three of them: Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople all had been violated by the one which was accorded primacy , but which demanded supremacy.

It is easier to report on these deplorable events than it is to suggest what to do about it. Picketing Latin institutions with placards and chanting slogans would be foolhardy and non-productive. After all, the problem is not entirely that of the Orthodox Church. Someone does have a problem. Whoever possesses these articles is a receiver of, stolen goods. Moreover, they are a receiver of stolen goods obtained by murder, rape, and desecration--not an enviable position in which to be, especially if such a holder happens to be a Christian church. Unfortunately, there is little to indicate that "the West", to use a general expression, even realizes the enormity that has taken place in Constantinople so long ago.

The Orthodox Church long has been accustomed to suffering in silence. Perhaps it is time we learned a lesson from other religions or nations: that when a calamity befalls you--be sure that the world never is permitted to forget. A great injustice persists, even after almost eight centuries: sacred Orthodox items are being held by a Christian church, items acquired under most distressing circumstances. This is what we must never let the world forget, by one means or another. Perhaps one day, by the grace of God, this great wrong will be made right.

In the meantime, scientists tell us that Venice slowly is sinking into the Adriatic. It deserves to do so. Perhaps it is trying to hide from its sins.
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #83 on: November 17, 2003, 01:43:25 PM »

Innocent

The leaders were excommunicated after the pope learned about the sack.  The absolution referred to in the article was the standard absolution given by chaplains to men about to enter battle a common practice in the medieval period it had nothing to do with the excommunication.

CR
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #84 on: November 17, 2003, 02:25:33 PM »

Innocent,

That was a good historical post, most RC's have no idea what happened to the Eastern Church during the Crusades, most like myself only thought that it was against Islam.

It is truly sad to sanction the murder and pillage of our Eastern brethern.

james

« Last Edit: November 17, 2003, 02:26:19 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #85 on: November 17, 2003, 04:01:51 PM »

James

[It is truly sad to sanction the murder and pillage of our Eastern brethern]

Very true, but while the crusade was begun with papal blessing it is important to see that the Venetians subverted the crusade for their own political and economic ends.  

I seem to remember that last year a group of the descendants of crusaders retraced the rout the 1st crusade took apologizing for the actions of their ancestors.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #86 on: November 17, 2003, 04:40:59 PM »

Every time I read about the sack of Constantinople in 1204 and its fall in 1453, I am filled with great sorrow.

I do not despise the Roman Church for it.  I just get angry at the greed that caused it.  I am also disappointed at how the Pope handled the matter.

The think Pope should have done more.  I also think of him taking advantage of the situation was improper.   Just think what it would have done in Catholic and Western relations if he had excommunicated the vandals and not let them be absolved, not accepted the appointment of Latin bishops, and demand the plunder of the city be returned.  Instead the vandals were absolved, the Latin bishops were appointed, and the plunder and religious relics fill the churches of the west.

If Pope John Paul II did offer an apology for this, that is a very positive step.  He has done much to reconcile with the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2003, 04:41:44 PM by Justinianus » Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,106


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #87 on: November 17, 2003, 06:08:32 PM »

(Sorry Phil for bringing up Leo again, I couldn't help it)  Tongue

+Ego te absolvo... Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
LatinTrad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


www.unavoce.org www.christendom.edu


« Reply #88 on: November 17, 2003, 06:26:36 PM »

The Pope DID excommunicate the sackers of Constantinople.  They were NOT absolved of the deed beforehand.  Soldiers ALWAYS got absolution before going into battle--for their PREVIOUS sins.

I personally HATE the sack of Constantinople.  

Just keep in mind that the wrongs went both ways.  TWICE in the 12th century (1100's, before the city was sacked!), the Byzantines organized a massacre of the thousands of Venetians who lived in the vicinity of Constantinople.  It is often forgotten that Dandalo himself was BLINDED as a young man, BY THE BYZANTINES, while he was being held as a diplomatic hostage.

I don't hear Venetians demanding apologies or groveling from the EP.  

I think it is imprudent and wrong for us to keep bringing up wrongs from the past, and using them to incite hatred in our own day.

Why did the Russian Orthodox Church cooperate in the liquidation of the "Uniates" during the 1940's?  For whatever reason, I don't see the Pope--or the Uniates for that matter--bringing it up as an obstacle to present-day reunion.  And that occured in the memory of living men.

God bless all.

LatinTrad

Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #89 on: November 17, 2003, 06:58:57 PM »

LatinTrad

[I personally HATE the sack of Constantinople]

As do I.

[Just keep in mind that the wrongs went both ways.  TWICE in the 12th century (1100's, before the city was sacked!), the Byzantines organized a massacre of the thousands of Venetians who lived in the vicinity of Constantinople.  It is often forgotten that Dandalo himself was BLINDED as a young man, BY THE BYZANTINES, while he was being held as a diplomatic hostage.]

I had forgotten this.  That's why he hated the Byzantines so.

[The Pope DID excommunicate the sackers of Constantinople.  They were NOT absolved of the deed beforehand.  Soldiers ALWAYS got absolution before going into battle--for their PREVIOUS sins]

I think some just aren't getting the idea of absolution before battle.

[I think it is imprudent and wrong for us to keep bringing up wrongs from the past, and using them to incite hatred in our own day.]

I quite agree as I think do most of the people on this forum.

Carpo-Rusyn




Logged
Tags: papal primacy Primacy of Peter Petrine Primacy That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.164 seconds with 72 queries.