OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 07:59:19 AM *
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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ¿Why Ortodoxy was unable to resist Islam?  (Read 21215 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« on: January 04, 2010, 01:50:42 PM »

I wonder why Orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam.

95% of turkish people is muslim,
90% of lebanon
95% of Egipt

and so on in Jordan and Syria.

¿what were the causes?

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?

« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 01:51:12 PM by Alonso_castillo » Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2010, 02:09:16 PM »

I wonder why Orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam.
Why? Are we Orthodox muslim are we? Orthodoxy is a Faith, not an army. We don't have Crusades, we were the victim of one.

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?
Because it was poor and Communist.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 02:11:09 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2010, 02:18:23 PM »

I wonder why Orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam.

95% of turkish people is muslim,

The Turks were still in Central Asia and pagan when Islam arose.  Now, the area has Orthodoxy Churches.

Quote
90% of lebanon

Actualy 40%, and that is only recent.  Lebanon only has 10% of the world's population of Lebanese.  Btw, how to explain the fall of your coreligionists there, the Maronites?

Quote
95% of Egipt

Even the government admits that 10% of Egypt is Coptic.

Quote
and so on in Jordan and Syria.

5-10%

Now, I'll ask you: how is it that ALL (100%) of North Africa, which was Latin speaking and under Rome, the cradle of Latin Patristics (e.g. Tertullian, the first Latin father, and Pope Victor, the one who introduced the Latin mass at Rome (Greek was used before); how is it that it COMPLETELY disappeared: no Churches, no Faithful, no bishops, whereas the Orthodox still have Churches, the Faithful are holding on, and the Apostolic succession has continued in the areas you mention?

Quote
¿what were the causes?

Why did the Vatican's following split into Protestantism and Ultramontanism?

The decline on Orthodoxy in the region only picked up steam with the arrival of the Crusades.

Quote
Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?
Many did: there are Greek, Arab, Armenian, and even Assyrian, etc. colonies in Russia, in addition to Germans, Scandinavians, English and even a Spanish noble or too.

You are aware that Russian had colonies in California, besides having Alaska, no?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 02:19:23 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2010, 02:20:23 PM »

I wonder why Orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam.

95% of turkish people is muslim,
90% of lebanon
95% of Egipt

and so on in Jordan and Syria.

¿what were the causes?

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?



A house divided doesn't stand. As our Holy Father Pope John Paul II during the Jubilee in the year 2000 recognized there is must blame to be found on both sides for the Schism and the envy the West held toward the East and visa-versa.

The East fell because we didn't have their back as true Christian Brothers and Sisters and now in our day the West will fall unless they have ours. Christendom must be 'one' in order to stand. We each will learn that in our own time.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2010, 02:23:30 PM »

I wonder why Orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam.

95% of turkish people is muslim,
90% of lebanon
95% of Egipt

and so on in Jordan and Syria.

¿what were the causes?

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?



And 98% of Tunisia (i.e., ancient Carthage) is Muslim, while less than .1% of Algeria (i.e., as in Augustine *of Hippo*) is Roman Catholic. Why wasn't Latin Christianity able to resist Islam anywhere they couldn't beat them back with swords?

Silly question.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,994



« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2010, 02:55:38 PM »


A house divided doesn't stand. As our Holy Father Pope John Paul II during the Jubilee in the year 2000 recognized there is must blame to be found on both sides for the Schism and the envy the West held toward the East and visa-versa.

The East fell because we didn't have their back as true Christian Brothers and Sisters and now in our day the West will fall unless they have ours. Christendom must be 'one' in order to stand. We each will learn that in our own time.

What envy? 

If you want the East to "have your back" , so to speak, then you must repudiate your errors and confess the Holy Orthodox faith.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,269



« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2010, 03:15:12 PM »

90% of lebanon

Where did you get this from? Almost 40% of the Lebanese population is Christian (made up by Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, and Eastern-rite Catholics).
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,269



« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2010, 03:17:32 PM »

I would argue that Orthodoxy did resist Islam since it still survives. Look at the number of martyrs we have (especially under the Turks) who resisted Islam by giving their life before betraying Christ.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2010, 03:54:10 PM »


A house divided doesn't stand. As our Holy Father Pope John Paul II during the Jubilee in the year 2000 recognized there is must blame to be found on both sides for the Schism and the envy the West held toward the East and visa-versa.

The East fell because we didn't have their back as true Christian Brothers and Sisters and now in our day the West will fall unless they have ours. Christendom must be 'one' in order to stand. We each will learn that in our own time.

What envy?

In the early years the West envied the East, particularly their education and mastery of philosophy. In the later years the East envied the advances of the West, particularly their education and mastery of the sciences.

Quote
If you want the East to "have your back" , so to speak, then you must repudiate your errors and confess the Holy Orthodox faith.

I'll let my hierarchs discuss this with your hierarchs. I won't make such a determination as an individual, I am not a protestant nor am I a Church of one. If you cannot support the West against secularism and Islam then that is your problem.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2010, 03:57:17 PM »

I admit that I sometimes have similar questions. Why was "the blood of the martyrs" the seed of Church during the Roman persecutions, but during later persecutions it was more like, instead of increasing, Orthodoxy was doing all it could to survive? True, they were different persecutions/circumstances, so it's not unexpected that there might be different results. But is that all there is to it?
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2010, 04:05:21 PM »

I admit that I sometimes have similar questions. Why was "the blood of the martyrs" the seed of Church during the Roman persecutions, but during later persecutions it was more like, instead of increasing, Orthodoxy was doing all it could to survive? True, they were different persecutions/circumstances, so it's not unexpected that there might be different results. But is that all there is to it?

Are you asking 'me' or the OP? Personally, if you don't mind me throwing in my 2 cents, I see 'no' difference between the persecution of the early Church in Rome and what Orthodox Christians have experienced at the hands of Communists. That doesn't mean that everything the survivors say is sacrosanct but it is a testament to the faith of many in the east. I, personally, never question the faith of those who have been persecuted for their faith when I have not. Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, Maronites, etc 'all' have my deepest respect. That doesn't mean that any 'one' group is better or superior than another... it just means that the blood of saints has been split.

The uniqueness of the See of Rome has more to do with Peter's martyrdom and passing on of this office in Rome than anything else but Rome's Pagan roots where purged by the blood of the Martyrs or so we are taught.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2010, 04:08:13 PM »

I admit that I sometimes have similar questions. Why was "the blood of the martyrs" the seed of Church during the Roman persecutions, but during later persecutions it was more like, instead of increasing, Orthodoxy was doing all it could to survive?

So it seemed, because they had somewhere to go.  In the initial conquests of the caliphs, thousands did convert, causing problems for the caliphs.  The final peace treaty/armistance with the Roman empire required that the Romans force the Christian Arabs who fled back into the caliphate.  The Greek nearly all picked up and went to New Rome.  Similare with the Turkish Orthodox, the Karamanlis, who were Turkish speaking but forced to immigrate to Greece in the population exchange according to religion.

Quote
True, they were different persecutions/circumstances, so it's not unexpected that there might be different results. But is that all there is to it?
In Egypt, every Orthodox I know knows at least one Muslim who converted.  I have to know at least a dozen.

Btw, the grandchildren of Jinah, the Father of Pakistan, cannot live in Pakistan: they are all baptized.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2010, 04:22:36 PM »

I was just throwing it out there for general responses, thank you (ignatius) and ialmisry for your thoughts.
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2010, 05:05:43 PM »

I think the question of the OP is somewhat loaded as it assumes that the eastern half of the Christian world somehow failed to resist Islam while the western half did better. It may have been better if the question was: Why was the Muslim expansion as successful as it was? The historians that I have read have pointed out some factors but I do not believe that any of them can answer the question definitively (I am discounting Gibson for his obvious Anti-Christian animus). These points include:

- The local populations were getting tired of being pushed around by the Empire and its close ally the Church may have suffered for its close association with the state.

- For the people of the Book, the Muslim terms were quite liberal for those times, in fact at places even less onerous than the Christian Empire's. The Turks, in particular, were very good in taking advantage of divisions and dissonances in the Christian world.

- The tendency of a new movement to be exciting and thus attractive to some folks.

Just my two cents' worth.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 05:06:32 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2010, 05:08:03 PM »

You yourself acknowledged the different circumstances, so I hesitated to post but there are certainly some important considerations there:

1) The martyrdoms among the first and second generations of Christians were a direct witness to the Truth of their witness. That is, the fact that 11 of the 12 apostles and so many of the 70 and beyond were willing to die for what *they had seen* was a witness that they actually believed they had seen it, it was not something they were making up. That particular practical force obviously can't apply later--martyrdoms now prove that the modern martyrs really believe that St. Peter and St. Paul and the rest saw what they said they saw, but it doesn't have the same evidentiary value as St. Peter and St. Paul's own martyrdom.

2) The Roman persecutions were intermittent. When they occurred, the Church suffered, people died and fell away. And then as soon as the persecution let up, the membership exploded. The membership didn't explode *during* the persecution. You can see the same effect in Russia, once the Soviet regime and its persecutions ended, the Russian Church's membership exploded. In Islamic lands, the pressure has tended to be much more consistent (though it might be an interesting exercise to map the variations that do exist with the growth or lack thereof for the local churches--to the extent it could be established).

3) Christianity in Rome was moving into an essentially open marketplace--even if Christianity itself wasn't free, there was not a single overarching competitor. IOW, there might be a great deal of social pressure on individuals not to become Christians, but there was not nearly as much for them to *stay* devotees of Mithras, or Cybele, or Isis, or neo-Platonists, etc. Whereas in Islamic countries, the social pressure is both directions--don't convert to Christianity, but also don't leave Islam. Factoring in there somewhere may also be the fact that Islamic persecution is specifically focussed on conversions. The level of persecution/oppression of existing Christians varies across time and geography, but the on-the-books legal directive for converts is always capital punishment. Thus, Rome's blanket persecutions grabbed many people who had been Christians for decades and gave them the choice of renouncing or being exemplars; Islam on the other hand focuses most strongly on the person who's been Christian for weeks.

just some thoughts off the top of my head.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,883



« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2010, 05:14:21 PM »

Stuff.

Welcome to the forum!
Logged
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2010, 06:25:45 PM »

Thanks all for answering, I think by the answers I got, I have touched a sensible point in many orthodox, I see that many of them have fired back and it is not my atempt to deffend catholicism from your acusations, my atempt is to undertand the sociological process that lead so many people claimed to be belivers of Ortodoxy, to convert into Muslims. Everybody would agree with me that to reach 95% of muslims in a former christian country the only way to explain it is by conversion, massive conversion.

Now, Spain, Portugal, And Italy were also invaded by Muslims and jews, though after XVI century the last realm of Islam was drove out from Western Europe, Granada in Spain, and Spain become in that time almost 90% Catholic, though they were under 800 years of Muslim domination.

So ¿why jordan, syrian, and turkish have not yet taken Islam out from their originaly christian countries?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 06:33:15 PM by Alonso_castillo » Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2010, 06:33:41 PM »

Seriously, you are taking the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition as exemplars? Well then the answer is easy (though your stats are still all wrong), Islam used the same tactics as Rome did in Iberia and got a similar effect.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2010, 06:46:24 PM »

Seriously, you are taking the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition as exemplars? Well then the answer is easy (though your stats are still all wrong), Islam used the same tactics as Rome did in Iberia and got a similar effect.

Yes, I agree, but Spanish under opresive Islam were resistant enought to fight back Islam, ¿Why bizantines haven't been as resistant as spanish?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 06:46:44 PM by Alonso_castillo » Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2010, 09:28:33 PM »

Thanks all for answering, I think by the answers I got, I have touched a sensible point in many orthodox, I see that many of them have fired back and it is not my atempt to deffend catholicism from your acusations, my atempt is to undertand the sociological process that lead so many people claimed to be belivers of Ortodoxy, to convert into Muslims. Everybody would agree with me that to reach 95% of muslims in a former christian country the only way to explain it is by conversion, massive conversion.

No, migration.  Massive migration. The Turks didn't enter Antolia until 1054.  Large parts of it had been no man's land for some time, so as the Turks gained control, they could bring in the Turkic hoards. Then there is the problem of the child tax, which of course added to Muslim numbers by subtracting from the Christian. That 95% Muslim number was achieved by expelling 1.5 million Greeks, killing off a million or so Armenians, (and thousands of Syrians) importing a half million Muslims from Greece about a hundred years ago.  So about a quarter of the population was shifted by killing off/expelling the Christian population, without conversion.

The same process in reverse operated in Spain: all non-baptized were expelled by 1492.  Not a great mystery.


Quote
Now, Spain, Portugal, And Italy were also invaded by Muslims and jews, though after XVI century the last realm of Islam was drove out from Western Europe, Granada in Spain, and Spain become in that time almost 90% Catholic, though they were under 800 years of Muslim domination.

So ¿why jordan, syrian, and turkish have not yet taken Islam out from their originaly christian countries?
Greece is 98% Orthodox, although occupied over half a millenium by Muslims.  Only Albania had massive coversions (now nominally 70% Muslim) and even that was achieved only by massive expulsions and colonization by Muslim Turks in Albania.  And even there, the Albanians didn't convert, they moved: to Southern Italy, Greece, etc.

And you still have evaded the question of what happened to Christian North Africa?  The Orthodox in Egypt still number in the millions, but the Vatican's flock in North Africa only dates now from the colonial period.  Nothing remains of their originally Christian countries in the Maghreb.

Seriously, you are taking the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition as exemplars? Well then the answer is easy (though your stats are still all wrong), Islam used the same tactics as Rome did in Iberia and got a similar effect.

Yes, I agree, but Spanish under opresive Islam were resistant enought to fight back Islam, ¿Why bizantines haven't been as resistant as spanish?
The "Byzantines" or rather correctly, the East Romans held their own in the Balkans, and fought back Islam, while protected Western Europe (which, more often than not, was stabbing in the back the Orthodox, as St. Stephan the Athelete of Christ (as the Vatican called him) complained.  You seem to overestimate the Spanish resistance and minize the Romans: Anatolia was depopulated several times, and until 1923, still had a large Christian population which was either killed off or moved. They did not convert.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 09:33:27 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2010, 09:31:43 PM »

Seriously, you are taking the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition as exemplars? Well then the answer is easy (though your stats are still all wrong), Islam used the same tactics as Rome did in Iberia and got a similar effect.

Yes, I agree, but Spanish under opresive Islam were resistant enought to fight back Islam, ¿Why bizantines haven't been as resistant as spanish?

The Reconquista had huge support from the Pope and had reinforcements from all over Western Europe. What did the Byzantines have?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2010, 09:34:09 PM »

Seriously, you are taking the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition as exemplars? Well then the answer is easy (though your stats are still all wrong), Islam used the same tactics as Rome did in Iberia and got a similar effect.

Yes, I agree, but Spanish under opresive Islam were resistant enought to fight back Islam, ¿Why bizantines haven't been as resistant as spanish?

The Reconquista had huge support from the Pope and had reinforcements from all over Western Europe. What did the Byzantines have?
Crusaders, and other knife scars in the back.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2010, 09:41:31 PM »

I wonder why Orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam.

I wonder how Orthodoxy has been able to survive that many centuries enduring constant persecution under Islam.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2010, 10:49:17 PM »

Grace and Peace to all,

I'm going to step away from this thread as I fear the Orthodox have allowed this individual to excite their passions and Catholicism will be ridiculed for it. Very disappointing for us who seek apatheia and watchfulness of heart.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2010, 11:19:49 PM »

Seriously, you are taking the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition as exemplars? Well then the answer is easy (though your stats are still all wrong), Islam used the same tactics as Rome did in Iberia and got a similar effect.

Yes, I agree, but Spanish under opresive Islam were resistant enought to fight back Islam, ¿Why bizantines haven't been as resistant as spanish?

The Reconquista had huge support from the Pope and had reinforcements from all over Western Europe. What did the Byzantines have?
Crusaders, and other knife scars in the back.

The Byzantines had lots of chances: defeat of Caliphate in 1258, defeat of Bajazet by Tamerlane. Really, I don't know why they couldn't have been more like Skanderberg in Albania once Constantinople fell. Maybe out of divine favor?

No underestimating Spanish resistance, Cordoba, and later Granada, were powerful kingdoms with all of the Eastern Caliphate remains flocking to it to fight jihads.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 11:23:00 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2010, 12:51:27 AM »

Seriously, you are taking the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition as exemplars? Well then the answer is easy (though your stats are still all wrong), Islam used the same tactics as Rome did in Iberia and got a similar effect.

Yes, I agree, but Spanish under opresive Islam were resistant enought to fight back Islam, ¿Why bizantines haven't been as resistant as spanish?

The Reconquista had huge support from the Pope and had reinforcements from all over Western Europe. What did the Byzantines have?
Crusaders, and other knife scars in the back.

The Byzantines had lots of chances: defeat of Caliphate in 1258,

The Mongols did that. And they stayed.

Quote
defeat of Bajazet by Tamerlane.

He also stayed, and actually let the Ottomans stay as vassals.

Quote
Really, I don't know why they couldn't have been more like Skanderberg in Albania once Constantinople fell. Maybe out of divine favor?

Yeah, they submitted at Florence.

And you do know what happened to Albania after Skanderbeg, no?  As a matter of fact, the fact that he is called that (his name when the Turks took him in child tax) and not George Castriotti should tell you.



Quote
No underestimating Spanish resistance, Cordoba, and later Granada, were powerful kingdoms with all of the Eastern Caliphate remains flocking to it to fight jihads.
Cordoba lasted only about a century, and was cut off from (actually, in opposition to) the caliphates in the East.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2010, 01:19:11 AM »

two missed chances to rebuild the empire- 1258 when no Eastern Caliphate existed, and then later when Bajazet was defeated. After 1085 when the ancient Goth capital of Toledo fell, and When 1258 occurred, all the Islamic fighter went to the "Western Caliphate"  and tried to defend Cordoba, when Cordoba fell, they built Granada strategically in an impenetrable location. They were the first to use cannons to defend cities (unless Greek fire counts as canons). The re-capture of Spain and subsequent invasion of Africa was truly epic. The almohads tried invading with a half-million man army and invincible armadas but they lost (El Cid). Poor orthodox Christians, no re-conquista  Cry

and even MORE poor COE, not only no reconquista, 80 million dead Christians and nobody even knows we exist.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 01:22:44 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2010, 01:37:00 AM »

I know of heroic resistance of Orthodox, And as you may see, I son't know about all represion from Turks to Orthodox, but you will also agree with me that something is happening that I can't see from Mexico about the resilance of turks to accept christianity. ¿What happened there?

By the way I am sorry for my english because my native language is spanish,
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2010, 01:39:52 AM »

The Moors were as bad as the Turks. They had child tax and all that crap too. I think that with one usurper after another in the Byzantine empire there was no cohesion.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 01:40:17 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2010, 01:42:05 AM »

two missed chances to rebuild the empire- 1258 when no Eastern Caliphate existed, and then later when Bajazet was defeated. After 1085 when the ancient Goth capital of Toledo fell, and When 1258 occurred, all the Islamic fighter went to the "Western Caliphate"  and tried to defend Cordoba, when Cordoba fell, they built Granada strategically in an impenetrable location. They were the first to use cannons to defend cities (unless Greek fire counts as canons). The re-capture of Spain and subsequent invasion of Africa was truly epic. The almohads tried invading with a half-million man army and invincible armadas but they lost (El Cid). Poor orthodox Christians, no re-conquista  Cry

and even MORE poor COE, not only no reconquista, 80 million dead Christians and nobody even knows we exist.


I know about you Iknow about you suffer, But there is an ocean between you and me, I can´t go to fight aside you, I only can do is suppor Pope in Rome with 1 day of my salary as it is requested from me, and Pope will decide where to use it. I feel sorrow for you, only think I can do is to pray for you.
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2010, 01:44:16 AM »

If you know about any other way to help you tell me.
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2010, 01:45:39 AM »

Read about the COE, learn from it. Support it, don't call it heretic. Read about the Assyrian Church of the East, the Holy Spirit will do the rest.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2010, 01:53:32 AM »

two missed chances to rebuild the empire- 1258 when no Eastern Caliphate existed,

The Mongol Empire wasn't a vacuum.

Quote
and then later when Bajazet was defeated.
Quote

by a more powerful Muslim, Timur, who payed obeissance to the caliph in Cairo.  Btw, Beyazit's mother was Greek.

Quote
After 1085 when the ancient Goth capital of Toledo fell, and When 1258 occurred, all the Islamic fighter went to the "Western Caliphate"  and tried to defend Cordoba, when Cordoba fell, they built Granada strategically in an impenetrable location.

What Islamic fighters?  The ones in Andalusia came from North Africa. Cordoba fell in 1236. Granada was a vassal of Castille.


Quote
They were the first to use cannons to defend cities (unless Greek fire counts as canons). The re-capture of Spain and subsequent invasion of Africa was truly epic. The almohads tried invading with a half-million man army and invincible armadas but they lost (El Cid). Poor orthodox Christians, no re-conquista  Cry

Yeah, we kept the Balkans and expanded across Asia into America instead.

Quote
and even MORE poor COE, not only no reconquista, 80 million dead Christians and nobody even knows we exist.


Yeah, that's a shame: btw, Genghis Khan's mother was COE.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2010, 01:56:38 AM »

I know of heroic resistance of Orthodox, And as you may see, I son't know about all represion from Turks to Orthodox, but you will also agree with me that something is happening that I can't see from Mexico about the resilance of turks to accept christianity. ¿What happened there?

same thing that happened to the moors, who went to North Africa rather than convert. In the case of the Turks, the million or so Turks that had converted were expelled to Greece in 1923.  And then there is the Gagauz in Moldavia, a nationality with the highest percentage of Orthodox as a nation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2010, 01:57:10 AM »

I know of heroic resistance of Orthodox, And as you may see, I son't know about all represion from Turks to Orthodox, but you will also agree with me that something is happening that I can't see from Mexico about the resilance of turks to accept christianity. ¿What happened there?

By the way I am sorry for my english because my native language is spanish,

It is my understanding that apostacy can be punished with death under islamic law. I think this might be part of the reason.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2010, 02:12:07 AM »

Hulawu Khan made the ishmaelites pay, his mother and wife were COE and he ended that vampire city Baghdad. Tamerlane-Hitler was the one who killed millions of COE members. Mountains of skulls and that sort of evil. To boot, the only COE people he didn't murder were suddenly forced to submit to Rome by the Portuguese in India two centuries later, totally de-stabilizing the COE's most ancient episcopate. Indian Christianity never recovered. To this day COE Syriac bibles are dug up in Samarkand, Persia, China... Cry
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 02:14:17 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2010, 02:50:24 AM »

Hulawu Khan made the ishmaelites pay, his mother and wife were COE and he ended that vampire city Baghdad. Tamerlane-Hitler was the one who killed millions of COE members. Mountains of skulls and that sort of evil. To boot, the only COE people he didn't murder were suddenly forced to submit to Rome by the Portuguese in India two centuries later, totally de-stabilizing the COE's most ancient episcopate. Indian Christianity never recovered. To this day COE Syriac bibles are dug up in Samarkand, Persia, China... Cry

BY FOOT TO CHINA

Mission of The Church of the East, to 1400

http://www.aina.org/books/bftc/bftc.htm


DEDICATED to the memory of the men of God who thirteen centuries ago first took the gospel to China - "the missionaries who traveled on foot, sandals on their feet, a staff in their hands, a basket on their backs, and in the basket the Holy Scriptures and the cross. They went over deep rivers and high mountains, thousands of miles, and on the way, meeting many nations, they preached to them the gospel of Christ."


An extraordinary online account and a must read.

And in message 29 at http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.msg310275/topicseen.html#msg310275

you can read about the book:


The Lost History of Christianity

The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died
by Philip Jenkins
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2010, 02:53:07 AM »

Wonderful book no? Read also "The Monks of Kublai Khan" :

http://www.aina.org/books/mokk/mokkcontents.htm

Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2010, 09:26:27 AM »

two missed chances to rebuild the empire- 1258 when no Eastern Caliphate existed,

The Mongol Empire wasn't a vacuum.


Not to mention that the Eastern Roman Empire had been betrayed and gutted by the Latins in 1204, who established their own state until the Byzantines gave them the boot in 1261. They were hardly in a position to "rebuild the empire".
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2010, 10:31:34 AM »

The later pope John Paul II visited some countries of Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kasakstan, Jordan, etc. was ther a change about christians among muslims?

Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2010, 10:53:54 AM »

Alonso_castillo,

If we Catholics were so focused on the restoration of Christendom and the defeat of Islam why did the English and French side with the Turks against Russia when they attempted to take back Christian lands from the Sultan at the start of the Crimean War?

Let's not cherry pick through history here, Friend. If we would have aided Russia in this we would all be able to attend the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia right now.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 10:54:58 AM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2010, 11:30:47 AM »

Alonso_castillo,

If we Catholics were so focused on the restoration of Christendom and the defeat of Islam why did the English and French side with the Turks against Russia when they attempted to take back Christian lands from the Sultan at the start of the Crimean War?

Let's not cherry pick through history here, Friend. If we would have aided Russia in this we would all be able to attend the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia right now.

Speaking of the French, they helped the Ottomans make the Mediterranean a Turkish lake back in the 16th and 17th Centuries.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2010, 11:34:12 AM »

Crusaders, and other knife scars in the back.

Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2010, 11:40:01 AM »

Why did Islam grow in the first place? Huh
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2010, 11:50:31 AM »

How come the Orthodox let it get so cold in Russia?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #45 on: January 05, 2010, 12:31:19 PM »

Crusaders, and other knife scars in the back.

Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

We're talking over 200 years before the fall of Constantinople. If you have read of the fall of Constantinople you might attribute the cunning of the Islamic Generals and perhaps to the failings of the Eastern Emperors who allowed Islamic troops within their own borders to cut off their flanks (i.e. supply lines). Constantinople was simply overwhelmed but the numbers of Islamic forces even with their superior training and technology.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #46 on: January 05, 2010, 12:33:47 PM »

Crusaders, and other knife scars in the back.

Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

We're talking over 200 years before the fall of Constantinople.

I'm sure you're not saying that it had no effect because of 200 years?

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #47 on: January 05, 2010, 01:11:50 PM »

Crusaders, and other knife scars in the back.

Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

We're talking over 200 years before the fall of Constantinople.

I'm sure you're not saying that it had no effect because of 200 years?



It certainly complicated the relationship between the East and the West. The population's rejection of the Union may have been based as much on lingering effects of the Latin sack as on theological reasons. Wasn't there a Byzantine duke who said "better the Ottoman turban than the Latin mitre"?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #48 on: January 05, 2010, 01:20:09 PM »

Crusaders, and other knife scars in the back.

Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

We're talking over 200 years before the fall of Constantinople. If you have read of the fall of Constantinople you might attribute the cunning of the Islamic Generals and perhaps to the failings of the Eastern Emperors who allowed Islamic troops within their own borders to cut off their flanks (i.e. supply lines). Constantinople was simply overwhelmed but the numbers of Islamic forces even with their superior training and technology.

The Fall of Constantinople left the city permanently crippled. In its wake the various Italian city-states gained trade concessions and outright possession of large chunks of the city which they used to insure Constantinople could not threaten their own growing trade interests by keeping Constantinople hamstrung--up until the time the Turk took everything.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,899


« Reply #49 on: January 05, 2010, 01:21:19 PM »

I think another factor re the fall of Constantinople is the impact of the bubonic plague. I would guess that although the ravages were from China to England, there was less sovereign living space for the Byzantines as compared to the Western Europeans and Ottomans. The Byzantines could not recover as the others could (just a guess).
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #50 on: January 05, 2010, 01:34:15 PM »

Crusaders, and other knife scars in the back.

Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

We're talking over 200 years before the fall of Constantinople. If you have read of the fall of Constantinople you might attribute the cunning of the Islamic Generals and perhaps to the failings of the Eastern Emperors who allowed Islamic troops within their own borders to cut off their flanks (i.e. supply lines). Constantinople was simply overwhelmed but the numbers of Islamic forces even with their superior training and technology.

The Fall of Constantinople left the city permanently crippled. In its wake the various Italian city-states gained trade concessions and outright possession of large chunks of the city which they used to insure Constantinople could not threaten their own growing trade interests by keeping Constantinople hamstrung--up until the time the Turk took everything.

Have you studied this? Professor Madden wouldn't agree with you and he is a specialist on this subject. You are conflating trade interests which took a while to develop and the defense of Eastern Rome. There were major problems with the Empire going all the way back to Diocletian. The chief 'hamstringing' was the spliting of the Empire and that eventually leading to not only a religious schism but also a cultural divide which effectively allowed the Islamic forces to attack half of the Empire at a time while the West was being undermined by Barbarians to it's west and northern borders and Muslims to their south. The real reason Islam never took the West was that they couldn't 'extend' their empire far enough to finish the West as it did with the Eastern Empire.

Yes, the Sack of Constantinople was horrible but it wasn't a deathblow to the Eastern Empire. It wasn't even a large loss of life. You are allowing your disliking and disgust of the event, which I share mind you,  to over exaggerate it's effects on the Eastern Empire.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #51 on: January 05, 2010, 02:17:10 PM »

“The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203-1204: A Damage Assessment,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84/85 (1992): 72-93.


“Venice and Constantinople in 1171 and 1172: Enrico Dandolo’s Attitude towards Byzantium,” Mediterranean Historical Review 8 (1993): 166-85.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 02:18:19 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #52 on: January 05, 2010, 02:39:26 PM »

Yes, the Sack of Constantinople was horrible but it wasn't a deathblow to the Eastern Empire. It wasn't even a large loss of life. You are allowing your disliking and disgust of the event, which I share mind you,  to over exaggerate it's effects on the Eastern Empire.

"Probably the most telling event which displayed the decline of the crusader ideal was the capture and pillage of the Christian bastion of Constantinople by the members of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The subsequent dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire weakened Christendom in the Near East…"
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html

Steven Runciman, whom I have read, stated that the sack of Constantinople is “unparalleled in history”:
“For nine centuries, the great city had been the capital of Christian civilisation. It was filled with works of art that had survived from ancient Greece and with the masterpieces of its own exquisite craftsmen. The Venetians wherever they could seized treasures and carried them off. But the Frenchmen and Flemings were filled with a lust for destruction: they rushed in a howling mob down the streets and through the houses, snatching up everything that glittered and destroying whatever they could not carry, pausing only to murder or to rape, or to break open the wine-cellars. Neither monasteries nor churches nor libraries were spared. In St Sophia itself drunken soldiers could be seen tearing down the silken hangings and pulling the silver iconostasis to pieces, while sacred books and icons were trampled under foot. While they drank from the altar-vessels a prostitute sang a ribald French song on the Patriarch’s throne. Nuns were ravished in their convents. Palaces and hovels alike were wrecked. Wounded women and children lay dying in the streets. For three days the ghastly scenes continued until the huge and beautiful city was a shambles. Even after order was restored, citizens were tortured to make them reveal treasures they had hidden.”
The Fall of Constantinople, 1453
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #53 on: January 05, 2010, 02:58:17 PM »

Yes, the Sack of Constantinople was horrible but it wasn't a deathblow to the Eastern Empire. It wasn't even a large loss of life. You are allowing your disliking and disgust of the event, which I share mind you,  to over exaggerate it's effects on the Eastern Empire.

"Probably the most telling event which displayed the decline of the crusader ideal was the capture and pillage of the Christian bastion of Constantinople by the members of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The subsequent dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire weakened Christendom in the Near East…"
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html

Steven Runciman, whom I have read, stated that the sack of Constantinople is “unparalleled in history”:
“For nine centuries, the great city had been the capital of Christian civilisation. It was filled with works of art that had survived from ancient Greece and with the masterpieces of its own exquisite craftsmen. The Venetians wherever they could seized treasures and carried them off. But the Frenchmen and Flemings were filled with a lust for destruction: they rushed in a howling mob down the streets and through the houses, snatching up everything that glittered and destroying whatever they could not carry, pausing only to murder or to rape, or to break open the wine-cellars. Neither monasteries nor churches nor libraries were spared. In St Sophia itself drunken soldiers could be seen tearing down the silken hangings and pulling the silver iconostasis to pieces, while sacred books and icons were trampled under foot. While they drank from the altar-vessels a prostitute sang a ribald French song on the Patriarch’s throne. Nuns were ravished in their convents. Palaces and hovels alike were wrecked. Wounded women and children lay dying in the streets. For three days the ghastly scenes continued until the huge and beautiful city was a shambles. Even after order was restored, citizens were tortured to make them reveal treasures they had hidden.”
The Fall of Constantinople, 1453


I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

With regard to destruction of Constantinople... what about the Nika Revolt?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 02:59:44 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #54 on: January 05, 2010, 03:31:44 PM »

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

Quote
With regard to destruction of Constantinople... what about the Nika Revolt?
What about it?

Btw, care to respond to Runciman's idea?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 03:32:54 PM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #55 on: January 05, 2010, 03:43:54 PM »

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

I've seen Orthodox rally around this event time and time again to excite their dislike of the West. It's not an event which incriminates all of the West as it was chiefly the designs of Venice and horrified the Pope and Western Bishops.

Quote
Quote
With regard to destruction of Constantinople... what about the Nika Revolt?
What about it?

Btw, care to respond to Runciman's idea?

I honestly think Runciman is being a bit to Romantic... which is why I brought up the Nika Revolt...

On January 13, 532 AD a tense and angry populace arrived at the Hippodrome for the races. The Hippodrome was next to the palace complex and thus Justinian could watch from the safety of his box in the palace and preside over the races. From the start the crowd had been hurling insults at Justinian. By the end of the day, at race 22, the partisan chants had changed from "Blue" or "Green" to a unified Nίκα ("Nika", meaning "Win!" or "Conquer!"), and the crowds broke out and began to assault the palace. For the next five days the palace was under virtual siege. The fires that started during the tumult resulted in the destruction of much of the city, including the city's foremost church, the Church of the Holy Wisdom or Hagia Sophia (which Justinian would later rebuild).

Constantinople was a wonderful testament to the advances of Roman technology in it's day but we have to recognize that it was not heaven on earth as much as some would like to paint it in our time. Even it's own citizens raised it's foremost church, the Church of Holy Wisdom or Hagia Sophia to the ground by fire. I don't see Orthodox wringing their hands over that. An yet it happened.

Do you see Westerners blaming the Easterners for the fall of Rome because it was done at the behest of the Eastern Emperor Zeno, whom encouraged Theodoric the Great to leave his lands in 488 AD and conquer all of Italy and rule it in his name?

Evils have been done in the West and the East. We're just going to have to recognize that and learn from it. I don't think selective cherry picking events to highlight the evils of one while ignoring the evils down by another is particularly worthwhile.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 03:52:38 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #56 on: January 05, 2010, 05:01:01 PM »

I don't think selective cherry picking events to highlight the evils of one while ignoring the evils down by another is particularly worthwhile.

I absolutely agree with you, and would only suggest that perhaps you also could take heed of your wise advice.

And just fyi, if it's at all germane to our discussion, I learned about and studied the Sack of Constantinople way way before I became Orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 05:03:20 PM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #57 on: January 05, 2010, 05:04:31 PM »

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

I've seen Orthodox rally around this event time and time again to excite their dislike of the West. It's not an event which incriminates all of the West as it was chiefly the designs of Venice and horrified the Pope and Western Bishops.

Quote
Quote
With regard to destruction of Constantinople... what about the Nika Revolt?
What about it?

Btw, care to respond to Runciman's idea?

I honestly think Runciman is being a bit to Romantic... which is why I brought up the Nika Revolt...

On January 13, 532 AD a tense and angry populace arrived at the Hippodrome for the races. The Hippodrome was next to the palace complex and thus Justinian could watch from the safety of his box in the palace and preside over the races. From the start the crowd had been hurling insults at Justinian. By the end of the day, at race 22, the partisan chants had changed from "Blue" or "Green" to a unified Nίκα ("Nika", meaning "Win!" or "Conquer!"), and the crowds broke out and began to assault the palace. For the next five days the palace was under virtual siege. The fires that started during the tumult resulted in the destruction of much of the city, including the city's foremost church, the Church of the Holy Wisdom or Hagia Sophia (which Justinian would later rebuild).

Constantinople was a wonderful testament to the advances of Roman technology in it's day but we have to recognize that it was not heaven on earth as much as some would like to paint it in our time. Even it's own citizens raised it's foremost church, the Church of Holy Wisdom or Hagia Sophia to the ground by fire. I don't see Orthodox wringing their hands over that. An yet it happened.

Do you see Westerners blaming the Easterners for the fall of Rome because it was done at the behest of the Eastern Emperor Zeno, whom encouraged Theodoric the Great to leave his lands in 488 AD and conquer all of Italy and rule it in his name?

Evils have been done in the West and the East. We're just going to have to recognize that and learn from it. I don't think selective cherry picking events to highlight the evils of one while ignoring the evils down by another is particularly worthwhile.
Very well stated.  Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #58 on: January 05, 2010, 05:15:28 PM »

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

I've seen Orthodox rally around this event time and time again to excite their dislike of the West. It's not an event which incriminates all of the West as it was chiefly the designs of Venice and horrified the Pope and Western Bishops.

Not enough to not take advantage and pick the carcass.


Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #59 on: January 05, 2010, 05:19:24 PM »

I don't think selective cherry picking events to highlight the evils of one while ignoring the evils down by another is particularly worthwhile.

I absolutely agree with you, and would only suggest that perhaps you also could take heed of your wise advice.

Honestly, it's one of the humbling aspects of being a Catholic. Everyone just assumes Rome is flat evil. It's virtually impossible to wax triumphant.  Wink

Quote
And just fyi, if it's at all germane to our discussion, I learned about and studied the Sack of Constantinople way way before I became Orthodox.

So you knew that the only time Hagia Sophia was completely raised to the ground in Constantinople it was done by it's own citizens?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #60 on: January 05, 2010, 05:20:38 PM »

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

I've seen Orthodox rally around this event time and time again to excite their dislike of the West. It's not an event which incriminates all of the West as it was chiefly the designs of Venice and horrified the Pope and Western Bishops.

Not enough to not take advantage and pick the carcass.

Well I think when a Catholic Antagonist shows up... it's a little difficult to resist.  Roll Eyes
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #61 on: January 05, 2010, 05:31:20 PM »

I don't think selective cherry picking events to highlight the evils of one while ignoring the evils down by another is particularly worthwhile.

I absolutely agree with you, and would only suggest that perhaps you also could take heed of your wise advice.

Honestly, it's one of the humbling aspects of being a Catholic. Everyone just assumes Rome is flat evil. It's virtually impossible to wax triumphant.  Wink
your martyr complex is showing: many have more than assumptions to go on to judge the Vatican's motives.  Its hiearchy in Latin America think the protestant missionaries quite evil.

Quote
Quote
And just fyi, if it's at all germane to our discussion, I learned about and studied the Sack of Constantinople way way before I became Orthodox.

So you knew that the only time Hagia Sophia was completely raised to the ground in Constantinople it was done by it's own citizens?
Justinian took care of them, others repented and rebuilt it.  Did they put prostetutes on the cathedra?  I don't recall that part.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #62 on: January 05, 2010, 05:36:45 PM »

It's virtually impossible to wax triumphant.  Wink


Don't sell yourself short, honey! I think you're doing a wonderful wax job!
 Wink
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #63 on: January 05, 2010, 05:40:01 PM »


your martyr complex is showing: many have more than assumptions to go on to judge the Vatican's motives.  Its hiearchy in Latin America think the protestant missionaries quite evil.

I've seen enough Orthodox react to Protestant Missionaries presume the exact same thing... are they 'evil' too?


Quote
Justinian took care of them, others repented and rebuilt it.  Did they put prostetutes on the cathedra?  I don't recall that part.

I wouldn't put it passed them. The fact that the entire church was raised to the ground makes that challenging though doesn't it?

I'm not hear to defend the acts of those barbarians but I am hear to point out that such acts are not the failings of the West alone.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #64 on: January 05, 2010, 05:40:22 PM »

It's virtually impossible to wax triumphant.  Wink


Don't sell yourself short, honey! I think you're doing a wonderful wax job!
 Wink

You are too cute.

But seriously though, after Jubilee and Our Holy Father's apologies for the evils done by the hands of the Roman Church I fail to see where 'any' Catholic can honestly wax triumphant. Of course, the rest of the World only used his apology as a means to confirm the errors of the See of Rome but what are you going to do? Move on.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 05:51:44 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #65 on: January 05, 2010, 06:20:58 PM »


your martyr complex is showing: many have more than assumptions to go on to judge the Vatican's motives.  Its hiearchy in Latin America think the protestant missionaries quite evil.

I've seen enough Orthodox react to Protestant Missionaries presume the exact same thing... are they 'evil' too?

We're not the ones whinning that everyone is against us.


Quote
Quote
Justinian took care of them, others repented and rebuilt it.  Did they put prostetutes on the cathedra?  I don't recall that part.

I wouldn't put it passed them. The fact that the entire church was raised to the ground makes that challenging though doesn't it?

Not really.  I don't recall something saying that they destroyed the Church, but that it was destroyed during their seige and burning of the Great Palace.  Looking at the map:

It need not resemble the wanton, intentional, destruction of the Crusaders.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #66 on: January 05, 2010, 06:52:01 PM »

We're not the ones whinning that everyone is against us.

I am not whining, why are you being insulting?


Quote
Not really.  I don't recall something saying that they destroyed the Church, but that it was destroyed during their seige and burning of the Great Palace.  Looking at the map:

It need not resemble the wanton, intentional, destruction of the Crusaders.

Perhaps you should read the wanton, intentional, destruction of the City during their revolt? It seems more important to you that the Crusaders are held to be uniquely vile and perhaps they were. I don't honestly know, because I wasn't there. I also can't completely trust the records of the event because they would and could have been written with a bias over exaggerating that actual events.

It is enough for me to know that the Western Church has reviewed the events and asked for pardon and forgiveness. If can't do that or if Orthodoxy can't do that... that honestly isn't my problem. Again I wasn't there. I didn't siege Constantinople. I don't feel any particular incrimination for those whom did. That the Western Church, through Our Holy Father, does and has asked for pardon seems to be a just thing to do but I personally don't feel blame for the sins of individuals 800 years ago. For you and others whom think you are more just because your cling to this event as some kind of badge of cultural self-righteousness is interesting. I don't see the connection to myself in either case. As I've said, I wasn't there. What I find interesting is, neither were you. Until we can forgive others we will be bound to our own sins. For the Orthodox to cling to this moment and fail to see their own errors is a kind of blindness I don't want to inherit if I enter into Orthodoxy.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #67 on: January 05, 2010, 07:15:29 PM »

^ I have always liked to point out that I have never sacked Constantinople nor have I ever massacred EO Christians.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #68 on: January 05, 2010, 08:41:23 PM »

It is enough for me to know that the Western Church has reviewed the events and asked for pardon and forgiveness. If can't do that or if Orthodoxy can't do that... that honestly isn't my problem.

Again I wasn't there. I didn't siege Constantinople. I don't feel any particular incrimination for those whom did. That the Western Church, through Our Holy Father, does and has asked for pardon seems to be a just thing to do but I personally don't feel blame for the sins of individuals 800 years ago. For you and others whom think you are more just because your cling to this event as some kind of badge of cultural self-righteousness is interesting. I don't see the connection to myself in either case. As I've said, I wasn't there. What I find interesting is, neither were you. Until we can forgive others we will be bound to our own sins. For the Orthodox to cling to this moment and fail to see their own errors is a kind of blindness I don't want to inherit if I enter into Orthodoxy.

I agree. 
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #69 on: January 06, 2010, 12:26:09 AM »

We're not the ones whinning that everyone is against us.

I am not whining, why are you being insulting?


Quote
Not really.  I don't recall something saying that they destroyed the Church, but that it was destroyed during their seige and burning of the Great Palace.  Looking at the map:

It need not resemble the wanton, intentional, destruction of the Crusaders.

Perhaps you should read the wanton, intentional, destruction of the City during their revolt? It seems more important to you that the Crusaders are held to be uniquely vile and perhaps they were. I don't honestly know, because I wasn't there. I also can't completely trust the records of the event because they would and could have been written with a bias over exaggerating that actual events.

It is enough for me to know that the Western Church has reviewed the events and asked for pardon and forgiveness. If can't do that or if Orthodoxy can't do that... that honestly isn't my problem. Again I wasn't there. I didn't siege Constantinople. I don't feel any particular incrimination for those whom did. That the Western Church, through Our Holy Father, does and has asked for pardon seems to be a just thing to do but I personally don't feel blame for the sins of individuals 800 years ago. For you and others whom think you are more just because your cling to this event as some kind of badge of cultural self-righteousness is interesting. I don't see the connection to myself in either case. As I've said, I wasn't there. What I find interesting is, neither were you. Until we can forgive others we will be bound to our own sins. For the Orthodox to cling to this moment and fail to see their own errors is a kind of blindness I don't want to inherit if I enter into Orthodoxy.



The OP asked about the cause of the FAll of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks.  A chief reason was the city's saking by the Crusaders, from which the Empire never fully recovered.

Someone then defended the Crusaders and brought up the Nike revolt, which, (having happened before Muhammad was born, and causing no lasting damage and certainly no contributing to the Fall of the City to the Muslims), has no relevance to the OP.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #70 on: January 06, 2010, 12:54:32 AM »



The OP asked about the cause of the FAll of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks.  A chief reason was the city's saking by the Crusaders, from which the Empire never fully recovered.

Someone then defended the Crusaders and brought up the Nike revolt, which, (having happened before Muhammad was born, and causing no lasting damage and certainly no contributing to the Fall of the City to the Muslims), has no relevance to the OP.

Grace and Peace,

My response was with regard to Runicman's Romantic depiction Constantinople as 700 years of idealize civilization only broken by the sacking there of by the Crusaders. This is clearly not true as multiple times the city was brought to it's knees by Plagues, the Nika Revolt (where the first Hagia Sophia was raised to the ground by fire), and dobious things that would call  Runciman's ideal into question. Anyone with historical knowledge of the Eastern Empire would be familiar with it's all too 'human' character. At times I am convinced that there are Orthodox who have a very naive view of the Eastern World and that the West is uniquely vile which truly isn't the case.

The point isn't "why orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam", they clearly resisted Islam. The point we are all ignoring is that with foreign troops the Empire East or West wasn't able to maintian it's own borders. Thus the eventual sacking of Rome by Gothic Generals of it's own Western Armies. The Eastern Empire suffered the same fate from Gothic Generals in their own Balkans. The Empire was suffering repeated declines for hundreds of years before the Sack of Constantinople. Unless one had a vested interested in passing the blame of their own defeat on the West, I don't honestly see how one could do it with a straight face. Constantinople was built at the crossroads of the world, it was only a matter of time before either the Western Worldly Powers or Persia or Middle-Eastern Powers took the city down. The Eastern Empire could not have continued without major reforms which it simply didn't do. I can appreciate one piety toward one's faith to blind one to these facts but no objective historian of the period would agree.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #71 on: January 06, 2010, 01:29:18 AM »

Out of Divine favour. How could the Byzantine empire not take 1258 and the defeat of Bajazet followed by the crumbling of tamerlane's fake empire to rebuild? Not logical.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #72 on: January 06, 2010, 01:44:10 AM »

Out of Divine favour. How could the Byzantine empire not take 1258 and the defeat of Bajazet followed by the crumbling of tamerlane's fake empire to rebuild? Not logical.
Take a look at the world at the time of the defeat of Beyazit:zit:


The Roman empire:
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 01:44:52 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #73 on: January 06, 2010, 11:32:03 AM »

The Fall of Constantinople left the city permanently crippled. In its wake the various Italian city-states gained trade concessions and outright possession of large chunks of the city which they used to insure Constantinople could not threaten their own growing trade interests by keeping Constantinople hamstrung--up until the time the Turk took everything.

Have you studied this? Professor Madden wouldn't agree with you and he is a specialist on this subject.

Actually yes, I have studied this. And historians are somewhat like the Fathers, you can never take just one as authoritative. katherineofdixie has already shown that plenty of historians do see a relationship between the sack and its aftereffects and the final decline of Constantinople to the point that it could no longer resist the Islamic pressure. I find their arguments more persuasive than Madden's, you don't. Since it's not a faith issue for either of us, not that big a deal.

You seem to be more concerned about something I didn't say or attempt to imply (though I understand why you might assume an Orthodox was implying it). I don't blame the Roman Catholic Church for the sack. There were Roman Catholics involved and those individuals certainly deserve censure; and the entire project of the Crusades, which provided the context in which Sack could occur, was the responsibility of the Papacy, and I consider it a deeply flawed strategy from the start. However, that doesn't make the Pope or the corporate body of the Roman Church responsible for the specific actions of certain of his adherents anymore than the entire Orthodox Church is responsible for some of the less savory actions of some of its members over the centuries. If there's any 'corporate body' to blame for the Sack, it's Venice, who also happened to be the ones to most benefit.

Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #74 on: January 06, 2010, 11:35:28 AM »

Out of Divine favour. How could the Byzantine empire not take 1258 and the defeat of Bajazet followed by the crumbling of tamerlane's fake empire to rebuild? Not logical.

Could you help me understand your point here? Please elaborate.

Thanks.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2010, 12:26:51 PM »

Out of Divine favour. How could the Byzantine empire not take 1258 and the defeat of Bajazet followed by the crumbling of tamerlane's fake empire to rebuild? Not logical.

Btw, in 1258, the Empire hadn't even recovered Constantinople yet.  Though they did try to get the Mongols:  Maria Palaiologina did marry Abaqa Khan after being engaged to his father Hulegu, the Mongol who destroyed Baghdad.  Abaqa died, though, and was succeeded by his Muslim sibling Akhmet.



« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 12:28:30 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2010, 02:00:18 PM »

Actually yes, I have studied this. And historians are somewhat like the Fathers, you can never take just one as authoritative. katherineofdixie has already shown that plenty of historians do see a relationship between the sack and its aftereffects and the final decline of Constantinople to the point that it could no longer resist the Islamic pressure. I find their arguments more persuasive than Madden's, you don't. Since it's not a faith issue for either of us, not that big a deal.

Katherineofdixie only offered 'one' individual... where are the rest? Also, what about actual historians and not individuals with a Religious bias?

Quote
You seem to be more concerned about something I didn't say or attempt to imply (though I understand why you might assume an Orthodox was implying it). I don't blame the Roman Catholic Church for the sack. There were Roman Catholics involved and those individuals certainly deserve censure; and the entire project of the Crusades, which provided the context in which Sack could occur, was the responsibility of the Papacy, and I consider it a deeply flawed strategy from the start. However, that doesn't make the Pope or the corporate body of the Roman Church responsible for the specific actions of certain of his adherents anymore than the entire Orthodox Church is responsible for some of the less savory actions of some of its members over the centuries. If there's any 'corporate body' to blame for the Sack, it's Venice, who also happened to be the ones to most benefit.

Pardon me if I assume your implied that. Far too many, Orthodox and Protestant, tie the West together into a tightly knit bow under the control of the Roman See. I see a great deal of political intrigue in much of this and I could post a short wrap up of my views at some point but most seem bent on seeing these and other events as West vs. East, Barbarians vs. Greeks, Catholic vs. Orthodox and I can see the anecdotal connections but once we dig in it all looks to be typical petty intrigues. If the Eastern Emperors would have never sent the Goths of the Balkans to finish Italy off to rule in their own name later implemented the regional Exarch rule and allowed German Generals to rule over the Western Empire, in all likelihood the See of Rome would have not turned to the Franks for protection. I think that Eastern arrogance and disdain for the Germans and the Germans arrogance and disdain for the Greeks helped cement political distrust and antipathy which ended in cultural as well as religious competition. After the Macedonian Dynasty (i.e. 1030 AD ish ?) the Eastern Empire began to choose Emperors who were largely politically 'weak' so that the real powers in Constantinople could maintain the status que. Constantine the 9th comes to mind... as an early example after the passing of Empress Zoey (?).

My main point in all this is to simply heap the fall of Eastern Rome on the West and in particular on the Sack of Constantinople is absurd. Did it help? Of course not but Constantinople was in the cross-hairs of the Muslims for hundreds of years and they had succeeded multiple times since the 630's AD to ravage the Eastern Empire and reduced it to, in effect, a city-state. We all tend to forget it was the East who 'started' the idea of a Christian Holy War with the religiosity surrounding the recovery of the true Cross from the Persians. The Eastern Army marched with Sacred Icons held before the troops all the way into Persia. Before then there was only a modicum of religious 'theme' to the actions of the Empire (East or West) but their war with the Persians, changed all that. After which, the Eastern Empire brutally cracked down on the Monophysites in the Middle-East. One might wonder if such was an impetus for the Monophysites to embrace the Arabs following their expansion in the area after the fall of Peria. Christian lands dropped quickly after that and with Lombards in the West and Slavs in the north the Empire was hard pressed. We just collapsed.

Without the Franks to prop up the West and the Germans, the West would have ended just like the Eastern Empire... under the yoke of Islam.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2010, 02:56:09 PM »

The "Cool" Khans like Hulawu were all COE by the way. Genghis was supported by a Christian tribe at first while he was still a slave.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2010, 03:56:46 PM »

The "Cool" Khans like Hulawu were all COE by the way. Genghis was supported by a Christian tribe at first while he was still a slave.

Perhaps but most of the Eastern Empires 'early' dealings with the Mongols required 'huge' sums of gold in payoffs, at least until they finished the Theodosian Walls.  Cool
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2010, 05:48:16 PM »

So we're here talking about the brutality of the West toward that bastion of civilization in Eastern Rome, Constantinople. I asked if anyone actually knew the history of Constantinople and a few of you confirmed that you did. I'm curious if any of you recall the proceeding years leading up to the assault on Constantinople by the Venetians and Normans? Specifically, do you recall the imprisonment of 'every' single Venetian in the Empire but the Emperor Emmanuel... or the Massacre of the Latins in April 1182 AD under Andronikos I Komnenos? How about Emperor Isaac's deal with Saladin to hinder the Latins during the 3rd Crusade? I'm thinking of one Frederick of Germany being delayed by Isaac for the benefit of Saladin against the English and the French? What about the 4000 survivors sold into slavery but the Emperor to Muslim Turks?

The Massacre of the Latins occurred in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, in 1182. It was a large-scale massacre of the "Latin" (Roman Catholic) merchants and their families, who at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector. Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.[2]

Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.[1][10] Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins. Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.[11] Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[2] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.[2][12] Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

My guess is you don't spend much time reflecting on such details because it isn't convenient for you to do so. As I've said evils have been done by East and the West but it doesn't seem like the East remember their own misdeeds because they are too eager keeping track of the misdeed done to themselves but history is a two edged sword people.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 06:11:15 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #80 on: January 06, 2010, 06:47:30 PM »

So we're here talking about the brutality of the West toward that bastion of civilization in Eastern Rome, Constantinople. I asked if anyone actually knew the history of Constantinople and a few of you confirmed that you did. I'm curious if any of you recall the proceeding years leading up to the assault on Constantinople by the Venetians and Normans? Specifically, do you recall the imprisonment of 'every' single Venetian in the Empire but the Emperor Emmanuel... or the Massacre of the Latins in April 1182 AD under Andronikos I Komnenos? How about Emperor Isaac's deal with Saladin to hinder the Latins during the 3rd Crusade? I'm thinking of one Frederick of Germany being delayed by Isaac for the benefit of Saladin against the English and the French? What about the 4000 survivors sold into slavery but the Emperor to Muslim Turks?

The Massacre of the Latins occurred in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, in 1182. It was a large-scale massacre of the "Latin" (Roman Catholic) merchants and their families, who at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector. Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.[2]

Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.[1][10] Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins. Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.[11] Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[2] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.[2][12] Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

My guess is you don't spend much time reflecting on such details because it isn't convenient for you to do so. As I've said evils have been done by East and the West but it doesn't seem like the East remember their own misdeeds because they are too eager keeping track of the misdeed done to themselves but history is a two edged sword people.
Then why do you continue to cut yourself on it?

We don't "spend much time reflecting on such detais" here because they have nothing to do with the OP, except further justify dwelling on 1204.  As you point out, the Roman Emperors called the West as allies and intermarried with them as "allies." Said "allies" proceeded to further undermine the empire on the frontier with Islam, setting up its own rival Patriarchate in Antioch and Latin state in 1098, and massacring  the Muslims with the capture of 1099: the Orthodox having been expelled as the Crusaders approarched, a harbinger of the new relations between the Orthodox and the Muslims, the latter permanently now seeing the former as an innate fifth column.  Said "allies," as you point out, proceeded to turn over economic control etc. to the West, a fact even the great unwashed in Constantinople picked up on.  But the emperors continued to foolish take enemies as friencs, and the populace continued to rip the fleece off the wolves, which forced them out into the open in 1204.  And again, that, not 1453, was the turning point of the Empire.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #81 on: January 06, 2010, 07:00:25 PM »

Alonso_castillo,

If we Catholics were so focused on the restoration of Christendom and the defeat of Islam why did the English and French side with the Turks against Russia when they attempted to take back Christian lands from the Sultan at the start of the Crimean War?

Let's not cherry pick through history here, Friend. If we would have aided Russia in this we would all be able to attend the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia right now.

French have always played as the rulers of continental Europe, Remember Lepanto's war when Spain, Pope, Venice and Some Germans went to war to ottomans to stop them to take Venice, France played neutral, when indeed they tryed to help Ottomans to make Spain to weaken its armies in Netherlands and America territories. French have always think in themselves.

The only tiem frenchs appeared to play for a third one was when Russia took Poland and Napoleon went to take them out from those lands. Poland was catolic and Zar didn't respect their independency. That is the only time france has fight from a third in modern times.
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #82 on: January 06, 2010, 07:30:25 PM »

Alonso_castillo,

If we Catholics were so focused on the restoration of Christendom and the defeat of Islam why did the English and French side with the Turks against Russia when they attempted to take back Christian lands from the Sultan at the start of the Crimean War?

Let's not cherry pick through history here, Friend. If we would have aided Russia in this we would all be able to attend the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia right now.

I also want to point out that Rusia has also been an expansionist Power like USA, even in Christian Countries as Poland, Bohemia, Lituania etc. Infact the ortodoxy was managed by Zar heading a permanent synod without a Patriarch. This relation between Rusian orthodoxy and government resulted in a revolution where orthodox christians didn't deffend orthodoxy that was very linked to power of Zar. from commnism.

In the times when Russian Revolution happened, in México we had our own Revolution, but it happened in 1910, when pour people took arms against capitalists, But this revolution didn't result in a real communist society, and when masson comunists tried to fight church people reacted so violently that government had to go back accepting living with a huge institution linked to Pope in Rome.

At the long of revolutionary governments, catholicism was fight by propagandistic and by lowering rights of clerecy, Many protestants where invited by Massons in government to hit catholicism.

My point is that although Rusia and México had armed revolutions inside and the revolution in Rusia went against orthodoxy and in México revolution went against catholicism, it seams that catholics in méxico where more ferreus to deffend catholicism than orthodox in Rusia to defend orthodoxy, and I think it was due to the fact that Rusian orthodoxy was equated to Zar regime, while Catohlicism was not quite easily linked to dictatorship and capitalists.

Perhaps it would also happened in bizantine empire where a social revolution ocurred along side to invasion, and as Orthodoxy was linked to temporal power, it also suffered the angry of revolts.

Would someone agree?

« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 07:36:57 PM by Alonso_castillo » Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #83 on: January 06, 2010, 07:38:03 PM »

...history is a two edged sword people.
...1204.  And again, that, not 1453, was the turning point of the Empire.

I agree with both of you. As milestones go, 1204 was at least as significant as 1453 or 1071 (Battle of Manzikert). However, these milestones did not just happen out of the blue; there were many factors. BTW, the problem with us Orthodox being overly sensitive and/or blaming the Romans is that such as stance is counterproductive: the idea of studying history is to learn from it, no?

BTW: I just read Alsonso's latest. I think he is trying to identify broad and frankly simplistic historical themes. OTH, much of the to-and-from between Ignatius and the EO posters has highlighted the complexity of history.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #84 on: January 06, 2010, 07:49:00 PM »

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?

Historically, people from many countries, ethnic groups and religions emigrated to the "New World" of both South and North America for a better life, land of their own, to get away from oppression or famine or other problems, or because other countries were not willing to take them among other reasons.

Russia was a settled country (and recall that there are many countries around Russia and that there were conflicts and wars between the nations).  Canada and the US had open lands, and new places where settlements could be established. Some companies, such as railroads, sent representatives to Europe to encourage people to come and settle.  In other cases, people with a particular skill were wanted and their passage was paid by potential employers.  Some came because of such discoveries as the gold in California.  

Opportunities and a chance for some improvement in their lives is a strong reason for coming to the "western hemisphere".


Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #85 on: January 06, 2010, 08:09:50 PM »

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?

Historically, people from many countries, ethnic groups and religions emigrated to the "New World" of both South and North America for a better life, land of their own, to get away from oppression or famine or other problems, or because other countries were not willing to take them among other reasons.

Russia was a settled country (and recall that there are many countries around Russia and that there were conflicts and wars between the nations).  Canada and the US had open lands, and new places where settlements could be established. Some companies, such as railroads, sent representatives to Europe to encourage people to come and settle.  In other cases, people with a particular skill were wanted and their passage was paid by potential employers.  Some came because of such discoveries as the gold in California. 

Opportunities and a chance for some improvement in their lives is a strong reason for coming to the "western hemisphere".


Ebor

Migrational politics in USA are state politics, thus this politic of allowing europeans to come USA was to ensure that new citizens  were allied to governmet rather than an ethnical or religious gruop, because, USA knows that if they oppened doors to México, mexicans would go ther not as USA government allies but as recovering land once belonged to México, so no alliance. Though Mexico is rather not to reclame USA lands, mexicans would feel free of allying to masonic government of USA.

Though in USA many hispanics abandon faith to protestantism, it is also true that many hispanics keep their faith and link it to language, so hispanics for many of them means "knowing spanish and being catholic", it is also true that masonic governments don't use to teach history of America since the very begining of colonization. Because they would have to recall the fact that all USA and Canada, were teritories originally belonged to Spain due to Tordesillas teatry, signed by Pope. If catholic hispanics there in USA and Canada were councius of this, they would be more secure and confident of not being alliens but the legitimate owners there in all North America and not only in California, Texas, Arizona, Utha, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, former mexican lands.

So Orthodoxy in Americais is a play of Masonic governments to fight catholicism, rather than an invitation fron catholic church for orthodoxy to stablish in originally catholic lands. Given by God's will to Catholics, and evangelized by catholics in the hand of Spain.

Catolicism is the faith of Americas, not Protestantism, not Islam, not Orthodoxy, not by our own merits but only by God's grace. so all catholics there in USA should feel in their home, not as foreings in an originally protestant land but as the real owners of America, Given by God to us Catholics.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 08:15:54 PM by Alonso_castillo » Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #86 on: January 06, 2010, 08:49:56 PM »

 Huh  Masonic government?  I'm sorry, I thought part of the question was why people the "Old World" came to the "New" instead of, as in the OP, Russia.   Huh  The US government is not "masonic".  

As to the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529) why should the authority of the Bishop of Rome to divide the "newly discovered" lands between Spain and Portugal be accepted by other nations?  There were human beings already living in those places (which included much of Africa and Asia as well  the Americas). Even Portugal didn't abide by the line of demarcation in South America with their control of Brazil, nor did Spain stay away from Japan.  So it is not a "fact" that Spain "owned" all of North America but an assertion of ownership that could not be enforced. Instead people from a number of countries established colonies and settlements and over centuries of treaties and wars and the rise and decline of empires, places like the United States and Canada and Mexico became their own nations.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

As to the "ownership" of such areas as most of Montana, France "owned" the territory that came to be known as the Louisiana Purchase following the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso (1800) which it then sold to the United States in 1803.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso

As to the new lands being "found" by Spain, there were earlier visits by people from other countries such as the Norse in Canada and possibly St. Brendan from Ireland.

How does your OP re why people came to the Americas rather the Russia apply, please?  There were many reasons why people immigrated to the US and Canada that were not related to the US government.

With respect,


Ebor
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 08:53:00 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #87 on: January 06, 2010, 09:15:01 PM »

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?

Historically, people from many countries, ethnic groups and religions emigrated to the "New World" of both South and North America for a better life, land of their own, to get away from oppression or famine or other problems, or because other countries were not willing to take them among other reasons.

Russia was a settled country (and recall that there are many countries around Russia and that there were conflicts and wars between the nations).  Canada and the US had open lands, and new places where settlements could be established. Some companies, such as railroads, sent representatives to Europe to encourage people to come and settle.  In other cases, people with a particular skill were wanted and their passage was paid by potential employers.  Some came because of such discoveries as the gold in California. 

Opportunities and a chance for some improvement in their lives is a strong reason for coming to the "western hemisphere".


Ebor

Migrational politics in USA are state politics, thus this politic of allowing europeans to come USA was to ensure that new citizens  were allied to governmet rather than an ethnical or religious gruop, because, USA knows that if they oppened doors to México, mexicans would go ther not as USA government allies but as recovering land once belonged to México, so no alliance. Though Mexico is rather not to reclame USA lands, mexicans would feel free of allying to masonic government of USA.

Though in USA many hispanics abandon faith to protestantism, it is also true that many hispanics keep their faith and link it to language, so hispanics for many of them means "knowing spanish and being catholic", it is also true that masonic governments don't use to teach history of America since the very begining of colonization. Because they would have to recall the fact that all USA and Canada, were teritories originally belonged to Spain due to Tordesillas teatry, signed by Pope. If catholic hispanics there in USA and Canada were councius of this, they would be more secure and confident of not being alliens but the legitimate owners there in all North America and not only in California, Texas, Arizona, Utha, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, former mexican lands.

So Orthodoxy in Americais is a play of Masonic governments to fight catholicism, rather than an invitation fron catholic church for orthodoxy to stablish in originally catholic lands. Given by God's will to Catholics, and evangelized by catholics in the hand of Spain.

Catolicism is the faith of Americas, not Protestantism, not Islam, not Orthodoxy, not by our own merits but only by God's grace. so all catholics there in USA should feel in their home, not as foreings in an originally protestant land but as the real owners of America, Given by God to us Catholics.

So Unam Sanctam is infallible, eh?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #88 on: January 06, 2010, 11:34:13 PM »

Tordesilhas AND that the land belonged to the native population of Mexico and the Americas in general which became Roman Catholic later. God gave the Land. I bet you guys don't know that Spain's biggest "Moorish" City (Cordoba) had keys on it saying "May this City be guarded by Allah and his servants FOREVER", Spain made sure those keys were handed over to them by the Muslims when they took it so as to make the point that God blessed them not the Muslims. So Alonso is right. Protestantism = faith of starch shirt Elizabethan English speaking colonizers.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 11:43:28 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #89 on: January 07, 2010, 12:51:08 AM »

So we're here talking about the brutality of the West toward that bastion of civilization in Eastern Rome, Constantinople. I asked if anyone actually knew the history of Constantinople and a few of you confirmed that you did. I'm curious if any of you recall the proceeding years leading up to the assault on Constantinople by the Venetians and Normans? Specifically, do you recall the imprisonment of 'every' single Venetian in the Empire but the Emperor Emmanuel... or the Massacre of the Latins in April 1182 AD under Andronikos I Komnenos? How about Emperor Isaac's deal with Saladin to hinder the Latins during the 3rd Crusade? I'm thinking of one Frederick of Germany being delayed by Isaac for the benefit of Saladin against the English and the French? What about the 4000 survivors sold into slavery but the Emperor to Muslim Turks?

The Massacre of the Latins occurred in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, in 1182. It was a large-scale massacre of the "Latin" (Roman Catholic) merchants and their families, who at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector. Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.[2]

Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.[1][10] Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins. Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.[11] Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[2] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.[2][12] Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

My guess is you don't spend much time reflecting on such details because it isn't convenient for you to do so. As I've said evils have been done by East and the West but it doesn't seem like the East remember their own misdeeds because they are too eager keeping track of the misdeed done to themselves but history is a two edged sword people.
Then why do you continue to cut yourself on it?

We don't "spend much time reflecting on such detais" here because they have nothing to do with the OP, except further justify dwelling on 1204.  As you point out, the Roman Emperors called the West as allies and intermarried with them as "allies." Said "allies" proceeded to further undermine the empire on the frontier with Islam, setting up its own rival Patriarchate in Antioch and Latin state in 1098, and massacring  the Muslims with the capture of 1099: the Orthodox having been expelled as the Crusaders approarched, a harbinger of the new relations between the Orthodox and the Muslims, the latter permanently now seeing the former as an innate fifth column.  Said "allies," as you point out, proceeded to turn over economic control etc. to the West, a fact even the great unwashed in Constantinople picked up on.  But the emperors continued to foolish take enemies as friencs, and the populace continued to rip the fleece off the wolves, which forced them out into the open in 1204.  And again, that, not 1453, was the turning point of the Empire.

The Eastern Emperors asked for aid from Western Christendom and the West gave them her sons but when those sons needed the Eastern Emperor to have their back at the Siege of Antioch, he left them to die without water or aid during a counter-siege by the Turks. But they didn't die and they managed to win against the Turks by leaving the protective walls of the city and meeting them in open combat. They won and they felt no loyalty to the Emperor that left them for dead at the hands of the Turks. So they didn't turn Antioch over to Eastern hands and kept it to rule over it for themselves. You may look at it any way you wish but in those days loyalty between brothers meant something until you failed to live up to your bond. From the eyes of those Western Christians who bled to retake Antioch the Emperor sold them out.

The turning point of the Empire was the end of the Macedonian Dynasty... 1130 AD as there was a revolt just about every single year during the 12 Century. If the Emperor didn't want Westerners within his walls he should have built his own fleet instead hiring Venetians for ships and trading rights. If he didn't want to have revolts and unrest within his kingdom, he shouldn't have hired so many mercenaries to fight for him and fought his own battles as his more noble forefather led in the field of battle before him. No, Friend, the Empire didn't 'turn' on 1204 AD. It was already decadent before then.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2010, 10:20:25 AM »


Katherineofdixie only offered 'one' individual... where are the rest? Also, what about actual historians and not individuals with a Religious bias?

Runciman has long been the standard work. Surely you're not saying that you are a more knowledgeable historian than Runciman or that he has a religious bias?

Perhaps religious bias cuts both ways?

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #91 on: January 07, 2010, 10:50:48 AM »


Katherineofdixie only offered 'one' individual... where are the rest? Also, what about actual historians and not individuals with a Religious bias?

Runciman has long been the standard work. Surely you're not saying that you are a more knowledgeable historian than Runciman or that he has a religious bias?

Perhaps religious bias cuts both ways?

Yes I am seeing a bias in Sir Runciman's work... I also noted that Bishop Ware jumps over the event to highlight the Sack of 1204AD and then only mentions the Massacre of the Latins with no details and then assures his readers that it was 'nothing compared to the Sack of the City. Perhaps he was repeating Sir Runciman's bias?

Also, if you search Wikipedia for "Sack of Constantinople" you can read an entire outline of the history of the city but you'll not find any mention of the Massacre of the Latins in 1182AD. If you search for "Massacre of the Latins" you will actually find the event but no mention of it else where and I even don't recall Runciman even mentioning it. Do you?

Impact of the Massacre of the Latins at Constantinople:

The massacre further worsened the image of the Byzantines in the West, and although regular trade agreements were soon resumed between Byzantium and Latin states, the underlying hostility would remain, leading to a spiraling chain of hostilities: a Norman expedition under William II of Sicily in 1185 sacked Thessalonica, the Empire's second city, and the German emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI both threatened to attack Constantinople.[13] The worsening relationship culminated with the brutal sack of the city of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, which led to the permanent alienation of Orthodox and Catholics. The massacre itself however remains relatively obscure, and Catholic historian Warren Carroll notes that "Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in ... 1182."[12]
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 10:54:11 AM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2010, 11:28:46 AM »

Huh  Masonic government?  I'm sorry, I thought part of the question was why people the "Old World" came to the "New" instead of, as in the OP, Russia.   Huh  The US government is not "masonic". 

Wake up lad, USA Government is masonic 100%, you can see it in all its structure, all the simbolysm of USA currency is masonic, york rite to be exact. you can se in you two USD bills the tipical meeting of a masonic lodge, the piramid witn the eye printed on the one USD bill, is also a masonic symbol, the phrase Novo ordo secculorum (new secular order) is quite a masonic principle of rulement, protestantism fracmented as it is, is the ideal type of religion that any masonic government would like to have, thus the citizens will never organize around any no governamental institution that may threat the government rulers the masonic heads.

As to the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529) why should the authority of the Bishop of Rome to divide the "newly discovered" lands between Spain and Portugal be accepted by other nations?  There were human beings already living in those places (which included much of Africa and Asia as well  the Americas). Even Portugal didn't abide by the line of demarcation in South America with their control of Brazil, nor did Spain stay away from Japan.  So it is not a "fact" that Spain "owned" all of North America but an assertion of ownership that could not be enforced. Instead people from a number of countries established colonies and settlements and over centuries of treaties and wars and the rise and decline of empires, places like the United States and Canada and Mexico became their own nations.

Yes, Spain and Portugal recived the right to be in America, Because Spain had found this new lands to Europe, and Portugal had discovered an isle near in a meridian that cut south america near Amazonas river mouth. Spain had not only evangelized Mexico (1531) before any other european potency arived here, and by Mestizaje (mixing races) spanish got not only the autority of Pope but also the legitimation of blod that all other europeans refused after earriving to America. So Catholicism, brought here by Spain achieved in 1531, with Guadalupe phenomenon, the conversion of al American natives in Mexico and Central America, even in Texas California and all other states property of Mexico. Mixing Blods, conversions and Papal Supreme Authority over the church lead America to be the land of Catholicism.

USA killed al natives who denied to abandon their lands to piligrins, in the 13 original colonies, and after USA - Mexico war the indians in Mexican terirtories were also killed for denying to give their lands. they didn't want to evangelize them rather than controling their lands.

About Brazil, it was Spanish king when ruling Portugal in an Iberical kingdom that asked Portuguese to enter the land by amazonas River to avoid France and Netherlands to go further in their expansion inland. But portuguese are Catholics as spanish, and our languages are very similar we share lots of historical background and our etnicity is very alike, and of course Brazil second language in schools is not english but spanish.


As to the "ownership" of such areas as most of Montana, France "owned" the territory that came to be known as the Louisiana Purchase following the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso (1800) which it then sold to the United States in 1803.


France was not part of Tordesillas treaty, they entered here not listening pope words to respect Tordesillas treaty, and making continuosly war to Spain. so Frnace was in America not by God's will in a peaceful discovery but in the envy they developed over Spain territories, so not legitimate ocupation of Quebec and Luisiana. they neither converted natives neither mixed their blod to legitimize their ocupation of America. all treaties after ilegitimate ocupation of America are nule, not matter if king of Spain had signed peace treaties to give up. for those treaties were not signed by any pope who originaly gave those lands to spansh people and descendants.

As to the new lands being "found" by Spain, there were earlier visits by people from other countries such as the Norse in Canada and possibly St. Brendan from Ireland.

How does your OP re why people came to the Americas rather the Russia apply, please?  There were many reasons why people immigrated to the US and Canada that were not related to the US government.

With respect,

Those erlier visits discovered in Terranova were not God's will other way they would have endured and they would have stablished a culture and a tradition, but it didn't  happen. Orthodoxy in Alazka  was an infiltration of rusian Zar who wanted to have lands in the new continent, they  didn't discovered those lands so once more is was not God's will for them to enter this continet but their ambisions.


« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 11:35:31 AM by Alonso_castillo » Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2010, 11:31:38 AM »

Once more, all Catholics in USA and Canada most feel themselves as the owners of this lands not as inmigrants, if they want more legitimate status they shoul respect native people and evangelize them. That was the intention of pope when giving those lands to catholic potencies.
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2010, 11:55:07 AM »

So we're here talking about the brutality of the West toward that bastion of civilization in Eastern Rome, Constantinople. I asked if anyone actually knew the history of Constantinople and a few of you confirmed that you did. I'm curious if any of you recall the proceeding years leading up to the assault on Constantinople by the Venetians and Normans? Specifically, do you recall the imprisonment of 'every' single Venetian in the Empire but the Emperor Emmanuel... or the Massacre of the Latins in April 1182 AD under Andronikos I Komnenos? How about Emperor Isaac's deal with Saladin to hinder the Latins during the 3rd Crusade? I'm thinking of one Frederick of Germany being delayed by Isaac for the benefit of Saladin against the English and the French? What about the 4000 survivors sold into slavery but the Emperor to Muslim Turks?

The Massacre of the Latins occurred in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, in 1182. It was a large-scale massacre of the "Latin" (Roman Catholic) merchants and their families, who at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector. Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.[2]

Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.[1][10] Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins. Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.[11] Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[2] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.[2][12] Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

My guess is you don't spend much time reflecting on such details because it isn't convenient for you to do so. As I've said evils have been done by East and the West but it doesn't seem like the East remember their own misdeeds because they are too eager keeping track of the misdeed done to themselves but history is a two edged sword people.
Then why do you continue to cut yourself on it?

We don't "spend much time reflecting on such detais" here because they have nothing to do with the OP, except further justify dwelling on 1204.  As you point out, the Roman Emperors called the West as allies and intermarried with them as "allies." Said "allies" proceeded to further undermine the empire on the frontier with Islam, setting up its own rival Patriarchate in Antioch and Latin state in 1098, and massacring  the Muslims with the capture of 1099: the Orthodox having been expelled as the Crusaders approarched, a harbinger of the new relations between the Orthodox and the Muslims, the latter permanently now seeing the former as an innate fifth column.  Said "allies," as you point out, proceeded to turn over economic control etc. to the West, a fact even the great unwashed in Constantinople picked up on.  But the emperors continued to foolish take enemies as friencs, and the populace continued to rip the fleece off the wolves, which forced them out into the open in 1204.  And again, that, not 1453, was the turning point of the Empire.

The Eastern Emperors asked for aid from Western Christendom

A stupid move on the part of the emperor, for which neither he nor the empire received anything.

Quote
and the West gave them her sons but when those sons needed the Eastern Emperor to have their back at the Siege of Antioch, he left them to die without water or aid during a counter-siege by the Turks.

Many Orthodox, notably Patriarch Simeon of Jerusalem (in exile on Cyprus) and the local Greek and Armenians (who had been expelled from the city), sent aid.  Aid came from Constantinople even after the Roman Tacitus left.

Quote
But they didn't die and they managed to win against the Turks by leaving the protective walls of the city and meeting them in open combat.
They spent their time jockeying for position and who was first, too busy to listen to or take cognisance of the Roman general and legate Tactitus, and then Bohemund, scheming to take Antioch for himself, told Tacitus that the other Crusaders were plotting to kill him.  So Tacitus left.

Quote
They won

Because Bohemund bribed a Armenian guard in the city to open the gate.  Bohemund then told the other Crusaders that he would get the gates open, but would do so only if they recognized him as lord of the city. Raymond of Toulousse insited that the city belonged to Emperor Alexis, and others scoffed at Bohemund demand but facing approaching reinforcements, theymostly caved into the demand.


Quote
and they felt no loyalty to the Emperor that left them for dead at the hands of the Turks.

So Bohemund claimed, to cover up his treachery and scheming. Raymond and Godfrey of Bouillon didn't buy it, and Stephen of Blois refused to advance Bohemund's agenda and left.

Quote
So they didn't turn Antioch over to Eastern hands and kept it to rule over it for themselves. You may look at it any way you wish but in those days loyalty between brothers meant something until you failed to live up to your bond.

Is Bohemund's lying constitute "failure to live up to your bond," bearing false witness that his fellow Crusaders Raymond, Godfrey, Stephen etc. were going to kill Tacitus, and slander that Tacitus' departure was treachery/cowardice?


Quote
From the eyes of those Western Christians who bled to retake Antioch the Emperor sold them out.

Their eyes were evidently blinded by Bohemund.  Btw, the Turkish commander of Antioch was catpured and executed by the Syrian Orthodox.


Quote
The turning point of the Empire was the end of the Macedonian Dynasty... 1130 AD
?  The Macedonian Dynasty ended in 1057, its territory was this:

It was succeeded by the Komnena, whose terriotry was this:

Doesn't look terribly enemic to me.

Quote
as there was a revolt just about every single year during the 12 Century.

The Empire looked like this in 1180:


It looked like this after the Crusaders had their way with her:


Quote
If the Emperor didn't want Westerners within his walls he should have built his own fleet instead hiring Venetians for ships and trading rights. If he didn't want to have revolts and unrest within his kingdom, he shouldn't have hired so many mercenaries to fight for him and fought his own battles as his more noble forefather led in the field of battle before him. No, Friend, the Empire didn't 'turn' on 1204 AD. It was already decadent before then.

Emperor Alexis recovered his sanity and kicked Bohemand's Norman a** and forced him to sign the Treaty of Devol, in which Bohemund swore to submit to the Emperor, swearing
Quote
"I swear to thee, our most powerful and holy Emperor, the Lord Alexios Komnenos, and to thy fellow-Emperor, the much-desired Lord John Porphyrogenitos that I will observe all the conditions to which I have agreed and spoken by my mouth and will keep them inviolate for all time and the things that are for the good of your Empire I care for now and will for ever care for and I will never harbor even the slightest thought of hatred or treachery towards you [...] and everything that is for the benefit and honor of the Roman rule that I will both think of and execute. Thus may I enjoy the help of God, and of the Cross and of the holy Gospels."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Devol
He also has to give up the Latin usurper he put on the cathedra of Antioch and accept the Orthodox one, in addition to giving back to the Empire the land he stole.  Bohemund never returned to the East, evidently learning his lesson.

In 1177 Manual recovered from the defeat of Myriakephalon, defeating a force of picked Turks at Hyelion and Leimocheir, and following up with raiding on Seljuq territory, having been able to gather armies to join that sent from the capital.  The Romans still had the stuff.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2010, 11:57:42 AM »


Katherineofdixie only offered 'one' individual... where are the rest? Also, what about actual historians and not individuals with a Religious bias?

Runciman has long been the standard work. Surely you're not saying that you are a more knowledgeable historian than Runciman or that he has a religious bias?

Perhaps religious bias cuts both ways?

Yes I am seeing a bias in Sir Runciman's work... I also noted that Bishop Ware jumps over the event to highlight the Sack of 1204AD and then only mentions the Massacre of the Latins with no details and then assures his readers that it was 'nothing compared to the Sack of the City. Perhaps he was repeating Sir Runciman's bias?

Also, if you search Wikipedia for "Sack of Constantinople" you can read an entire outline of the history of the city but you'll not find any mention of the Massacre of the Latins in 1182AD. If you search for "Massacre of the Latins" you will actually find the event but no mention of it else where and I even don't recall Runciman even mentioning it. Do you?

Impact of the Massacre of the Latins at Constantinople:

The massacre further worsened the image of the Byzantines in the West, and although regular trade agreements were soon resumed between Byzantium and Latin states, the underlying hostility would remain, leading to a spiraling chain of hostilities: a Norman expedition under William II of Sicily in 1185 sacked Thessalonica, the Empire's second city, and the German emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI both threatened to attack Constantinople.[13] The worsening relationship culminated with the brutal sack of the city of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, which led to the permanent alienation of Orthodox and Catholics. The massacre itself however remains relatively obscure, and Catholic historian Warren Carroll notes that "Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in ... 1182."[12]
Perhaps this excuse isn't as important as Vatican apologist would like to make it to put it to use.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #96 on: January 07, 2010, 11:59:13 AM »

Huh  Masonic government?  I'm sorry, I thought part of the question was why people the "Old World" came to the "New" instead of, as in the OP, Russia.   Huh  The US government is not "masonic".  

Wake up lad, USA Government is masonic 100%, you can see it in all its structure, all the simbolysm of USA currency is masonic, york rite to be exact. you can se in you two USD bills the tipical meeting of a masonic lodge, the piramid witn the eye printed on the one USD bill, is also a masonic symbol, the phrase Novo ordo secculorum (new secular order) is quite a masonic principle of rulement, protestantism fracmented as it is, is the ideal type of religion that any masonic government would like to have, thus the citizens will never organize around any no governamental institution that may threat the government rulers the masonic heads.
Nonsense.

Quote
Spain had not only evangelized Mexico (1531) before any other european potency arived here, and by Mestizaje (mixing races) spanish got not only the autority of Pope but also the legitimation of blod that all other europeans refused after earriving to America. So Catholicism, brought here by Spain achieved in 1531, with Guadalupe phenomenon, the conversion of al American natives in Mexico and Central America, even in Texas California and all other states property of Mexico. Mixing Blods, conversions and Papal Supreme Authority over the church lead America to be the land of Catholicism.

USA killed al natives who denied to abandon their lands to piligrins, in the 13 original colonies, and after USA - Mexico war the indians in Mexican terirtories were also killed for denying to give their lands. they didn't want to evangelize them rather than controling their lands.
Do you really want to go into the Spanish treatment of indigenous people in the New World?

« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 11:59:49 AM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #97 on: January 07, 2010, 12:53:13 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Devol
He also has to give up the Latin usurper he put on the cathedra of Antioch and accept the Orthodox one, in addition to giving back to the Empire the land he stole.  Bohemund never returned to the East, evidently learning his lesson.

In 1177 Manual recovered from the defeat of Myriakephalon, defeating a force of picked Turks at Hyelion and Leimocheir, and following up with raiding on Seljuq territory, having been able to gather armies to join that sent from the capital.  The Romans still had the stuff.

So long story short, you think it was 'unjust' for the Latins to claim their victories? It should have been handed over to the Greeks? They should have not been upset by the Massacre of the Latins by the Greeks nor by the Palace Intrigues or the scheming with Saladin to hinder the Crusades?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #98 on: January 07, 2010, 01:10:27 PM »

Huh  Masonic government?  I'm sorry, I thought part of the question was why people the "Old World" came to the "New" instead of, as in the OP, Russia.   Huh  The US government is not "masonic". 

Wake up lad, USA Government is masonic 100%, you can see it in all its structure, all the simbolysm of USA currency is masonic, york rite to be exact. you can se in you two USD bills the tipical meeting of a masonic lodge, the piramid witn the eye printed on the one USD bill, is also a masonic symbol, the phrase Novo ordo secculorum (new secular order) is quite a masonic principle of rulement, protestantism fracmented as it is, is the ideal type of religion that any masonic government would like to have, thus the citizens will never organize around any no governamental institution that may threat the government rulers the masonic heads.

This is why the History Channel is such a mixed bag.

As to the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529) why should the authority of the Bishop of Rome to divide the "newly discovered" lands between Spain and Portugal be accepted by other nations?  There were human beings already living in those places (which included much of Africa and Asia as well  the Americas). Even Portugal didn't abide by the line of demarcation in South America with their control of Brazil, nor did Spain stay away from Japan.  So it is not a "fact" that Spain "owned" all of North America but an assertion of ownership that could not be enforced. Instead people from a number of countries established colonies and settlements and over centuries of treaties and wars and the rise and decline of empires, places like the United States and Canada and Mexico became their own nations.

Yes, Spain and Portugal recived the right to be in America, Because Spain had found this new lands to Europe, and Portugal had discovered an isle near in a meridian that cut south america near Amazonas river mouth. Spain had not only evangelized Mexico (1531) before any other european potency arived here, and by Mestizaje (mixing races) spanish got not only the autority of Pope

and where did he get his authority?  He claims to be the vicar of Someone Who said "My Kingdom is not of this world."

Quote
but also the legitimation of blod that all other europeans refused after earriving to America.

Legitimation by rape and fornication. Interesting concept.  The legacy of la Chingada?

How is it that once Latin America got rid of the Peninsulares, the Criollos were the ones who shut out the mestizos (let alone the natives) in running things?

Quote
So Catholicism, brought here by Spain achieved in 1531, with Guadalupe phenomenon, the conversion of al American natives in Mexico and Central America, even in Texas California and all other states property of Mexico. Mixing Blods, conversions and Papal Supreme Authority over the church lead America to be the land of Catholicism.

Papal Supreme Authority over the Church is a myth.

The King of Spain didn't even give his church right to act as a legal person in the New World.

Orthodoxy came naturally into the New World: the Orthodox converted and intermarried and evangelized across Siberia, into Alaska down to California.  Unlike the Spanish Inquistion coming across an ocean away, thinking they are in India.

Quote
USA killed al natives who denied to abandon their lands to piligrins, in the 13 original colonies, and after USA - Mexico war the indians in Mexican terirtories were also killed for denying to give their lands. they didn't want to evangelize them rather than controling their lands.

About Brazil, it was Spanish king when ruling Portugal in an Iberical kingdom that asked Portuguese to enter the land by amazonas River to avoid France and Netherlands to go further in their expansion inland. But portuguese are Catholics as spanish, and our languages are very similar we share lots of historical background and our etnicity is very alike, and of course Brazil second language in schools is not english but spanish.

So how do you explain away New France?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/LouisianeFran%C3%A7aise01.png

Oh, I see you have "answered" that.

As to the "ownership" of such areas as most of Montana, France "owned" the territory that came to be known as the Louisiana Purchase following the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso (1800) which it then sold to the United States in 1803.

France was not part of Tordesillas treaty, they entered here not listening pope words to respect Tordesillas treaty,

As not part of the treaty, France had no responsibility to respect it.

Quote
and making continuosly war to Spain. so Frnace was in America not by God's will in a peaceful discovery

Yeah, the conquiztadores were quite the pacifists.

http://huespedes.cica.es/~iberjoyce/conquistadores

Quote
but in the envy they developed over Spain territories, so not legitimate ocupation of Quebec and Luisiana. they neither converted natives neither mixed their blod to legitimize their ocupation of America.

What ARE you talking about? Here, in the midst of New France/Louisanie, Pays Illinois, the French missionaries came down from Quebed and went down to New Orleans.  Our first state capital, Kaskaskia, was a French Amerindian mission: its altar was shipped up the Mississippi from France.

http://www.choisser.com/family/illinois/kasaltar.jpg



Quote
all treaties after ilegitimate ocupation of America are nule, not matter if king of Spain had signed peace treaties to give up. for those treaties were not signed by any pope who originaly gave those lands to spansh people and descendants.

Does the pope sell bridges in Brooklyn too?

Btw, the only one to conclude treaties with the Amerinidans in California was the Russians (i.e. the Orthodox): unlike the Americans, they actually kept their treaty.

As to the new lands being "found" by Spain, there were earlier visits by people from other countries such as the Norse in Canada and possibly St. Brendan from Ireland.

How does your OP re why people came to the Americas rather the Russia apply, please?  There were many reasons why people immigrated to the US and Canada that were not related to the US government.

With respect,

Those erlier visits discovered in Terranova were not God's will other way they would have endured and they would have stablished a culture and a tradition, but it didn't  happen. Orthodoxy in Alazka  was an infiltration of rusian Zar who wanted to have lands in the new continent, they  didn't discovered

Your right, the Russians didn't discover Alaska.  The Aleuts and Yupiks etc. who live in Siberia and Alaska discovered them.  The Russians only converted them to Orthoodxy.

Quote
those lands so once more is was not God's will for them to enter this continet but their ambisions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Eastern_Orthodox_saints

The lad in the center, in the red shirt is St. Peter the Aleut, martyred by your Spanish Inquisition in San Francisco.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #99 on: January 07, 2010, 01:13:12 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Devol
He also has to give up the Latin usurper he put on the cathedra of Antioch and accept the Orthodox one, in addition to giving back to the Empire the land he stole.  Bohemund never returned to the East, evidently learning his lesson.

In 1177 Manual recovered from the defeat of Myriakephalon, defeating a force of picked Turks at Hyelion and Leimocheir, and following up with raiding on Seljuq territory, having been able to gather armies to join that sent from the capital.  The Romans still had the stuff.

So long story short, you think it was 'unjust' for the Latins to claim their victories? It should have been handed over to the Greeks? They should have not been upset by the Massacre of the Latins by the Greeks nor by the Palace Intrigues or the scheming with Saladin to hinder the Crusades?



and this weakened the Empire against Islam how?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #100 on: January 07, 2010, 01:21:16 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Devol
He also has to give up the Latin usurper he put on the cathedra of Antioch and accept the Orthodox one, in addition to giving back to the Empire the land he stole.  Bohemund never returned to the East, evidently learning his lesson.

In 1177 Manual recovered from the defeat of Myriakephalon, defeating a force of picked Turks at Hyelion and Leimocheir, and following up with raiding on Seljuq territory, having been able to gather armies to join that sent from the capital.  The Romans still had the stuff.

So long story short, you think it was 'unjust' for the Latins to claim their victories? It should have been handed over to the Greeks? They should have not been upset by the Massacre of the Latins by the Greeks nor by the Palace Intrigues or the scheming with Saladin to hinder the Crusades?



and this weakened the Empire against Islam how?

Greek envy of the growing influence of the latins in Constantinople (especially in trade) led to the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and a rift in relations between the West and the East which made it almost impossible for the West to aid the East against the Muslims.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #101 on: January 07, 2010, 02:11:43 PM »

The reality of Mexico Conquista in Present days:





We can see tat mexicans mixed blod of Spain and natives are not la chingada race, but a society that understands that God is not a God of a single people nor a God of many etnical peoples but the God of the Human Family, where no races are to divide.





It was God will to Catholicism to arrive her before any other, no scismatics, noprotestants, no muslims, no budist, no atheist. but catholics.

When violence was used was when Cortes destroyed pagan althars covered with human blod and skuls. After Cortés had defeated aztec armies with the help of Tlaxcaltecas, who were already evangelized, and with whom mestizage begun, then Guadalupe apeared. and she presented her selfe as the theotokos, the modther of God by whom one lives. By her, aztecs converted to Christ.



About the myth of Spanish murders lets show mexican people:



You can see brown and white people, as families:





¿Can we see so in French, Greek, English, and al other inmigrants to Northamerica?

Once more all catholics in North America, must feel owners of this land, not inmigrants, Catholicism is the righteous faith, the one that God will to be the faith of this continent.
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #102 on: January 07, 2010, 03:20:58 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Devol
He also has to give up the Latin usurper he put on the cathedra of Antioch and accept the Orthodox one, in addition to giving back to the Empire the land he stole.  Bohemund never returned to the East, evidently learning his lesson.

In 1177 Manual recovered from the defeat of Myriakephalon, defeating a force of picked Turks at Hyelion and Leimocheir, and following up with raiding on Seljuq territory, having been able to gather armies to join that sent from the capital.  The Romans still had the stuff.

So long story short, you think it was 'unjust' for the Latins to claim their victories? It should have been handed over to the Greeks? They should have not been upset by the Massacre of the Latins by the Greeks nor by the Palace Intrigues or the scheming with Saladin to hinder the Crusades?



and this weakened the Empire against Islam how?

Greek envy of the growing influence of the latins in Constantinople (especially in trade) led to the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and a rift in relations between the West and the East which made it almost impossible for the West to aid the East against the Muslims.
Of course, the Latn suppression of the Greek rite, language and culture in Southern Italy over a century earlier had NOTHING to do with that rift.  And the catch (submission to the Vatian et alia) that Western "aid" always came with.  Not to mention the duplicity of Bohemand. Greek envy?  Perhaps realization that the Latins were just in it for themselves.  Centuries later, St. Stephan the Great, called Athlete of Christ by the Vatican, had to complain that while he fought the "pagan Turk" out of Europe, his Latin "brothers" the Poles, Hungarians, etc. were busy stabbing his exposed back as he faced the Muslim hordes.

Give up Ignatius. The West was NEVER any help to the Christian East.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2010, 03:25:03 PM »

The reality of Mexico Conquista in Present days:

About the myth of Spanish murders lets show mexican people:


Interesting picture of Mexican people: I worked a year the building in the background, but yet I've never been to Mexico.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 03:26:24 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #104 on: January 07, 2010, 03:25:47 PM »



and this weakened the Empire against Islam how?

Greek envy of the growing influence of the latins in Constantinople (especially in trade) led to the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and a rift in relations between the West and the East which made it almost impossible for the West to aid the East against the Muslims.
Of course, the Latn suppression of the Greek rite, language and culture in Southern Italy over a century earlier had NOTHING to do with that rift.  And the catch (submission to the Vatian et alia) that Western "aid" always came with.  Not to mention the duplicity of Bohemand. Greek envy?  Perhaps realization that the Latins were just in it for themselves.  Centuries later, St. Stephan the Great, called Athlete of Christ by the Vatican, had to complain that while he fought the "pagan Turk" out of Europe, his Latin "brothers" the Poles, Hungarians, etc. were busy stabbing his exposed back as he faced the Muslim hordes.

Give up Ignatius. The West was NEVER any help to the Christian East.

An how do you think southern Italy ended up in the hands of the Eastern Emperors?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 03:35:46 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #105 on: January 07, 2010, 03:27:52 PM »



and this weakened the Empire against Islam how?

Greek envy of the growing influence of the latins in Constantinople (especially in trade) led to the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and a rift in relations between the West and the East which made it almost impossible for the West to aid the East against the Muslims.
Of course, the Latn suppression of the Greek rite, language and culture in Southern Italy over a century earlier had NOTHING to do with that rift.  And the catch (submission to the Vatian et alia) that Western "aid" always came with.  Not to mention the duplicity of Bohemand. Greek envy?  Perhaps realization that the Latins were just in it for themselves.  Centuries later, St. Stephan the Great, called Athlete of Christ by the Vatican, had to complain that while he fought the "pagan Turk" out of Europe, his Latin "brothers" the Poles, Hungarians, etc. were busy stabbing his exposed back as he faced the Muslim hordes.

Give up Ignatius. The West was NEVER any help to the Christian East.

An how do you think southern Italy ended up in the hands of the Eastern Emperors?
You mean Magna Graecia?  It was settled by Greeks when Old Rome was a village. It then passed to the Roman Emperors, who continued to rule from New Rome. That was after the Roman Emperor Justinian (a Latin speaker, btw) came from Constantinople and cleared Italy and North Africa of Arians (they survived among the OP's friends in Spain, though).
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 03:29:38 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #106 on: January 07, 2010, 03:33:07 PM »



and this weakened the Empire against Islam how?

Greek envy of the growing influence of the latins in Constantinople (especially in trade) led to the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and a rift in relations between the West and the East which made it almost impossible for the West to aid the East against the Muslims.
Of course, the Latn suppression of the Greek rite, language and culture in Southern Italy over a century earlier had NOTHING to do with that rift.  And the catch (submission to the Vatian et alia) that Western "aid" always came with.  Not to mention the duplicity of Bohemand. Greek envy?  Perhaps realization that the Latins were just in it for themselves.  Centuries later, St. Stephan the Great, called Athlete of Christ by the Vatican, had to complain that while he fought the "pagan Turk" out of Europe, his Latin "brothers" the Poles, Hungarians, etc. were busy stabbing his exposed back as he faced the Muslim hordes.

Give up Ignatius. The West was NEVER any help to the Christian East.

An how do you think southern Italy ended up in the hands of the Eastern Emperors?
You mean Magna Graecia?  It was settled by Greeks when Old Rome was a village. It then passed to the Roman Emperors, who continued to rule from New Rome. That was after the Roman Emperor Justinian (a Latin speaker, btw) came from Constantinople and cleared Italy and North Africa of Arians (they survived among the OP's friends in Spain, though).

When the Empire was split East and West... which Emperor ruled over southern Italy?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 03:37:56 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #107 on: January 07, 2010, 03:35:40 PM »

Isa...how can you say nobody helped the Greeks when in the Varna Crusade John Hunyadi slew 8 Turk Pashas in sequence and decimated the Turk pagan armies (despite losing the actual city of Varna because of the hungarian king who died) only so incompetent Greeks would lose Constantinople a few decades later? The Turkopagan power in Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and the rest of the Balkans entirely broken in the long campaign only so Greeks lose the world's biggest city?

Also on Mexico: Queen Isabella was the first Monarch to sign decrees stating that all native people were to be treated with equality and respect. She even sent people back safely to Mexico when they were brought by conquistadores (like sending people back to the moon!) North Americans were the ones who killed the native people, plus cortez was not representative of spain since he had a death warrant on his head when he arrived on Mexico. Oh and the legitimacy of blood.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 03:52:17 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #108 on: January 07, 2010, 04:37:25 PM »

Quote
When violence was used was when Cortes destroyed pagan althars covered with human blod and skuls.

Have you ever read what Bartolome de las Casas had to say about the treatment of indigenous people by the conquistadores? After all, he was actually there and witnessed what historians call genocide in Cuba.

And I don't want to be indelicate or anything, but just how do you think that all this blood got mixed anyway?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 04:38:33 PM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #109 on: January 07, 2010, 04:39:20 PM »

Quote
When violence was used was when Cortes destroyed pagan althars covered with human blod and skuls.

Have you ever read what Bartolome de las Casas had to say about the treatment of indigenous people by the conquistadores? After all, he was actually there and witnessed what historians call genocide in Cuba.

And I don't want to be indelicate or anything, but just how do you think that all this blood got mixed anyway?
You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #110 on: January 07, 2010, 04:46:11 PM »

When the Empire was split East and West... which Emperor ruled over southern Italy?

When Old Rome fell, which Emperor was left standing to rule?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #111 on: January 07, 2010, 04:47:15 PM »

The reality of Mexico Conquista in Present days:

About the myth of Spanish murders lets show mexican people:


Interesting picture of Mexican people: I worked a year the building in the background, but yet I've never been to Mexico.


Mexico is a beautiful country with very kind people.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #112 on: January 07, 2010, 04:55:15 PM »

Isa...how can you say nobody helped the Greeks when in the Varna Crusade John Hunyadi slew 8 Turk Pashas in sequence and decimated the Turk pagan armies (despite losing the actual city of Varna because of the hungarian king who died) only so incompetent Greeks would lose Constantinople a few decades later? The Turkopagan power in Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and the rest of the Balkans entirely broken in the long campaign only so Greeks lose the world's biggest city?

The Varna Crusade happened in 1444, less than a decade before the fall of Constantinople, which had been severely depopulated since 1204.  John Hunyadi was usually busy supressing the Orthodox majority of Transylvania.
Looking at a map of 1450 might help you to answer your own question.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #113 on: January 07, 2010, 05:06:14 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

So the conquistadors simply finished the job?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #114 on: January 07, 2010, 05:15:06 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

So the conquistadors simply finished the job?
That was not my point. I just wanted to point out that the myth of the big bad Spanish coming to kill all these innocent people is simply silly. The Aztec society was terribly evil. In fact, I think God allowed the Spanish to do what they did as an expression of his wrath much like he would allow nations to do in the Old Testament.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #115 on: January 07, 2010, 05:21:02 PM »

When the Empire was split East and West... which Emperor ruled over southern Italy?

When Old Rome fell, which Emperor was left standing to rule?

Who sent a Balkan Goths to finish off the Western Empire out of fear?

In 476, Odoacer officially became the first Germanic King of Italy and a new era began. Odoacer was an Arian Christian and is said to have been illiterate. The warriors and the families in Odoacer's foederati received lands in Italy and became beneficiaries of a special tax policy. Odoacer retained the Roman administration, senate, law and tax system of Italy. In return, he won a high level of support from the senate and people.

Odoacer raised an Italic-Germanic army with which he defeated the Vandals in Sicily. He was able to conquer the whole island by 477. By 480, he and his Italic-Germanic army annexed all of ancient Dalmatia, after the death (possibly by assassination) of Western Emperor Julius Nepos. After this, he received the right to appoint a council and to issue his own coinage. He made pacts with the Visigoths and Franks and joined them in battle against the Burgundians, Alamanni, and Saxons.

As Odoacer's kingdom expanded, his popularity among the Italic people grew, and his pacts with the Franks and Visigoths gave him increased influence. All these things started to worry Zeno, the Eastern Emperor, who increasingly saw Odoacer as a rival. In 487 Odoacer led his army to victory against the Rugians in Noricum, but he did not incorporate it into his own kingdom. The remaining Rugians fled and took refuge with the Ostrogoths. Rugiland was left open and by 493 was settled by the Lombards. In 488, Emperor Zeno started a mostly verbal campaign against Odoacer, accusing him of playing a major part in the revolt of Illus in 484. With these claims, Zeno convinced his Ostrogothic vassals that Odoacer was an enemy and should be removed. Zeno promised Theodoric the Great and his Ostrogoths the Italian peninsula if they were to defeat and remove Odoacer. In the same year, 488, Theodoric led the Ostrogoths across the Julian Alps and into Italy. With this betrayal, the Byzantines killed two birds with one stone. They removed the Ostrogoths from the Balkans and their border and at the same time conveniently caused Odoacer to disappear from the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odoacer

By the law of the Empire, Zeno had no right to just claim the Western Empire for himself and he didn't have the right to promise Italy to Theodoric.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 05:23:19 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #116 on: January 07, 2010, 05:24:33 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

So the conquistadors simply finished the job?
That was not my point. I just wanted to point out that the myth of the big bad Spanish coming to kill all these innocent people is simply silly. The Aztec society was terribly evil. In fact, I think God allowed the Spanish to do what they did as an expression of his wrath much like he would allow nations to do in the Old Testament.

Be careful with that thinking Bro.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #117 on: January 07, 2010, 05:27:39 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

So the conquistadors simply finished the job?
That was not my point. I just wanted to point out that the myth of the big bad Spanish coming to kill all these innocent people is simply silly. The Aztec society was terribly evil. In fact, I think God allowed the Spanish to do what they did as an expression of his wrath much like he would allow nations to do in the Old Testament.

Be careful with that thinking Bro.
Well, I am not justifying Spanish acts of cruelty either.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #118 on: January 07, 2010, 05:38:50 PM »

When the Empire was split East and West... which Emperor ruled over southern Italy?

When Old Rome fell, which Emperor was left standing to rule?

Who sent a Balkan Goths to finish off the Western Empire out of fear?

In 476, Odoacer officially became the first Germanic King of Italy and a new era began. Odoacer was an Arian Christian and is said to have been illiterate. The warriors and the families in Odoacer's foederati received lands in Italy and became beneficiaries of a special tax policy. Odoacer retained the Roman administration, senate, law and tax system of Italy. In return, he won a high level of support from the senate and people.

Odoacer raised an Italic-Germanic army with which he defeated the Vandals in Sicily. He was able to conquer the whole island by 477. By 480, he and his Italic-Germanic army annexed all of ancient Dalmatia, after the death (possibly by assassination) of Western Emperor Julius Nepos. After this, he received the right to appoint a council and to issue his own coinage. He made pacts with the Visigoths and Franks and joined them in battle against the Burgundians, Alamanni, and Saxons.

As Odoacer's kingdom expanded, his popularity among the Italic people grew, and his pacts with the Franks and Visigoths gave him increased influence. All these things started to worry Zeno, the Eastern Emperor, who increasingly saw Odoacer as a rival. In 487 Odoacer led his army to victory against the Rugians in Noricum, but he did not incorporate it into his own kingdom. The remaining Rugians fled and took refuge with the Ostrogoths. Rugiland was left open and by 493 was settled by the Lombards. In 488, Emperor Zeno started a mostly verbal campaign against Odoacer, accusing him of playing a major part in the revolt of Illus in 484. With these claims, Zeno convinced his Ostrogothic vassals that Odoacer was an enemy and should be removed. Zeno promised Theodoric the Great and his Ostrogoths the Italian peninsula if they were to defeat and remove Odoacer. In the same year, 488, Theodoric led the Ostrogoths across the Julian Alps and into Italy. With this betrayal, the Byzantines killed two birds with one stone. They removed the Ostrogoths from the Balkans and their border and at the same time conveniently caused Odoacer to disappear from the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odoacer

By the law of the Empire, Zeno had no right to just claim the Western Empire for himself and he didn't have the right to promise Italy to Theodoric.
Also from Wikpedia "Romulus Augustulus," the last Emperor at Rome, overthrown by Odoacer:
Quote
Following Odoacer's coup, the Roman Senate sent a letter to Zeno, Saying that "the majesty of a sole monarch is sufficient to pervade and protect, at the same time, both the East and the West".[14] While Zeno told the Senate that Nepos was their lawful sovereign, he did not press the point, and accepted the imperial insignia brought to him by the Senate.[9][14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_Augustulus

Zeno and his heirs on the throne in Constantinople were well within their rights.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 05:39:34 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #119 on: January 07, 2010, 06:02:58 PM »

When the Empire was split East and West... which Emperor ruled over southern Italy?

When Old Rome fell, which Emperor was left standing to rule?

Who sent a Balkan Goths to finish off the Western Empire out of fear?

In 476, Odoacer officially became the first Germanic King of Italy and a new era began. Odoacer was an Arian Christian and is said to have been illiterate. The warriors and the families in Odoacer's foederati received lands in Italy and became beneficiaries of a special tax policy. Odoacer retained the Roman administration, senate, law and tax system of Italy. In return, he won a high level of support from the senate and people.

Odoacer raised an Italic-Germanic army with which he defeated the Vandals in Sicily. He was able to conquer the whole island by 477. By 480, he and his Italic-Germanic army annexed all of ancient Dalmatia, after the death (possibly by assassination) of Western Emperor Julius Nepos. After this, he received the right to appoint a council and to issue his own coinage. He made pacts with the Visigoths and Franks and joined them in battle against the Burgundians, Alamanni, and Saxons.

As Odoacer's kingdom expanded, his popularity among the Italic people grew, and his pacts with the Franks and Visigoths gave him increased influence. All these things started to worry Zeno, the Eastern Emperor, who increasingly saw Odoacer as a rival. In 487 Odoacer led his army to victory against the Rugians in Noricum, but he did not incorporate it into his own kingdom. The remaining Rugians fled and took refuge with the Ostrogoths. Rugiland was left open and by 493 was settled by the Lombards. In 488, Emperor Zeno started a mostly verbal campaign against Odoacer, accusing him of playing a major part in the revolt of Illus in 484. With these claims, Zeno convinced his Ostrogothic vassals that Odoacer was an enemy and should be removed. Zeno promised Theodoric the Great and his Ostrogoths the Italian peninsula if they were to defeat and remove Odoacer. In the same year, 488, Theodoric led the Ostrogoths across the Julian Alps and into Italy. With this betrayal, the Byzantines killed two birds with one stone. They removed the Ostrogoths from the Balkans and their border and at the same time conveniently caused Odoacer to disappear from the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odoacer

By the law of the Empire, Zeno had no right to just claim the Western Empire for himself and he didn't have the right to promise Italy to Theodoric.
Also from Wikpedia "Romulus Augustulus," the last Emperor at Rome, overthrown by Odoacer:
Quote
Following Odoacer's coup, the Roman Senate sent a letter to Zeno, Saying that "the majesty of a sole monarch is sufficient to pervade and protect, at the same time, both the East and the West".[14] While Zeno told the Senate that Nepos was their lawful sovereign, he did not press the point, and accepted the imperial insignia brought to him by the Senate.[9][14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_Augustulus

Zeno and his heirs on the throne in Constantinople were well within their rights.

So it's okay for the Western Emperor to 'take' the Eastern Empire if the Eastern Emperor is deposed or killed?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #120 on: January 07, 2010, 06:05:08 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

So the conquistadors simply finished the job?
That was not my point. I just wanted to point out that the myth of the big bad Spanish coming to kill all these innocent people is simply silly. The Aztec society was terribly evil. In fact, I think God allowed the Spanish to do what they did as an expression of his wrath much like he would allow nations to do in the Old Testament.

Be careful with that thinking Bro.
Well, I am not justifying Spanish acts of cruelty either.

Actually, you are, you know, in a way, at least. By saying that the Aztec society was evil, you (inadvertantly, I hope!) justify the cruelty of the conquistadors. And as pointed out by ignatius, that is an extremely slippery and treacherous slope.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #121 on: January 07, 2010, 06:17:31 PM »

When the Empire was split East and West... which Emperor ruled over southern Italy?

When Old Rome fell, which Emperor was left standing to rule?

Who sent a Balkan Goths to finish off the Western Empire out of fear?

In 476, Odoacer officially became the first Germanic King of Italy and a new era began. Odoacer was an Arian Christian and is said to have been illiterate. The warriors and the families in Odoacer's foederati received lands in Italy and became beneficiaries of a special tax policy. Odoacer retained the Roman administration, senate, law and tax system of Italy. In return, he won a high level of support from the senate and people.

Odoacer raised an Italic-Germanic army with which he defeated the Vandals in Sicily. He was able to conquer the whole island by 477. By 480, he and his Italic-Germanic army annexed all of ancient Dalmatia, after the death (possibly by assassination) of Western Emperor Julius Nepos. After this, he received the right to appoint a council and to issue his own coinage. He made pacts with the Visigoths and Franks and joined them in battle against the Burgundians, Alamanni, and Saxons.

As Odoacer's kingdom expanded, his popularity among the Italic people grew, and his pacts with the Franks and Visigoths gave him increased influence. All these things started to worry Zeno, the Eastern Emperor, who increasingly saw Odoacer as a rival. In 487 Odoacer led his army to victory against the Rugians in Noricum, but he did not incorporate it into his own kingdom. The remaining Rugians fled and took refuge with the Ostrogoths. Rugiland was left open and by 493 was settled by the Lombards. In 488, Emperor Zeno started a mostly verbal campaign against Odoacer, accusing him of playing a major part in the revolt of Illus in 484. With these claims, Zeno convinced his Ostrogothic vassals that Odoacer was an enemy and should be removed. Zeno promised Theodoric the Great and his Ostrogoths the Italian peninsula if they were to defeat and remove Odoacer. In the same year, 488, Theodoric led the Ostrogoths across the Julian Alps and into Italy. With this betrayal, the Byzantines killed two birds with one stone. They removed the Ostrogoths from the Balkans and their border and at the same time conveniently caused Odoacer to disappear from the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odoacer

By the law of the Empire, Zeno had no right to just claim the Western Empire for himself and he didn't have the right to promise Italy to Theodoric.
Also from Wikpedia "Romulus Augustulus," the last Emperor at Rome, overthrown by Odoacer:
Quote
Following Odoacer's coup, the Roman Senate sent a letter to Zeno, Saying that "the majesty of a sole monarch is sufficient to pervade and protect, at the same time, both the East and the West".[14] While Zeno told the Senate that Nepos was their lawful sovereign, he did not press the point, and accepted the imperial insignia brought to him by the Senate.[9][14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_Augustulus

Zeno and his heirs on the throne in Constantinople were well within their rights.

So it's okay for the Western Emperor to 'take' the Eastern Empire if the Eastern Emperor is deposed or killed?
If he could manage for the Emperor or Senate in the East to name him successor (or marry the widow of said deposed or (rather) killed Emperor, then he would have an argument to make.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
sandersjp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox [new zealand ]
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 8


« Reply #122 on: January 07, 2010, 06:24:16 PM »


 Odoacer was an Arian Christian and is said to have been illiterate. The warriors and the families in Odoacer's foederati received lands in Italy and became beneficiaries of a special tax policy. Odoacer retained the Roman administration, senate, law and tax system of Italy. In return, he won a high level of support from the senate and people.
Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Church priest, who was deemed a heretic at the First Council of Nicea of 325, later exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre[1], and then pronounced a heretic again after his death at the First Council of Constantinople of 381[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #123 on: January 07, 2010, 07:22:19 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

Actually, it is possible that the increased amount of human sacrifice was a result of the presence of the conquistadors. When a theocratic society feels under threat, it will often revert to extremist forms of its religion- i.e., the presence of the conquistadors means the gods are very angry and must be appeased. Also there is a political motivation in showing the invading powers what the society is prepared to do to to resist the invasion.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #124 on: January 07, 2010, 07:30:37 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

So the conquistadors simply finished the job?
That was not my point. I just wanted to point out that the myth of the big bad Spanish coming to kill all these innocent people is simply silly. The Aztec society was terribly evil. In fact, I think God allowed the Spanish to do what they did as an expression of his wrath much like he would allow nations to do in the Old Testament.

Be careful with that thinking Bro.
Well, I am not justifying Spanish acts of cruelty either.

Actually, you are, you know, in a way, at least. By saying that the Aztec society was evil, you (inadvertantly, I hope!) justify the cruelty of the conquistadors. And as pointed out by ignatius, that is an extremely slippery and treacherous slope.
Nope. I think the conquistadores did some aweful things for which they would most certainly pay unless they repented. All I am saying is that God may have allowed what they did to happen because the Aztec society was so vile and evil.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #125 on: January 07, 2010, 07:31:23 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

Actually, it is possible that the increased amount of human sacrifice was a result of the presence of the conquistadors. When a theocratic society feels under threat, it will often revert to extremist forms of its religion- i.e., the presence of the conquistadors means the gods are very angry and must be appeased. Also there is a political motivation in showing the invading powers what the society is prepared to do to to resist the invasion.
The night of darkness in which tens of thousands were sacrificed in the Aztec capital occured before the conquistadores arrived.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #126 on: January 07, 2010, 07:41:03 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

Actually, it is possible that the increased amount of human sacrifice was a result of the presence of the conquistadors. When a theocratic society feels under threat, it will often revert to extremist forms of its religion- i.e., the presence of the conquistadors means the gods are very angry and must be appeased. Also there is a political motivation in showing the invading powers what the society is prepared to do to to resist the invasion.
What makes you say that the Aztecs were a "theocratic society?"

The Aztecs in rededidcating the Great Pyramid in 1487, sacrificed tens of thousands (20-80K), staging wars to capture the sacrifices.
http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ttQrgdcvEEC&pg=PA29&dq=aztec+sacrifice+1487+flowery+wars&cd=4#v=onepage&q=aztec%20sacrifice%201487%20flowery%20wars&f=false

1487.  Hmmm.  That's before 1492, before Columbus....
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #127 on: January 07, 2010, 09:10:29 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

Actually, it is possible that the increased amount of human sacrifice was a result of the presence of the conquistadors. When a theocratic society feels under threat, it will often revert to extremist forms of its religion- i.e., the presence of the conquistadors means the gods are very angry and must be appeased. Also there is a political motivation in showing the invading powers what the society is prepared to do to to resist the invasion.
What makes you say that the Aztecs were a "theocratic society?"
They had a political system in which the gods were at the top of the heirarchy and rulers (eg the k'ul ahau) held their authority from the gods.


The Aztecs in rededidcating the Great Pyramid in 1487, sacrificed tens of thousands (20-80K), staging wars to capture the sacrifices.
http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ttQrgdcvEEC&pg=PA29&dq=aztec+sacrifice+1487+flowery+wars&cd=4#v=onepage&q=aztec%20sacrifice%201487%20flowery%20wars&f=false

1487.  Hmmm.  That's before 1492, before Columbus....
Hmmm. As usual you are not listening to what anyone says and are responding to conversations in your own head. Look again at what you quoted and tell me what the word "increased" means. Also the Aztec claims that they sacrificed 80,400 prisoners over 4 days for the rededication of the Great Pyramid are more than likely extremely exaggerated. If they were sacrificing humans continually day and night over the 4 days, that would be a rate of 14 human sacrifices a minute (or one every 4 seconds).
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 09:22:50 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #128 on: January 07, 2010, 09:37:52 PM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

Actually, it is possible that the increased amount of human sacrifice was a result of the presence of the conquistadors. When a theocratic society feels under threat, it will often revert to extremist forms of its religion- i.e., the presence of the conquistadors means the gods are very angry and must be appeased. Also there is a political motivation in showing the invading powers what the society is prepared to do to to resist the invasion.
What makes you say that the Aztecs were a "theocratic society?"
They had a political system in which the gods were at the top of the heirarchy and rulers (eg the k'ul ahau) held their authority from the gods.

And that would make it different from say, Great Britain, how?


The Aztecs in rededidcating the Great Pyramid in 1487, sacrificed tens of thousands (20-80K), staging wars to capture the sacrifices.
http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ttQrgdcvEEC&pg=PA29&dq=aztec+sacrifice+1487+flowery+wars&cd=4#v=onepage&q=aztec%20sacrifice%201487%20flowery%20wars&f=false

1487.  Hmmm.  That's before 1492, before Columbus....
Hmmm. As usual you are not listening to what anyone says and are responding to conversations in your own head. Look again at what you quoted and tell me what the word "increased" means.

In this case nothing, because it's a load of **** that the sacrifices increased with the distress of the coming of the Spanish. For one thing, the Spanish took over so quickly there wasn't time to increase sacrifices.

Speaking of conversations in your own head, do you have something on the "theory" of increased sacrifice with the coming of Cortez?

Quote
Also the Aztec claims that they sacrificed 80,400 prisoners over 4 days for the rededication of the Great Pyramid are more than likely extremely exaggerated. If they were sacrificing humans continually day and night over the 4 days, that would be a rate of 14 human sacrifices a minute (or one every 4 seconds).

Yes, I'm aware of the problem of the figures: what is not disputed is that mock battles ("flower wars") were set up just for the purpose of securing sacrifices, so they didn't need any "distress" as an excuse for carving hearts out.  What also seems not to be under dispute is that the largest number of sacrifices known occured at the temple rededication. Since this happened before the arrival of the Spanish, ergo there wasn't an increase, because then THAT would be the incident of the largest known number of sacrifices.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 09:38:52 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #129 on: January 07, 2010, 09:42:44 PM »

¿Can we see so in French, Greek, English, and al other inmigrants to Northamerica?

You've already met Peter the Aleut.
The lad in the center, in the red shirt is St. Peter the Aleut, martyred by your Spanish Inquisition in San Francisco.

He wasn't an immigrant: he went from the Aleutian Islands (the Czar's territory, by treaty with the Aleutians) to Fort Ross California (the Czar's territory, by treaty with the Kashaya Pomo), a native.

Half Aleut (his Father was Russian), was Father Jacob Netsvetov.  Again, not a an immigrant as he went from Alaska to Irkutsk and then to the Yukon, all in the Russian Empire.


An immigrant was St. Innoncent of Alaska, later Patriarch of Moscow.  He evangelized from Siberia through Alaska down to San Francisco.  He learned and wrote in the native languages works which he translated into Russian and were published for the Faithful there when he became senior hiearch of the Moscow Church.

They did their work well.

And it continues:
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/29721.htm
Quote
RTE: One of the revelations in reading native Alaskan Orthodox history such as Alaskan Missionary Spirituality, or From Mask to Icon: Transformation in the Arctic, is how Orthodoxy was very much initially embraced and then kept alive by the native peoples, sometimes without seeing a priest for years. Twenty years ago, I remember Aleuts from Kodiak simply saying, “To be native is to be Orthodox.”

MIKHAIL: Yes, indeed. Fr. Michael Oleksa goes into great detail about this in his book Orthodox Alaska — how many elements of the pre-Christian Alaskan worldview were not abolished, but rather fulfilled in Orthodox Christianity.

RTE: Wonderful! How many languages and dialects are there in the native Orthodox population, and how many people still speak those languages? MIKHAIL: That’s a very good question. I cannot claim to be a scholar, but I can answer based on my experience with the texts, and having worked with the wonderful priests of the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Alaska who provided their expertise.

Numerically, the largest contingent of Native Alaskan speakers are the Yup’ik people, who number around 20,000 people, of whom 13,000 speak the language across various dialects. The Alutiiq (known as Kodiak-Aleut in Russian America) number around 3,000, of whom 500-1,000 still speak the language. Aleuts are divided linguistically into the Atkan and Eastern dialectal variants. The total population of the Aleut people is given as 3,000, with the vast majority being of Eastern-Aleut background. The Atkan-dialect of Aleut has approximately 60-80 fluent speakers, whereas the Eastern-Aleut dialect has about 300 fluent speakers. St. Innocent focused his efforts in writing for the Eastern-Aleut, while St. Jacob concentrated on developing the Atkan-Aleut and Yup’ik languages. The Tlingit population is estimated at around 17,000, of whom 500 are fluent in the language. The bulk of Tlingit literature was developed in Sitka by Reader Ivan Nadezhdin in the 1850’s, and by Fr. Vladimir Donskoi and Michael Sinkiel in the 1890’s. The Tanaina of central Alaska number around 1,000, with 100 fluent native-language speakers. In all cases, many more people understand the language but do not speak it.

The native languages all had a thriving press and literature through the 1800’s under the auspices of the Orthodox Church. However, in the late 1890’s and early 1900’s, the Protestant missions of Sheldon Jackson had a disastrous effect on native language vitality, and were clearly aimed at ripping out the roots of the Native Alaskan Orthodox cultures. Stories of faithful Aleut Orthodox being chained to the floors of their own homes by U.S. Territorial agents for speaking their language and courageously refusing to hand over their children to the Protestant boarding schools break the heart. Our native Alaskan Orthodox brothers were first-class confessors for their Holy Orthodox faith. They are heroes and defenders of Orthodox Christianity. In the midst of the turmoil of American “English-only” language policy throughout much of the 20th century, the native languages declined greatly. Much of the work of Sts. Innocent and Jacob was destroyed, but not completely. What we are seeing today is a veritable resurrection of our Alaskan brothers’ texts, their languages, their authentically Orthodox cultures. Their sacrifice is chronicled in such books as Alaskan Missionary Spirituality and Orthodox Alaska by Fr. Michael Oleksa. RTE: Sadly, the mistreatment went on well into the latter half of the 20th century. The Russian Orthodox priests who remained after the United States acquired Alaska had little influence to protect the native Orthodox, and even less after the 1917 Russian Revolution. I remember an Aleut Orthodox man who said that, as late as the 1960’s, when he was a young boy at school, the use of native language was still forbidden. If you were heard speaking it, a derogatory, humiliating sign was placed around your neck, which you wore until you heard another child speaking “native,” when you could pass the sign on to him. The child wearing the sign at the end of the day was beaten by the principal.

This should not have been, as the rights of the Orthodox were guarenteed by treaty:
Quote
Article II
In the cession of territory and dominion made by the preceding article, are included the right of property in all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifies which are not private individual property. It is, however, understood and agreed, that the churches which have been built in the ceded territory by the Russian Government, shall remain the property of such members of the Greek Oriental Church resident in the territory as may choose to worship therein. Any Government archives, papers, and documents relative to the territory and dominion aforesaid, which may now be existing there, will be left in the possession of the agent of the United States; but an authenticated copy of such of them as may be required, will be, at all times, given by the United States to the Russian Government, or to such Russian officers or subjects as they may apply for. 10

Article III
The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may from time to time adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.”
http://www.bartleby.com/43/43.html

As to the rights that the natives had by treaty, I've posted elsewhere:
Quote
The issue is the status that the treaty created for the Orthodox, both European and Amerinidian, in US law, with legal title to the Church properties etc in Alaska, as successor of the HGS authority. (there are related matters, e.g. 1% of the sale price was paid per annum to the American Diocese until the revolution, etc.). There are lots of de jure issues from how the US constition and case law would interact with the treaty, but as the US, besides paying the money didn’t keep the terms of the treaty, that might be too large a digression. Instead we might look at how the “Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs” tried to assert their rights under the treaty (ironic, as the Tlingit converted as a nation AFTER the Russians left) petitioning the US president: “The reason for this (petition) is following; because here we cannot get any satisfaction to our just and lawful demands. We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress….we never lost faith in the Government at Washington. This sorrowful reality only made us lose faith in persons sent out here by the government.” Some 70 Orthodox residents of Sitka, Russian and Amerindian, petitioned the Russian ambassador in Washington to enforce the terms of the treaty. And Bishop Nicholai wrote to President McKinley: “Our church allows us only to remonstrate with the highest authority on behalf of the oppressed and innocently suffering . . . but never allows us to incite dozens to sedition or treason . . . And so, Mr. President, be indulgent and gracious to poor, hapless Alaska and show the Orthodox Church there is respect to which it is entitled, if not by its whole record in that country, yet at least by Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration of 1867″ [i.e. the Cession Treaty]. The import of this is underlined by Jackson and others reply that the Orthdoox clergy were foreign agents of the czar etc. Alaska may have been on the other side of the continent but their place was in the polity headed in Washington.
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/native_gov/recollections/peratrovich/Elizabeth_1.htm
“Haa tuwunáagu yís for healing our spirit: Tlingit oratory” By Richard Dauenhauer
http://books.google.ro/books?id=eQtcYqW8JBYC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=tlingit+orthodox+chiefs+to+president&source=bl&ots=XiL1MLmcYf&sig=d1-RDRc69fR_ns1SZvKW99e248A&hl=ro&ei=ts_1SoGxB4aGMYeH-egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tlingit%20orthodox%20chiefs%20to%20president&f=false
Orthodox Alaska: a theology of mission By Michael Oleks
http://books.google.ro/books?id=r6iwMR-xoEIC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=tlingit+orthodox+chiefs+to+president&source=bl&ots=wWpj58-278&sig=skkYrQeL8lIU02A7sf0yP48XjeY&hl=ro&ei=FdT1SujZLZLiMYLQ4egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tlingit%20orthodox%20chiefs%20to%20president&f=false
“Russian Orthodox Brotherhoods Among the Tlingit: Missionary Goals and Native Reponse,” Sergei Kan. Ethnohistory 32(3):196-223
Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through Two Centuries” By Sergei Kan
http://books.google.ro/books?id=E0-Aj0dOSuUC&pg=PA304&dq=Memory+Eternal+Tlingit+Orthodox+Chiefs+McKinley#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.jstor.org/pss/481921
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/the-origins-of-the-myth-of-past-unity/#comments

btw, I've posted there on the legal problems the Vatican has here in the US:
Quote
The Supreme Court had already stated that (Fremont v. United States, 58 U.S. 17 How. 542, 547 (1854 CA) “The laws[enacted by the previous sovereign] of these territories [acquired by the US],….[are] never treated by this [US Supreme] Court as foreign laws, to be decided as a question of fact, but the Court held itself bound to notice them judicially, as much so as the laws of a state of the Union.” The Charters in force in Alaska, the Ecclesiastical Statute, etc. had lots to say about the jurisdiction of the HGS, the Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands and his auxiliary in Sitka, over the Diocese, the Churches, the Faithful etc, all of which did not contradict the First Amendment immediately became American law, and was treated as such. So though one might think that the 1st Amendment would preclude judicial notice of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church over the Amerindians, in fact the courts made such jurisdiction according to the Russian laws, “membership in the established [Russian Orthodox] Church” a sine que non for US citizenship for Amerindians.
As argued in the CA Supreme Court in 1856 (Nobili v. Redman 6 Cal. 325, ) “The former laws of California are not foreign laws. To the extent therefore in which the canon law was formerly recognized by the civil power and thereby made part of the municipal law, the Court will take judicial notice of it. In the case of Fremont v. The United States, (17 How. R. 357,) the Supreme Court say: “It is proper to remark, that the laws of these territories under which titles were claimed, were never treated by the Court as foreign laws to be decided as a question of fact. It was always held that the Court was bound judicially to notice them, as much so as the laws of a State of the Union.”"
In Nobili, the Latin church lost because the Court determined that she had no power to own property until decree of secularization of 1833 by Mexico (which declared the missions public land), “the limitations contained in it would not entitle the Church to the property sued for.” In our case, the Article 2 of the Cession Treaty (and the AK and Fed. case law relying on the canon law recognized by the Russian power) would be controlling. Such would be strengthened in 1868 by passage of the Citizen, Equal Protection, Due Process and Incorporation/Immunities and Privileges Clauses of the 14th Ammendment, and the decision of Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. 679 (1872), the precedent for Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94.

As to the rights that the natives had by treaty, I've posted elsewhere:
Quote
The issue is the status that the treaty created for the Orthodox, both European and Amerinidian, in US law, with legal title to the Church properties etc in Alaska, as successor of the HGS authority. (there are related matters, e.g. 1% of the sale price was paid per annum to the American Diocese until the revolution, etc.). There are lots of de jure issues from how the US constition and case law would interact with the treaty, but as the US, besides paying the money didn’t keep the terms of the treaty, that might be too large a digression. Instead we might look at how the “Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs” tried to assert their rights under the treaty (ironic, as the Tlingit converted as a nation AFTER the Russians left) petitioning the US president: “The reason for this (petition) is following; because here we cannot get any satisfaction to our just and lawful demands. We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress….we never lost faith in the Government at Washington. This sorrowful reality only made us lose faith in persons sent out here by the government.” Some 70 Orthodox residents of Sitka, Russian and Amerindian, petitioned the Russian ambassador in Washington to enforce the terms of the treaty. And Bishop Nicholai wrote to President McKinley: “Our church allows us only to remonstrate with the highest authority on behalf of the oppressed and innocently suffering . . . but never allows us to incite dozens to sedition or treason . . . And so, Mr. President, be indulgent and gracious to poor, hapless Alaska and show the Orthodox Church there is respect to which it is entitled, if not by its whole record in that country, yet at least by Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration of 1867″ [i.e. the Cession Treaty]. The import of this is underlined by Jackson and others reply that the Orthdoox clergy were foreign agents of the czar etc. Alaska may have been on the other side of the continent but their place was in the polity headed in Washington.
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/native_gov/recollections/peratrovich/Elizabeth_1.htm
“Haa tuwunáagu yís for healing our spirit: Tlingit oratory” By Richard Dauenhauer
http://books.google.ro/books?id=eQtcYqW8JBYC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=tlingit+orthodox+chiefs+to+president&source=bl&ots=XiL1MLmcYf&sig=d1-RDRc69fR_ns1SZvKW99e248A&hl=ro&ei=ts_1SoGxB4aGMYeH-egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tlingit%20orthodox%20chiefs%20to%20president&f=false
Orthodox Alaska: a theology of mission By Michael Oleks
http://books.google.ro/books?id=r6iwMR-xoEIC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=tlingit+orthodox+chiefs+to+president&source=bl&ots=wWpj58-278&sig=skkYrQeL8lIU02A7sf0yP48XjeY&hl=ro&ei=FdT1SujZLZLiMYLQ4egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tlingit%20orthodox%20chiefs%20to%20president&f=false
“Russian Orthodox Brotherhoods Among the Tlingit: Missionary Goals and Native Reponse,” Sergei Kan. Ethnohistory 32(3):196-223
Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through Two Centuries” By Sergei Kan
http://books.google.ro/books?id=E0-Aj0dOSuUC&pg=PA304&dq=Memory+Eternal+Tlingit+Orthodox+Chiefs+McKinley#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.jstor.org/pss/481921
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/the-origins-of-the-myth-of-past-unity/#comments

btw, I've posted there on the legal problems the Vatican has here in the US:
Quote
The Supreme Court had already stated that (Fremont v. United States, 58 U.S. 17 How. 542, 547 (1854 CA) “The laws[enacted by the previous sovereign] of these territories [acquired by the US],….[are] never treated by this [US Supreme] Court as foreign laws, to be decided as a question of fact, but the Court held itself bound to notice them judicially, as much so as the laws of a state of the Union.” The Charters in force in Alaska, the Ecclesiastical Statute, etc. had lots to say about the jurisdiction of the HGS, the Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands and his auxiliary in Sitka, over the Diocese, the Churches, the Faithful etc, all of which did not contradict the First Amendment immediately became American law, and was treated as such. So though one might think that the 1st Amendment would preclude judicial notice of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church over the Amerindians, in fact the courts made such jurisdiction according to the Russian laws, “membership in the established [Russian Orthodox] Church” a sine que non for US citizenship for Amerindians.
As argued in the CA Supreme Court in 1856 (Nobili v. Redman 6 Cal. 325, ) “The former laws of California are not foreign laws. To the extent therefore in which the canon law was formerly recognized by the civil power and thereby made part of the municipal law, the Court will take judicial notice of it. In the case of Fremont v. The United States, (17 How. R. 357,) the Supreme Court say: “It is proper to remark, that the laws of these territories under which titles were claimed, were never treated by the Court as foreign laws to be decided as a question of fact. It was always held that the Court was bound judicially to notice them, as much so as the laws of a State of the Union.”"
In Nobili, the Latin church lost because the Court determined that she had no power to own property until decree of secularization of 1833 by Mexico (which declared the missions public land), “the limitations contained in it would not entitle the Church to the property sued for.” In our case, the Article 2 of the Cession Treaty (and the AK and Fed. case law relying on the canon law recognized by the Russian power) would be controlling. Such would be strengthened in 1868 by passage of the Citizen, Equal Protection, Due Process and Incorporation/Immunities and Privileges Clauses of the 14th Ammendment, and the decision of Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. 679 (1872), the precedent for Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94.

As to the rights that the natives had by treaty, I've posted elsewhere:
Quote
The issue is the status that the treaty created for the Orthodox, both European and Amerinidian, in US law, with legal title to the Church properties etc in Alaska, as successor of the HGS authority. (there are related matters, e.g. 1% of the sale price was paid per annum to the American Diocese until the revolution, etc.). There are lots of de jure issues from how the US constition and case law would interact with the treaty, but as the US, besides paying the money didn’t keep the terms of the treaty, that might be too large a digression. Instead we might look at how the “Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs” tried to assert their rights under the treaty (ironic, as the Tlingit converted as a nation AFTER the Russians left) petitioning the US president: “The reason for this (petition) is following; because here we cannot get any satisfaction to our just and lawful demands. We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress….we never lost faith in the Government at Washington. This sorrowful reality only made us lose faith in persons sent out here by the government.” Some 70 Orthodox residents of Sitka, Russian and Amerindian, petitioned the Russian ambassador in Washington to enforce the terms of the treaty. And Bishop Nicholai wrote to President McKinley: “Our church allows us only to remonstrate with the highest authority on behalf of the oppressed and innocently suffering . . . but never allows us to incite dozens to sedition or treason . . . And so, Mr. President, be indulgent and gracious to poor, hapless Alaska and show the Orthodox Church there is respect to which it is entitled, if not by its whole record in that country, yet at least by Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration of 1867″ [i.e. the Cession Treaty]. The import of this is underlined by Jackson and others reply that the Orthdoox clergy were foreign agents of the czar etc. Alaska may have been on the other side of the continent but their place was in the polity headed in Washington.
 “Haa tuwunáagu yís for healing our spirit: Tlingit oratory” By Richard Dauenhauer
Orthodox Alaska: a theology of mission By Michael Oleks
 “Russian Orthodox Brotherhoods Among the Tlingit: Missionary Goals and Native Reponse,” Sergei Kan. Ethnohistory 32(3):196-223
Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through Two Centuries” By Sergei Kan
btw, I've posted there on the legal problems the Vatican has here in the US:
Quote
The Supreme Court had already stated that (Fremont v. United States, 58 U.S. 17 How. 542, 547 (1854 CA) “The laws[enacted by the previous sovereign] of these territories [acquired by the US],….[are] never treated by this [US Supreme] Court as foreign laws, to be decided as a question of fact, but the Court held itself bound to notice them judicially, as much so as the laws of a state of the Union.” The Charters in force in Alaska, the Ecclesiastical Statute, etc. had lots to say about the jurisdiction of the HGS, the Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands and his auxiliary in Sitka, over the Diocese, the Churches, the Faithful etc, all of which did not contradict the First Amendment immediately became American law, and was treated as such. So though one might think that the 1st Amendment would preclude judicial notice of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church over the Amerindians, in fact the courts made such jurisdiction according to the Russian laws, “membership in the established [Russian Orthodox] Church” a sine que non for US citizenship for Amerindians.
As argued in the CA Supreme Court in 1856 (Nobili v. Redman 6 Cal. 325, ) “The former laws of California are not foreign laws. To the extent therefore in which the canon law was formerly recognized by the civil power and thereby made part of the municipal law, the Court will take judicial notice of it. In the case of Fremont v. The United States, (17 How. R. 357,) the Supreme Court say: “It is proper to remark, that the laws of these territories under which titles were claimed, were never treated by the Court as foreign laws to be decided as a question of fact. It was always held that the Court was bound judicially to notice them, as much so as the laws of a State of the Union.”"
In Nobili, the Latin church lost because the Court determined that she had no power to own property until decree of secularization of 1833 by Mexico (which declared the missions public land), “the limitations contained in it would not entitle the Church to the property sued for.” In our case, the Article 2 of the Cession Treaty (and the AK and Fed. case law relying on the canon law recognized by the Russian power) would be controlling. Such would be strengthened in 1868 by passage of the Citizen, Equal Protection, Due Process and Incorporation/Immunities and Privileges Clauses of the 14th Ammendment, and the decision of Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. 679 (1872), the precedent for Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94.


http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/the-origins-of-the-myth-of-past-unity/#comments
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 09:57:03 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #130 on: January 08, 2010, 10:41:28 AM »

You know that the indigenous peoples in Mexico were sacrificing humans by the tens of thousands right?

Actually, it is possible that the increased amount of human sacrifice was a result of the presence of the conquistadors. When a theocratic society feels under threat, it will often revert to extremist forms of its religion- i.e., the presence of the conquistadors means the gods are very angry and must be appeased. Also there is a political motivation in showing the invading powers what the society is prepared to do to to resist the invasion.

Aztecs had long before spanish arrived a tradition, the so called "Flower Wars" that were atacks to neighbour villages to capture men and women to sacrifice to the gods, Huitzilopochtli, the god of sun, was most venerated god, and his tmple was covered with human blod, because as well as jews , aztecs believed that blod was sacred, the life itself. so to help the sun to keep its way, they ofered the most sacred sacrifice, a human heart.

When spanish arrived  Tlaxcaltecas who lived som 150 km away from Tenochtitlan, the aztec city, were the most glad to see spanish to arrive and they ofered ladies to them to mix blods, and to have a powerful ally against Aztecs. when cortz atacked Tenochtitlan after taking prisioner Moctezuma, it was Tlaxcaltecas who help them to defeat aztecsuntil the temples were destroyed.

Something that made spanish to be horrified was the Tzompantlis where aztecs used to put the skulls and heads of the sacrificed.



Catholic spanish destruyed this terrible tradition, and destruyed the pagan temples, and built churches everywhere they could to evangelize this people, and as we can read in the history of Elia, the pagan priests resisted and aztecs with them  and as Elia, Cortes sent to kill them as they resist to convert.

Aztecs where depressed due to the destruction of their temples, and of their gods, and hope arrived to them with Guadalupe, who took care of themand stablished an alliance between spanish and aztecs under catholicism the truth faith.
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #131 on: January 08, 2010, 10:50:47 AM »

The evangelization of aztecs also meant the construction of the greatest cathedral of America, The cathedral of Mexico City, which started its construction before any other orthodox, protestant or any other old world religion temple in america.

Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #132 on: January 08, 2010, 11:02:39 AM »

Just to point out that no Orthodox Cathedral in old world is larger than the Mexico City Cathedral.

Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #133 on: January 08, 2010, 11:26:18 AM »

After the evangelization of Mexico, the arts of Countereform arrived in its splendor, and mixed with the natives drive the most impresive arts to glorify God in earth:


Capilla del Rosario en Puebla México(Chapel of Rosary in Puebla Mexico)
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #134 on: January 08, 2010, 11:53:54 AM »

W imię Ojca i Syna i Ducha Świętego! In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, truly beautiful is the church in Mexico!
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #135 on: January 08, 2010, 12:13:50 PM »

If he could manage for the Emperor or Senate in the East to name him successor (or marry the widow of said deposed or (rather) killed Emperor, then he would have an argument to make.

So doesn't this ultimately led to the tyranny of the leading class? Whoever by whatever means can claim the throne is deemed Emperor of both the Eastern and Western Empire. I understand that this was how things were during the Pagan Empire but once Christianity was embraced I would have thought higher virtues would have prevailed. I also thought the division of the Empire would have been respected by each Emperor but it seems to me that from the Eastern perspective no one in the West was deemed worthy to rule over the Empire and so sought to rule or at least control the Western Empire themselves. This also seems to be the motivator for the offense the East took to any attempt of lower races (like the Goths or the Germans) from claiming the title Emperor in the West and perhaps the disdain for the West claiming any lands that would have been taught of as Imperial.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 12:20:52 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #136 on: January 10, 2010, 01:31:54 AM »

I have been walking around this forum, and to my own prospective, Orthodoxy is very square in points that from my humble point of view shouldn't be so.

When my primary school teacher tell us about bizantine discusions, it was the first time I ever heard of that terminology, then He explined us that bizantine discutions is a peyorative, said to discusions which are pointless, that do not reach fruits.Then I didn't know about Bizantines, but until very few years after in my history class, when we reviewed the history of csism, then I knew that they were other church. Not as protestants but splited 500 years before.

Until very few years ago I started to study the spirit of orthodox ecclesiology and since then I realized the mistakes they comited about relation of religion with temporal power, etnicity and language. But until now when I am reading many of the posts here, I realized the full meaning of the terminology "bizantine discutions" for many of them are pointless.

I think that in very complex, and yet pointless, discusion of matters of God from whom, in many areas, we can only speculate, the muslims have taken advantage presenting a very simple God, one that does not need explanation, and perhaps there is also an explanation of the expansión of islam over bizantine empire. We as christian must not forget to present God in his complexity as He is and in the simplicity of his revelation, he wanted us to be saved from dead because He loved us even before we were born and we knew of him, and to be saved we must trust fully in Christ and do what He has comanded us to do, Sacraments, Charity, Mercy, Praying, Evangelize all nations. Only then we can expect to be saved by his mercyful grace.

What do you think?

Wouldn´t It be easier for muslims to accept a less complex Gospel than all the most complex theology it implies?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 01:44:09 AM by Alonso_castillo » Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #137 on: January 10, 2010, 01:38:16 AM »

I share with you one picture taken in a sanctuary of my city.



W imię Ojca i Syna i Ducha Świętego! In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, truly beautiful is the church in Mexico!

WE Catholics in Mexico apreciate a lot to Polish people, by his Hollines the Pope John Paul II, we love him we cry him we pray to God for him, and to him to help us before God.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 02:04:55 AM by Alonso_castillo » Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #138 on: January 10, 2010, 02:02:27 AM »

If he could manage for the Emperor or Senate in the East to name him successor (or marry the widow of said deposed or (rather) killed Emperor, then he would have an argument to make.

So doesn't this ultimately led to the tyranny of the leading class? Whoever by whatever means can claim the throne is deemed Emperor of both the Eastern and Western Empire.

LOL.  Welcome to the Ancient World.  Come to think of it, much of the modern world.

I'm just stating how the Roman constitution worked.


Quote
I understand that this was how things were during the Pagan Empire but once Christianity was embraced I would have thought higher virtues would have prevailed.

There's a reason why He said "My Kingdom is not of this world."  That being said, what's wrong with it?   The system worked until the rebellion of Phocas in 602.  That's nearly 300 years, the longest span of stability the Roman Empire had up until that point.

Quote
I also thought the division of the Empire would have been respected by each Emperor but it seems to me that from the Eastern perspective no one in the West was deemed worthy to rule over the Empire and so sought to rule or at least control the Western Empire themselves.

That was exactly what had been happening for quite some time, i.e. from the time of Diocletian. And there was no emperor in the West to respect, remember?

Quote
This also seems to be the motivator for the offense the East took to any attempt of lower races (like the Goths or the Germans) from claiming the title Emperor in the West and perhaps the disdain for the West claiming any lands that would have been taught of as Imperial.

The disdain by the Romans for the Germanic peoples wasn't confined to the East.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 02:04:29 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #139 on: January 10, 2010, 02:16:37 AM »

I have been walking around this forum, and to my own prospective, Orthodoxy is very square in points that from my humble point of view shouldn't be so.

When my primary school teacher tell us about bizantine discusions, it was the first time I ever heard of that terminology, then He explined us that bizantine discutions is a peyorative, said to discusions which are pointless, that do not reach fruits.

Obviously he had never heard of Scholasticism.

Quote
Then I didn't know about Bizantines, but until very few years after in my history class, when we reviewed the history of csism, then I knew that they were other church. Not as protestants but splited 500 years before.

The Vatican is the one who split: the other four Patriarchs didn't go anywhere.

Quote
Until very few years ago I started to study the spirit of orthodox ecclesiology and since then I realized the mistakes they comited about relation of religion with temporal power,

You have heard of the Papal states, no?


Quote
etnicity and language.

Everything should be in Latin?

Quote
But until now when I am reading many of the posts here, I realized the full meaning of the terminology "bizantine discutions" for many of them are pointless.

The "Byzantines" never existed: Constantinople was the capital of the Romans, and so called by them.  "Byzantine" was a term invented by Humanists and partisans of the Enlightment who wanted to claim Rome for themselves.

Quote
I think that in very complex, and yet pointless, discusion of matters of God from whom, in many areas, we can only speculate, the muslims have taken advantage presenting a very simple God, one that does not need explanation, and perhaps there is also an explanation of the expansión of islam over bizantine empire. We as christian must not forget to present God in his complexity as He is and in the simplicity of his revelation, he wanted us to be saved from dead because He loved us even before we were born and we knew of him, and to be saved we must trust fully in Christ and do what He has comanded us to do, Sacraments, Charity, Mercy, Praying, Evangelize all nations. Only then we can expect to be saved by his mercyful grace.

What do you think?

Wouldn´t It be easier for muslims to accept a less complex Gospel than all the most complex theology it implies?

Muslim theology is not as simple as you make it out to be.  A lot of ink, not to mention Muslim blood, has been spilt over this.  Of the first four caliphs, only one died in his bed, and two were killed by Muslims.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #140 on: January 10, 2010, 02:30:17 AM »

Just to point out that no Orthodox Cathedral in old world is larger than the Mexico City Cathedral.



Not sure about that:somewhere here someone posted a picture of the large Orthodox Cathedrals.  Not that it matters terribly: Orthodox Churches even in Orthodox Countries tend on the small size: makes for a closer parish family.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #141 on: January 10, 2010, 02:36:52 AM »

The COE churches are the best:

St.Hurmizd Cathedral



St.Joseph Cathedral:



Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #142 on: January 11, 2010, 01:14:16 PM »



Quote
Obviously he had never heard of Scholasticism.

Do you think that scholasticism has united rather thar divided Apostolics Churches?
My teacher gave an explanation of an idiom comunly used. thats all.   

Quote
Then I didn't know about Bizantines, but until very few years after in my history class, when we reviewed the history of csism, then I knew that they were other church. Not as protestants but splited 500 years before.

Quote
The Vatican is the one who split: the other four Patriarchs didn't go anywhere.

We will never reach an agreement about that, mainly because the problem has its roots in jealous between greeks sumited by romans long before Our Lord Jesus were born from the Allways Virgin Mary. Greeks never acepted the invasion from Rome to their hellenic culture, they felt that romans has not authority over them but from spear and sword, any other kind of authority would be rejected.

Nationalism, etnicism, language, religion, are part of the thinks that greek never renounced as cultural superiority before military sumision to Rome. This even long before Rome was reached by St. Peter and St. Paul.

That burden has allways be the cause of the birth of national churches, autocephalus governments which are linked to state autorities. We need to clean that mistake, to achieve the real understanding uf the family of jesus we are called to be. one single family. ¿Do you really think that mexican, peruvian, and all other countries that are catholic, wouldn't be more likely to have their own patriarch independent from Rome?, in Mexico in fact government intended to put a mexican church and a mexican patriarch, but nobody followed him, we know who is Peter. not mater nationality. something that Greeks never acepted not even as part of roman empire.

National jealous that is the real cause of division.  Even in orthodoxy.


Quote
You have heard of the Papal states, no?


Yes, I have heard of it and I know that they where necesary in that time to allow the pope to have mor independence in the life of the church, where king and emperors were devoted to give nominations to bishops to friends and loyal relatives, and pope fought that.

Quote
Everything should be in Latin?

No, every one should be in communion, not to be latin, we catholics are not calling orthodox to be latin, but to be catholic, to be in full communion in their own tradition with the Catholic Church.

Quote
The "Byzantines" never existed: Constantinople was the capital of the Romans, and so called by them.  "Byzantine" was a term invented by Humanists and partisans of the Enlightment who wanted to claim Rome for themselves.

Byzantines existed as the citizens of Bizantium the former name of Constantinople, and Constantinople was the capital of the oriental empire, never could protect to western from invasions of barbarians to claim to be the capital of all romans. never fought to clean Galia or Britany from invasions.

So the oriental empire was focused from Bizantium to protect not roman empire but oriental empire. ruled from bizantium.

Quote
Muslim theology is not as simple as you make it out to be.  A lot of ink, not to mention Muslim blood, has been spilt over this.  Of the first four caliphs, only one died in his bed, and two were killed by Muslims.

Islam theology Is very simple compared to Christian theology that ends in the believe of a mistery, the Most Holly Trinity. That is Why I rather would focuse evangelization in the preaching of conversion to God by his Holly Son Our  Lord Jesus Christ, in the following of his comands and in the preaching of the Holly Spirit as the one who lead us to believe.

Scholasticism wont convert any muslim, because it rather would confuse them.
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #143 on: January 11, 2010, 04:06:34 PM »

The COE churches are the best:

St.Hurmizd Cathedral



St.Joseph Cathedral:




Nah, they are missing the beautiful icons and statues that are part of the incarnational faith.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #144 on: January 11, 2010, 04:11:15 PM »

Re: the civilizing influence of the conquistadors.
But what about the Taino-Arawak Indians of Cuba that Columbus described: "Naked innocence and quick response to the influences of kindness rather than acts of force... Their hair, thick as a horse's mane, falls in long locks upon their shoulders. They are shapely of body and handsome of face. So ignorant of arms are they that they grasp swords by the blade! They are very gentle, without knowing what evil is, without killing, without stealing."

Writing to their Spanish majesties, Ferdinand and Isabella, Columbus said that he could supply them with "slaves, as many of these idolatrous Indians as your highnesses can command to be shipped, along with as much gold as you need. Gold is most excellent. Gold is treasure and he who possesses it does all he wishes to do in this world."
...But his avaricious exaltation of the pursuit of gold was the irresistible, resounding clarion call to his fellow Spaniards to invade the Americas. They did so with zeal and alacrity and set in motion a holocaust of horror and death for the Native peoples, a holocaust that is epitomised in the story of Hatuey and the conquest and colonisation of Cuba. In 1511 the Spaniard, Diego Velasquez, sailed from Hispaniola to Cuba. On landing he was resisted by Taino Indians under a chieftain, Hatuey, already a witness to Diego's atrocities elsewhere. For some time, they valiantly defended the island, skillfully making sudden attacks on the Spaniards and then retreating to the hills. Eventually, however, Spanish military power overwhelmed them. Defeated, they were subjected to barbarous tortures.

Hatuey was sentenced by the Spanish Crown to a public death and was burned alive at the stake. The Spanish priest, Bartolomé de la Casa, recorded the words of the chieftain to his people: "These tyrants tell us they adore a God of peace and equality, yet they usurp our land and enslave us. They speak of an immortal soul and of eternal rewards and punishments. They rob us, seduce our women and violate our daughters. Unable to match us in valour, these cowards cover themselves in iron that our spears cannot pierce."

Bartolomé de la Casa also described the fate of the Tainos. "A village of around 2500 was wiped out. They (the Spaniards) set upon the Indians, slashing, disembowelling and slaughtering them until their blood ran like a river. And of those Tainos they kept alive they sent to the mines, harnessing them to loads they could scarcely drag and with fiendish sport and mockery hacking off their hands and feet and mutilating them in ways that will not bear description."

...By 1527, Spanish control of the Greater Antilles* was complete and some ten million Taino-Arawak Indians had perished. The few survivors, in their infinite grief, spoke of The Great Dying of their peoples. They did not know then that the dying would go on and on as the Spaniards and rival Europeans, still lusting after conquest and gold, swept like a demon plague through Middle and South America. As the year 1600 dawned the holocaust had engulfed a further 95 million Indians [so that]...For five hundred years, historians asserted that the Caribbean Taino-Arawak Indians were wholly extinct, victims of Spanish conquest."
www.onaway.org
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #145 on: January 11, 2010, 05:20:24 PM »



Quote
Obviously he had never heard of Scholasticism.

Do you think that scholasticism has united rather thar divided Apostolics Churches?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Council_of_Constantinople

Quote
My teacher gave an explanation of an idiom comunly used. thats all.   

Quote
Then I didn't know about Bizantines, but until very few years after in my history class, when we reviewed the history of csism, then I knew that they were other church. Not as protestants but splited 500 years before.

Quote
The Vatican is the one who split: the other four Patriarchs didn't go anywhere.

We will never reach an agreement about that, mainly because the problem has its roots in jealous between greeks sumited by romans long before Our Lord Jesus were born from the Allways Virgin Mary. Greeks never acepted the invasion from Rome to their hellenic culture, they felt that romans has not authority over them but from spear and sword, any other kind of authority would be rejected.

How about the slavish imitation of the Romans of Greek language, literature, art, etc.?  Quite an inferiority complex was bound to cause trouble.



Quote
Nationalism, etnicism, language, religion, are part of the thinks that greek never renounced as cultural superiority before military sumision to Rome. This even long before Rome was reached by St. Peter and St. Paul.

Aelios Aristides disagreed.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst205/readings/RomanOration.html


Quote
That burden has allways be the cause of the birth of national churches, autocephalus governments which are linked to state autorities.

Like the Pontifex Maximus of Rome?

Quote
We need to clean that mistake, to achieve the real understanding uf the family of jesus we are called to be. one single family. ¿Do you really think that mexican, peruvian, and all other countries that are catholic, wouldn't be more likely to have their own patriarch independent from Rome?, in Mexico in fact government intended to put a mexican church and a mexican patriarch, but nobody followed him,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_in_America_Exarchate_of_Mexico

Quote
we know who is Peter. not mater nationality. something that Greeks never acepted not even as part of roman empire.

That's why the Greek mission of SS Methodios and Cyril translated everythink into Slavonic, while the Vatican insisted they use Latin.

Quote
National jealous that is the real cause of division.  Even in orthodoxy.

Our Churches are independent, and yet always in communion with each other.  But then you have this in the West:


Notice how the Orthodox are all green.

Quote
You have heard of the Papal states, no?


Yes, I have heard of it and I know that they where necesary in that time to allow the pope to have mor independence in the life of the church,

As you can see from the above map, that worked real well. The Emperor, btw, was the one who ordered the insertion of the filioque at Rome, after the Popes of Rome spent centuries banning it.

Quote
where king and emperors were devoted to give nominations to bishops to friends and loyal relatives, and pope fought that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod



Quote
Everything should be in Latin?

No, every one should be in communion, not to be latin, we catholics are not calling orthodox to be latin, but to be catholic,


http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm



Quote
to be in full communion in their own tradition with the Catholic Church.

We are.

Quote
The "Byzantines" never existed: Constantinople was the capital of the Romans, and so called by them.  "Byzantine" was a term invented by Humanists and partisans of the Enlightment who wanted to claim Rome for themselves.

Byzantines existed as the citizens of Bizantium the former name of Constantinople,

Actually, no.  The city after its refounding was never called Byzantium, as it covered only a fraction of the city, mostly under the Imperial palace and other public buildings.

http://ellinika.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/constantinople.png

Quote
and Constantinople was the capital of the oriental empire,
and the occident, several times.

Quote
never could protect to western from invasions of barbarians to claim to be the capital of all romans.
Seems Rome's in there:


Quote
never fought to clean Galia or Britany from invasions.

Actually they did, but more importantly they sent missionaries to Ireland.

Quote
So the oriental empire was focused from Bizantium to protect not roman empire but oriental empire. ruled from bizantium.

Look at the map again.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #146 on: January 11, 2010, 09:30:32 PM »

To ialmisry

Can you see that much of the material you brough here about popes are periods of dark no longer existing in the church?

Can you say that divisions never ocured in Orthodoxy?

I can tell you current episodes of division in Ukraine and in Estonian Churches, and of course all the disagreements related to the diaspora comunities ruled by Moscu in stead of Constantinople. Do you want me to bring evidence?

Now, Popes have always fight for independence, even in the XX century the catholic church rejected veto over bishops to be elected popes, which were sent by kings.

About latinization, this proces have ended, though  why should people which livve in a country of 90% latin rite to clame to be part of the same church and reamin dividen from the rest of church?, But this discusion is pointless because we  in The Catholic Church have Unite churches everywhere that are not requested to be latinized after Vatican II in 1968. Your argument then is not valid any more.

About Bizantium, do you see? I was truth.

Now, let me ask you, If Patriarchs from Ortodoxy held a Concil and they accept union with Rome holding Pope as Primus inter pares, What would you do?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2010, 09:34:40 PM by Alonso_castillo » Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #147 on: January 11, 2010, 09:33:13 PM »

Re: the civilizing influence of the conquistadors.
But what about the Taino-Arawak Indians of Cuba that Columbus described: "Naked innocence and quick response to the influences of kindness rather than acts of force... Their hair, thick as a horse's mane, falls in long locks upon their shoulders. They are shapely of body and handsome of face. So ignorant of arms are they that they grasp swords by the blade! They are very gentle, without knowing what evil is, without killing, without stealing."

Writing to their Spanish majesties, Ferdinand and Isabella, Columbus said that he could supply them with "slaves, as many of these idolatrous Indians as your highnesses can command to be shipped, along with as much gold as you need. Gold is most excellent. Gold is treasure and he who possesses it does all he wishes to do in this world."
...But his avaricious exaltation of the pursuit of gold was the irresistible, resounding clarion call to his fellow Spaniards to invade the Americas. They did so with zeal and alacrity and set in motion a holocaust of horror and death for the Native peoples, a holocaust that is epitomised in the story of Hatuey and the conquest and colonisation of Cuba. In 1511 the Spaniard, Diego Velasquez, sailed from Hispaniola to Cuba. On landing he was resisted by Taino Indians under a chieftain, Hatuey, already a witness to Diego's atrocities elsewhere. For some time, they valiantly defended the island, skillfully making sudden attacks on the Spaniards and then retreating to the hills. Eventually, however, Spanish military power overwhelmed them. Defeated, they were subjected to barbarous tortures.

Hatuey was sentenced by the Spanish Crown to a public death and was burned alive at the stake. The Spanish priest, Bartolomé de la Casa, recorded the words of the chieftain to his people: "These tyrants tell us they adore a God of peace and equality, yet they usurp our land and enslave us. They speak of an immortal soul and of eternal rewards and punishments. They rob us, seduce our women and violate our daughters. Unable to match us in valour, these cowards cover themselves in iron that our spears cannot pierce."

Bartolomé de la Casa also described the fate of the Tainos. "A village of around 2500 was wiped out. They (the Spaniards) set upon the Indians, slashing, disembowelling and slaughtering them until their blood ran like a river. And of those Tainos they kept alive they sent to the mines, harnessing them to loads they could scarcely drag and with fiendish sport and mockery hacking off their hands and feet and mutilating them in ways that will not bear description."

...By 1527, Spanish control of the Greater Antilles* was complete and some ten million Taino-Arawak Indians had perished. The few survivors, in their infinite grief, spoke of The Great Dying of their peoples. They did not know then that the dying would go on and on as the Spaniards and rival Europeans, still lusting after conquest and gold, swept like a demon plague through Middle and South America. As the year 1600 dawned the holocaust had engulfed a further 95 million Indians [so that]...For five hundred years, historians asserted that the Caribbean Taino-Arawak Indians were wholly extinct, victims of Spanish conquest."
www.onaway.org

Your history though has elemts ot truth, in fact didn´t reflect the full truth, that remains in the skin color of mexican people. Can we say the same of the Amegreengos?
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #148 on: January 11, 2010, 11:34:19 PM »

To ialmisry

Can you see that much of the material you brough here about popes are periods of dark no longer existing in the church?

So it is claimed.

I'll give you this much: at least you admitted it existed at some point. Often your coreligionists just offer blanket denial.



Quote
Can you say that divisions never ocured in Orthodoxy?

LOL.  Sure.  How do you think your church got started?

Quote
I can tell you current episodes of division in Ukraine

You mean Bishop Williamson, Cardinal (or do you say "Patriarch," in defiance of the Vatican?) Lubomyr, and all that?


Quote
and in Estonian Churches,

Hardly the division of your Reformation/Counter-Reformation.


Quote
and of course all the disagreements related to the diaspora comunities ruled by Moscu in stead of Constantinople. Do you want me to bring evidence?

Bring it on.

Do bring also, btw, the explanation of why the Vatican has three (used to be four) Patriarchs of Antioch, and two (used to be three) Patriarchs of Alexandria (whose proper and original title is "Pope," but I guess your church isn't big enough for two popes, let alone four).

Quote
Now, Popes have always fight for independence, even in the XX century the catholic church rejected veto over bishops to be elected popes, which were sent by kings.

LOL.  In the beginning of the XX century, for instance, the Emperor of Austria-Hungary appointed the bishops in his realm and merely informed the Vatican.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02121b.htm

Quote
About latinization, this proces have ended, though  why should people which livve in a country of 90% latin rite to clame to be part of the same church and reamin dividen from the rest of church?,

Interesting, the second half of your sentence belies the first half.  So they can abolish the Latin rite in Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Romania, etc?

Quote
But this discusion is pointless because we  in The Catholic Church have Unite

OOOOOPssss.  That word is a no-no here.

Quote
churches everywhere that are not requested to be latinized after Vatican II in 1968. Your argument then is not valid any more.
Oh?
why should people which livve in a country of 90% latin rite to clame to be part of the same church and reamin dividen from the rest of church?,

Quote
About Bizantium, do you see? I was truth.

Haven't seen anything truthful yet on that I'm afraid.

Quote
Now, let me ask you, If Patriarchs from Ortodoxy held a Concil and they accept union with Rome holding Pope as Primus inter pares, What would you do?
Depends, if he confesses the Orthodox Faith, then I will follow St. Symeon of Thessalonica
Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...esult#PPA86,M1
p. 86
but if he clings to his Ultramontanist heresies, then I will follow St. Maximos and say "if the whole universe were to commune with you, I alone would not commune with you."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #149 on: January 12, 2010, 10:48:42 AM »

About Bizantium, do you see? I was truth.

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/byzantine_map3.gif
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #150 on: January 12, 2010, 11:04:44 AM »


Your history though has elemts ot truth, in fact didn´t reflect the full truth, that remains in the skin color of mexican people. Can we say the same of the Amegreengos?

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. What does skin color have to do with anything? And who are Amegreengos?

But if you're saying what I think you are saying, then you apparently missed the sentence that is an explanation for skin color:
"They rob us, seduce our women and violate our daughters..."
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #151 on: January 12, 2010, 12:30:17 PM »


Your history though has elemts ot truth, in fact didn´t reflect the full truth, that remains in the skin color of mexican people. Can we say the same of the Amegreengos?

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. What does skin color have to do with anything? And who are Amegreengos?

But if you're saying what I think you are saying, then you apparently missed the sentence that is an explanation for skin color:
"They rob us, seduce our women and violate our daughters..."

Do you really think that Mestizaje (mixing blods) is completly because of those sins?

I can tell you the truth because I live it, Can you say the same only by reading?

My grandfather is brown skin, his father, my grand grandfather, was as well as him, but they both married with white skin ladies My grand grand mother was green eyes, and almost blond, my grandmother is white dark hair, and even my father is brown while my mother is white, I am white and my major sister is brown, Do you think that my mother violated my father?, or my grandmother violated my grandfather?, or my grand grandmother violated my Grand GrandFather?, just because they are white while their husbands are brown?. your historical argument to explain Mestizaje lacks of the full truth of this fenomenon which is ruled by the real catholicity that clames that before God there are no special races.

Here is my family to show my point.

Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,275



« Reply #152 on: January 12, 2010, 12:50:30 PM »

You have a lovely family - and I'm sure that you are all wonderful people who are devoted to each other, just like my family.
However you do seem to be obsessed or at least dwell a lot on the color of peoples' skin. Forgive me, but that obsession seems to indicate that you are indeed concerned more about peoples' so-called "race."

"From all this evidence, it is clear that populational, but not racial, differences do exist within the human species. Race should not be equated with ethnicity, which has a sociological meaning. Ethnicity is a self-described category that has three components—ancestry, language, and culture—that all have affinities to certain ancestral groups."

Read more: Biology of Race - Biology Encyclopedia - body, human, different, organisms, DNA, blood, used, specific, types http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Biology-of-Race.html#ixzz0cPykGWSE
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #153 on: January 12, 2010, 01:29:15 PM »

Grace and Peace,

We have wandered so far off topic is kinda crazy.  Huh
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #154 on: January 13, 2010, 02:33:49 PM »

You have a lovely family - and I'm sure that you are all wonderful people who are devoted to each other, just like my family.
However you do seem to be obsessed or at least dwell a lot on the color of peoples' skin. Forgive me, but that obsession seems to indicate that you are indeed concerned more about peoples' so-called "race."

"From all this evidence, it is clear that populational, but not racial, differences do exist within the human species. Race should not be equated with ethnicity, which has a sociological meaning. Ethnicity is a self-described category that has three components—ancestry, language, and culture—that all have affinities to certain ancestral groups."

Read more: Biology of Race - Biology Encyclopedia - body, human, different, organisms, DNA, blood, used, specific, types http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Biology-of-Race.html#ixzz0cPykGWSE


Thanks this is the last post I desire to write related to this issue about "conquista", I hope you do the same,  related to catolicity and etnicity directli related to genealogy, we must remember that this discusions are Foolish as St Paul Apostle said:

Titus 3:9

Avoid foolish arguments, genealogies, rivalries, and quarrels about the law, for they are useless and futile.

So, I no longer will discuse about conquista, I just Wanted to point out that conquista was not alll black as many intend to say in justification of their dimissal of Catholicism as the truth faith that God wanted for America.



Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #155 on: January 13, 2010, 02:34:26 PM »

Grace and Peace,

We have wandered so far off topic is kinda crazy.  Huh

I agree and I am sorry.
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 707


St. George


« Reply #156 on: January 18, 2010, 09:41:13 PM »

The evangelization of aztecs also meant the construction of the greatest cathedral of America, The cathedral of Mexico City, which started its construction before any other orthodox, protestant or any other old world religion temple in america.



There was an article in one of the past Archeology magazine issues about an earlier church, situated beneath the present cathedral.   
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #157 on: January 18, 2010, 11:21:49 PM »

Tordesilhas AND that the land belonged to the native population of Mexico and the Americas in general which became Roman Catholic later. God gave the Land.

The various native peoples of what is now Mexico (and Central and South America for that matter) weren't RC at the time.  So the land belonged to them, not the Bishop of Rome to assign to whoever politically was in power.  Or would it be that somehow God did not "give" the land to Human Beings whom He created and in time came to live in those areas? Undecided

Quote
I bet you guys don't know that Spain's biggest "Moorish" City (Cordoba) had keys on it saying "May this City be guarded by Allah and his servants FOREVER", Spain made sure those keys were handed over to them by the Muslims when they took it so as to make the point that God blessed them not the Muslims.

I've done a bit of looking and haven't found any documentation of keys as you describe.  Could you please give some source for this? Thank you in advance. 

Quote
So Alonso is right. Protestantism = faith of starch shirt Elizabethan English speaking colonizers.

I'm not sure what some laundry practice has to do with anything, and starched collars were not limited to England either.

Be that as it may, there were RC colonizers not just in Canada (French) but in the Colony of Maryland which was founded by Sir George Calvert, Lord Baltimore who was RC.  As an interesting side note Maryland enacted the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 which set into law toleration of all trinitarian Christians.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/maryland_toleration.asp

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #158 on: January 19, 2010, 01:05:06 AM »

Huh  Masonic government?  I'm sorry, I thought part of the question was why people the "Old World" came to the "New" instead of, as in the OP, Russia.   Huh  The US government is not "masonic".  

Wake up lad, USA Government is masonic 100%, you can see it in all its structure, all the simbolysm of USA currency is masonic, york rite to be exact. you can se in you two USD bills the tipical meeting of a masonic lodge, the piramid witn the eye printed on the one USD bill, is also a masonic symbol, the phrase Novo ordo secculorum (new secular order) is quite a masonic principle of rulement, protestantism fracmented as it is, is the ideal type of religion that any masonic government would like to have, thus the citizens will never organize around any no governamental institution that may threat the government rulers the masonic heads.

I assure you that I am "awake" and have a fair grounding in the history of North America as well as other parts of the world and in knowledge of the US Government.  I am also quite aware of what is on US money and if people are really interested I can find source materials on the symbols and who designed them.  So leaving aside any conspiracy theories on that...


Quote
As to the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529) why should the authority of the Bishop of Rome to divide the "newly discovered" lands between Spain and Portugal be accepted by other nations?  There were human beings already living in those places (which included much of Africa and Asia as well  the Americas). Even Portugal didn't abide by the line of demarcation in South America with their control of Brazil, nor did Spain stay away from Japan.  So it is not a "fact" that Spain "owned" all of North America but an assertion of ownership that could not be enforced. Instead people from a number of countries established colonies and settlements and over centuries of treaties and wars and the rise and decline of empires, places like the United States and Canada and Mexico became their own nations.

Yes, Spain and Portugal recived the right to be in America, Because Spain had found this new lands to Europe, and Portugal had discovered an isle near in a meridian that cut south america near Amazonas river mouth.

One might think that those peoples who were already living in the "New World" had "the right to be in America".  They had "discovered" the land long before there was a Spain.  And it is the supposed "authority" of the Bishop of Rome to hand over populated countries and territories for the exploitation and conquering by others that many do not accept.  

Quote
Spain had not only evangelized Mexico (1531) before any other european potency arived here, and by Mestizaje (mixing races) spanish got not only the autority of Pope but also the legitimation of blod that all other europeans refused after earriving to America. So Catholicism, brought here by Spain achieved in 1531, with Guadalupe phenomenon, the conversion of al American natives in Mexico and Central America, even in Texas California and all other states property of Mexico. Mixing Blods, conversions and Papal Supreme Authority over the church lead America to be the land of Catholicism.

Please correct me if I am not understanding your meaning, but you are claiming that only the Spanish interbred with Native Americans?  And this gave them some kind of "right" to "own" all of North and South America?  

If that is the case then you are not correct.  The Metis people of Canada (some of whom were also in Montana and other areas of the northen US) are from European and Native American descent. Sacajawea, who was a vital member of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery was the wife of Toussaint Charbonneau and carried their son, Jean Baptiste nicknamed "Pompey" to the Pacific shore and back.  William Clark took care of the boy for some years and paid for his education.  Many of the Metis were also RC, if that is part of any "claim" to ownership.    Among my own ancestors are both Scots and Cherokee who married and had children.  So while it was several generations back, I come from such intermarriage.

On the Metis:   http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005259

On Louis Riel, a prominent Metis leader http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006837

On J. B. Charbonneau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Charbonneau


Quote
USA killed al natives who denied to abandon their lands to piligrins, in the 13 original colonies, and after USA - Mexico war the indians in Mexican terirtories were also killed for denying to give their lands. they didn't want to evangelize them rather than controling their lands.

As others here are posted, the Spanish were not pacific in their conquest of the Americas, but killed many. This is attested to and protested by Bartolome de las Casas, and Antonio de Montesinos, both Dominicans. They believed in treating the native peoples as human beings and not brutalizing and enslaving them.

The history of the American Colonies and the Native People is much more complicated.   And there were plenty of people interested in evangelizing the Native Americans and with some success.  Have you heard of Kateri Tekakwitha, the "Lily of the Mohawks"?  or that Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet, from Belgium, traveled to Montana in 1841 to creat a mission at the invitation of Nez Perce and "Flathead" which is to say Salish and Kootenai tribes?  There were many others not just RC.  

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007900  brief paragraph on Kateri Tekakwitha

On Fr. DeSmet  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04752a.htm

Quote
About Brazil, it was Spanish king when ruling Portugal in an Iberical kingdom that asked Portuguese to enter the land by amazonas River to avoid France and Netherlands to go further in their expansion inland. But portuguese are Catholics as spanish, and our languages are very similar we share lots of historical background and our etnicity is very alike, and of course Brazil second language in schools is not english but spanish.

May I ask which king you are referring to, please and what historical documentation you have read for this "invitation" against the French (who were also RC after all) and the Dutch?  Thank you.  I don't know what not having English as a second language in Brazil has to do with anything.  Sorry.




Quote

As to the "ownership" of such areas as most of Montana, France "owned" the territory that came to be known as the Louisiana Purchase following the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso (1800) which it then sold to the United States in 1803.


France was not part of Tordesillas treaty, they entered here not listening pope words to respect Tordesillas treaty, and making continuosly war to Spain. so Frnace was in America not by God's will in a peaceful discovery but in the envy they developed over Spain territories, so not legitimate ocupation of Quebec and Luisiana. they neither converted natives neither mixed their blod to legitimize their ocupation of America. all treaties after ilegitimate ocupation of America are nule, not matter if king of Spain had signed peace treaties to give up. for those treaties were not signed by any pope who originaly gave those lands to spansh people and descendants.

If more sources are needed to show that your assertions about the French regarding conversion and interbreeding/marriage are not true, they can be provided.  If the Bishop of Rome "gave" the lands to the Spanish throne, then why could not the King do with them as he and his council wished for political and economic reasons?  

You claim that the planet could be divided and such "gifting" is for all of time and eternity.  Why should that be accepted without question as opposed to replying that  "The Bishop of Rome hath not authority..." to give the lands of other human beings to would be conquerors?  Why would he have any such "authority" to parcel out the planet?


Quote
As to the new lands being "found" by Spain, there were earlier visits by people from other countries such as the Norse in Canada and possibly St. Brendan from Ireland.

How does your OP re why people came to the Americas rather the Russia apply, please?  There were many reasons why people immigrated to the US and Canada that were not related to the US government.

With respect,

Those erlier visits discovered in Terranova were not God's will other way they would have endured and they would have stablished a culture and a tradition, but it didn't  happen. Orthodoxy in Alazka  was an infiltration of rusian Zar who wanted to have lands in the new continent, they  didn't discovered those lands so once more is was not God's will for them to enter this continet but their ambisions.

By your rule that if something endured and established a culture and a tradition it is "God's will", then the Russians in Alaska would fit that criteria. Many different tribes had their own "culture and tradition" so by your lights why are not their occupation of the America's not "God's will"?   And the lands of the New World didn't need to be "discovered" by Europeans, since there were plenty of people already here.  But I know of no Spanish incursions into the Pacific Northwest or Alaska, so if the Russians were the first "Europeans" to arrive, then it might be said that they did "discover" it.  

So regarding the OP, do you think that the various people who emigrated to the US and other parts of the Americas from EO countries should have, instead, gone to "Russia"?  

With respect,

Ebor
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 01:27:02 AM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #159 on: January 21, 2010, 12:13:32 PM »

Okay, I've completed my study of the Fall of Constantinople and I have to agree that the Latin reign over Constantinople did serious harm to the population and the ability for the city to defend itself in the future due to depopulation.

That said the continued court intrigue between factions and the ferrying of Turks into the Empire was a 'serious' error and allowed the Turks to surround and cut Constantinople off from support.

With all that said I found in interesting that the very last Divine Liturgy of Hagia Sophia was a by joint Greek and Latin Priests who in the face of such saw past their differences and joined together as one people in the Kingdom of God.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #160 on: January 21, 2010, 12:21:43 PM »

Okay, I've completed my study of the Fall of Constantinople and I have to agree that the Latin reign over Constantinople did serious harm to the population and the ability for the city to defend itself in the future due to depopulation.

That said the continued court intrigue between factions and the ferrying of Turks into the Empire was a 'serious' error and allowed the Turks to surround and cut Constantinople off from support.

With all that said I found in interesting that the very last Divine Liturgy of Hagia Sophia was a by joint Greek and Latin Priests who in the face of such saw past their differences and joined together as one people in the Kingdom of God.
and perhaps that is the reason why it was the last Divine Liturgy.  Put not your trust in princes, the sons of men as what fellowship has light with darkness.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #161 on: January 24, 2010, 05:02:49 AM »

90% of lebanon

Where did you get this from? Almost 40% of the Lebanese population is Christian (made up by Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, and Eastern-rite Catholics).
That's what I thought, although the Christian population seems to be on the decline due to emigration, and the Muslim population is on the rise due to a higher birth rate.

An interesting fact; A Lebanese woman told me that by law, Lebanon had to have a Catholic Maronite President. I checked it out and she was correct.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 05:08:01 AM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #162 on: January 24, 2010, 09:09:39 AM »


With all that said I found in interesting that the very last Divine Liturgy of Hagia Sophia was a by joint Greek and Latin Priests who in the face of such saw past their differences and joined together as one people in the Kingdom of God.

This ocurred because Constantinople had not yet rejected the Union of Florence and was in union with Rome.   It was because of Constantinople's dithering about rejecting the Union of Florence that the Church of Russia was, briefly, out of communion with Constantinople at this time.

Sone Greeks believe that it was because of the acceptance of union with Rome that God allowed the imperial city to fall to the infidel.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #163 on: January 24, 2010, 09:49:18 AM »

I wonder why Orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam.

95% of turkish people is muslim,
90% of lebanon

Christian statistics for Lebanon


Maronite Catholic.... 16%

Greek Catholic........ 3%

Roman Catholic....... 1%

Orthodox............... 5%

A total of 25% of the population of Lebanon.

http://countrystudies.us/lebanon/



Today (24 January) is the commemoration of St. Manach of Lemonaghan
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #164 on: January 24, 2010, 10:03:49 AM »

I wonder why Orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam.

¿what were the causes?


The first casualty unable to resist the Arabs was not the Churches of the Near East (those we now call Orthodox) but in fact the venerable Church of Carthage in North West Africa which came under the influence of the Church of Rome.

It was annihilated in the late 7th century and at that time it had 400 bishoprics!!

By contrast to the (Roman Catholic) Church of North Africa which was entirely extinguished, the (Eastern Orthodox) Churches of Constantinople, etc, continued to exist but in an inferior position to the dominant religion of Islam and Muslim governance.  They fared much better than the sad plight of Carthage.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 10:04:21 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #165 on: January 24, 2010, 11:00:36 AM »


With all that said I found in interesting that the very last Divine Liturgy of Hagia Sophia was a by joint Greek and Latin Priests who in the face of such saw past their differences and joined together as one people in the Kingdom of God.

This ocurred because Constantinople had not yet rejected the Union of Florence and was in union with Rome.   It was because of Constantinople's dithering about rejecting the Union of Florence that the Church of Russia was, briefly, out of communion with Constantinople at this time.

Sone Greeks believe that it was because of the acceptance of union with Rome that God allowed the imperial city to fall to the infidel.

 A little correction father. The Russian Bishop Abraham signed at Florance.  http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.aspx

Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #166 on: January 24, 2010, 03:54:11 PM »


With all that said I found in interesting that the very last Divine Liturgy of Hagia Sophia was a by joint Greek and Latin Priests who in the face of such saw past their differences and joined together as one people in the Kingdom of God.

This ocurred because Constantinople had not yet rejected the Union of Florence and was in union with Rome.   It was because of Constantinople's dithering about rejecting the Union of Florence that the Church of Russia was, briefly, out of communion with Constantinople at this time.

Sone Greeks believe that it was because of the acceptance of union with Rome that God allowed the imperial city to fall to the infidel.

 A little correction father. The Russian Bishop Abraham signed at Florance.  http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.aspx


Probably even more important to remember that Metropolitan Isidore, the head of the Russian Church, signed at Florence. 

The difference between the Churches of Russia and Constantinople was that Russia instantly rejected the Union which had been signed, imprisoned Metropolitan Isidore and then allowed him to return to Italy where he died as a Roman cardinal.

At this time Russia went out of communion with Constantinople for a while (because of Constantinople's accepatnce of the Union) and since they could not ask Constantinople for another Greek-appointed Metropolitan for Russia to replace Isidore, they waited a while and then , for the first time ever, elected one of their own bishops independent of Constantinople.  So, in a way, the false union of Florence laid the foundation for the ecclesiastical independence of Russia.



Today (24 January) is the commemoration of St. Manach of Lemonaghan
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #167 on: January 24, 2010, 04:05:03 PM »


With all that said I found in interesting that the very last Divine Liturgy of Hagia Sophia was a by joint Greek and Latin Priests who in the face of such saw past their differences and joined together as one people in the Kingdom of God.

This ocurred because Constantinople had not yet rejected the Union of Florence and was in union with Rome.   It was because of Constantinople's dithering about rejecting the Union of Florence that the Church of Russia was, briefly, out of communion with Constantinople at this time.

Sone Greeks believe that it was because of the acceptance of union with Rome that God allowed the imperial city to fall to the infidel.

 A little correction father. The Russian Bishop Abraham signed at Florance.  http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.aspx


Probably even more important to remember that Metropolitan Isidore, the head of the Russian Church, signed at Florence. 

The difference between the Churches of Russia and Constantinople was that Russia instantly rejected the Union which had been signed, imprisoned Metropolitan Isidore and then allowed him to return to Italy where he died as a Roman cardinal.

At this time Russia went out of communion with Constantinople for a while (because of Constantinople's accepatnce of the Union) and since they could not ask Constantinople for another Greek-appointed Metropolitan for Russia to replace Isidore, they waited a while and then , for the first time ever, elected one of their own bishops independent of Constantinople.  So, in a way, the false union of Florence laid the foundation for the ecclesiastical independence of Russia.



Today (24 January) is the commemoration of St. Manach of Lemonaghan
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


They picked St. Jonah, who actually had been the choice of Russia before, but who had been delayed to reach Constantinople and Isodore was sent in the interum.

Btw, the Patriarch of Serbia refused to have anything to do with Florence, as also I believe the Bulgarian autocephalous Ohrid.  The Romanians of Moldavia dumped their Greek metropolitan, sent by the EP, when he went to Florence, and they got a replacement from Serbia.

And before anyone squawks about the origins of Russian autocephaly, remember that Greece and the rest of the Balkans were finally placed into Constantinople's jurisdiction by the iconoclast Emperors. Shocked
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043