Topic: ¿Why Ortodoxy was unable to resist Islam?

[katherineofdixie]

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?

[ignatius]

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]

[Alonso_castillo]

  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.     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.

[Alonso_castillo]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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

"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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

 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.    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.

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?

[ignatius]

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?

[ialmisry]

  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.     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."

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[ialmisry]

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?

[ignatius]

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.

[Alonso_castillo]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[ignatius]

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?

[ialmisry]

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).

[ignatius]

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?

[Rafa999]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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?

[Papist]

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?

[ialmisry]

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?

[Papist]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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

So the conquistadors simply finished the job?

[Papist]

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.

[ignatius]

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.

[ignatius]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[ialmisry]

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:

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.

[ignatius]

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:

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?

[katherineofdixie]

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.

[ialmisry]

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:

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.

[sandersjp]

 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

[ozgeorge]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[ialmisry]

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....

[ozgeorge]

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).

[ialmisry]

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?

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.

[ialmisry]

¿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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

[Alonso_castillo]

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.

[Alonso_castillo]

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.

[Alonso_castillo]

Just to point out that no Orthodox Cathedral in old world is larger than the Mexico City Cathedral.

[Alonso_castillo]

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)

[synLeszka]

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!