¿Why Ortodoxy was unable to resist Islam?

[ignatius]

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.

[Alonso_castillo]

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?

[Alonso_castillo]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

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?

etnicity and language.

Everything should be in Latin?

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.

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[Rafa999]

The COE churches are the best:

St.Hurmizd Cathedral



St.Joseph Cathedral:

[Alonso_castillo]

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.   

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Papist]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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

[ialmisry]

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

My teacher gave an explanation of an idiom comunly used. thats all.   

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

to be in full communion in their own tradition with the Catholic Church.

We are.

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

and Constantinople was the capital of the oriental empire,

and the occident, several times.

never could protect to western from invasions of barbarians to claim to be the capital of all romans.

Seems Rome's in there:

never fought to clean Galia or Britany from invasions.

Actually they did, but more importantly they sent missionaries to Ireland.

So the oriental empire was focused from Bizantium to protect not roman empire but oriental empire. ruled from bizantium.

Look at the map again.

[Alonso_castillo]

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?

[Alonso_castillo]

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?

[ialmisry]

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.

Can you say that divisions never ocured in Orthodoxy?

LOL.  Sure.  How do you think your church got started?

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?

and in Estonian Churches,

Hardly the division of your Reformation/Counter-Reformation.

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).

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

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?

But this discusion is pointless because we  in The Catholic Church have Unite

OOOOOPssss.  That word is a no-no here.

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?,

About Bizantium, do you see? I was truth.

Haven't seen anything truthful yet on that I'm afraid.

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."

[ialmisry]

About Bizantium, do you see? I was truth.

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/byzantine_map3.gif

[katherineofdixie]

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..."

[Alonso_castillo]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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

[ignatius]

Grace and Peace,

We have wandered so far off topic is kinda crazy. 

[Alonso_castillo]

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.

[Alonso_castillo]

Grace and Peace,

We have wandered so far off topic is kinda crazy. 

I agree and I am sorry.

[StGeorge]

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.   

[Ebor]

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?

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. 

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

[Ebor]

 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.

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...

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.  

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

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

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.

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?

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

[ignatius]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[ChristusDominus]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[Tzimis]

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

[Irish Hermit]

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

[ialmisry]

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.

[Theophilos78]

And today even the RCC, which organized Crusades against Muslims in remote history, is unable to resist Islam. These eyes have seen a Pope kiss the Qur'an, another Pope visit a mosque and talk highly of Muslims. The next Pope may ask his flock to pray in the direction of the Cube. 

[Shanghaiski]

Is this another one of those threads where people argue theology and dogmatic rightness through history? Can't all these be merged?

[Cantor Krishnich]

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

Actually its much more than that, today 41% of Lebanon is Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Lebanon

[JamesR]

Well I'm no historical genius like Isa, but some thoughts come to mind. Firstly, how accurate are those statistics really? From what I know, Islamic countries are very religiously oppressive toward non-Muslims, so how do we know that Christians in those areas are not lying on the religious census to avoid persecution? Or, that many of the Muslims in those lands are not only nominally, lapsed Muslims? (like RC Hispanics). Then, isn't apostasy in Islam punishable by death? In which case, what if there is a large population of Orthodox Christians from those lands, but they are dead? People may be converting everyday and all Islam can do is kill them, but that doesn't mean that people still aren't becoming Orthodox (even if they die for it).

[Charles Martel]

And today even the RCC, which organized Crusades against Muslims in remote history, is unable to resist Islam. These eyes have seen a Pope kiss the Qur'an, another Pope visit a mosque and talk highly of Muslims. The next Pope may ask his flock to pray in the direction of the Cube. 

""Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."-THE MESSAGE OF OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE 

[Deacon Lance]

"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."-THE MESSAGE OF OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE  

Don't remember that in approved text.

[Shanghaiski]

"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."-THE MESSAGE OF OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE  

Don't remember that in approved text.

We approve the sense, but not the tense. 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: ¿Why Ortodoxy was unable to resist Islam?