Topic: Did the Roman Catholic Church sack Constantinople?

[Papist]

You mean by asking them to return to their Eastern Traditions? How aweful. Bad! Bad Vatican! 

Just the fact that they have to return to them proves my point.

And the fact that they are being encouraged to be Eastern disproves  your point. So which is it? lol

[Aindriú]

I have to say, though based upon only anecdotal evidence, that this is simply not true. First of all, despite the sometimes heated rhetoric around oc.net, I have yet to hear any Orthodox say they hate RCs. Based on what I read on oc.net (always a dangerous practice, I know!), what most RCs don't "get" about the Orthodox is that they don't hate Catholics. They simply don't give it a thought. What they do think is that Catholics have got it wrong, but that's their business.

You may not see it as an Orthodox, but being that a few Catholics and a non-Catholic see the smoke, don't you suppose there might be something there?

I have, however, seen quite a bit of rabid anti-Catholicism on the part of evangelicals and Southern Baptists. (this is in the buckle of the Bible Belt, so YMMV.)

They hate everyone that's not Baptist. Especially RCs and EO, if the even know what an EO is.

(As far as the sack of Constantinople, it is an historical fact, but one which most non-Orthodox haven't a clue about. Like most of Christian history - the majority of people know very little about Christian history, and if they do, it's only from the Reformation onwards. Actually, to most people, except for a few history geeks, the history of Christianity is pretty much irrelevant.)

It's not just Christian history that people are ignorant, quite a few people can't find Iran on a map for current events.

(Fwiw, my husband, who was raised RC, reports that his Baptist neighbors were concerned for his salvation, since Catholics were obviously not Christian. He also reports that he got an entirely different story about the Schism and the Crusades in parochial school than he found in history.)

I grew up in a Catholic school. I can't say the history was falsified in my case, however you can expect the point of view to be Catholic. It is a Catholic school afterall.

[Aindriú]

Isa,

The point I'm making is it wasn't the desire of the Church to make any military move after Constantinople. I'll admit, after the deed was done, the Pope used the current situation to the Catholic Church advantage. Probably knowing, without means of communication beyond foot, trying to reconcile what had been done and then moving forward with unification would be that much harder. As you can see, the event hasn't been forgotten even 800 years later.

And as had been explained, there is a reason it hasn't been forgotten. The event epitomizes a Latin attitude that persists to this day. Just look at how the Vatican treats its fellow Eastern Catholics.

You're projecting the attitude, IMHO.

[ialmisry]

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

There is something to forgive if you plan on bringing it up in debates and attempt to use it as a valid argument, as Fr. George did. It's cute how you all think it is appropriate to bring it up, but then when we talk about forgiveness you all claim that you are not really mad about it anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

Having been forced fed the Ultramontanist poisoned cake, we know what is in it. And yet the Vatican complains we don't come over for coffee and cake.  That is it: no matter how much icing has been put on that cake since Vatican II, we know it's the same cake moldering underneath. Take your cake and eat it too. We're fine with the Bread Who came down from heaven.

So, back to the original point, do you believe that the blood of the sack of Constantinople is on modern day RC's hands or not?

UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks

i.e. the Orthodox Catholics

or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

The blood of the sack of Constantinople is on that sword, and any hand that lays claim to the authority that issued Unam Sanctam.

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

There is something to forgive if you plan on bringing it up in debates and attempt to use it as a valid argument, as Fr. George did. It's cute how you all think it is appropriate to bring it up, but then when we talk about forgiveness you all claim that you are not really mad about it anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

What argument did someone try to make? You called all Orthodox Christians unloving and Fr George made a retort. So first you act like an ass yesterday and now criticize us for being unforgiving. You need to get a grip my friend.

Well it is a poor argument on Fr. George's part. I point out that a large majority of EOs are hateful to RCs now in the present (which one only has to look at some of the posts on this forum to realize), and he backtracks and tries to rehash something that some RCs did hundreds of years ago. Grasp at straws much?

No, we let you have them for your strawman.

Repudiate the definitions of Lateran IV and Lyons I.  If the "RC's now in the present," hold to those councils as "ecumenical," that isn't something "RCs did hundreds of years ago." Btw, some find fault and insult where is none, and expect us to act on their "feelings" rather than the facts.

[Paisius]

You mean by asking them to return to their Eastern Traditions? How aweful. Bad! Bad Vatican! 

Just the fact that they have to return to them proves my point.

And the fact that they are being encouraged to be Eastern disproves  your point. So which is it? lol

Take a look at this story on a recent Eastern Catholic synod in the Middle East.

Rome - Ferment around defending the heritage and prerogatives of the Eastern Catholic churches continues to swirl at the Oct. 10-24 Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, as yesterday a Lebanese prelate proposed launching a Vatican commission to study ways of revitalizing the office of Patriarch.

In broad strokes, Eastern bishops typically have two reasons for wanting to emphasize the role of the patriarchs. Internally, it’s an argument for greater collegiality, or shared decision- making, in Catholicism, as a corrective to what is perceived as excessive papal power; externally, it’s a way of giving the patriarch a higher international profile as a way of insulating their flocks in the Middle East against possible pressures and attacks.

Link


Talks of excessive papal power, "taking" back their historical prerogatives and having to go through the Roman Curia to do it. Couple that with Eastern bishops being made cardinals in the Latin Church and the need for a Congregation for the Oriental Churches and I think my point stands. 

[Paisius]

You're projecting the attitude, IMHO.

No, just looking at recent historical facts and the conditions as they exist today.

[Papist]

^ You seem to think that the Catholic Church following it's own ecclesiology means oppressing all things eastern. That, again, is stupid. You have your ecclesiology. We have ours.

[Papist]

You're projecting the attitude, IMHO.

No, just looking at recent historical facts and the conditions as they exist today.

Yeah, you are projecting your angry anti-latin attitude. It's not very becoming.

[Paisius]

^ You seem to think that the Catholic Church following it's own ecclesiology means oppressing all things eastern. That, again, is stupid. You have your ecclesiology. We have ours.

And the Eastern Catholics had theirs until it was suppressed by the Latin Church. If that is not the case why the need to "return to their Eastern Traditions" as you say and why have a synod to "take back" their traditional prerogatives from "excessive papal power"?  

[Fr. George]

There is something to forgive if you plan on bringing it up in debates and attempt to use it as a valid argument, as Fr. George did.

You obviously missed the point; something that has happened more than once in the other thread where my comment came up.  You can't use a ridiculous statement like, "So I guess that is the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love," and not be called out for it.  An assertion like that falls flat on its face in hundreds of ways borne out in hundreds of years of history - history which you're not liable for, IMO, but which you must bear if you're going to put, "So I guess that is the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love," out there as your rallying cry.  As I've mentioned before: get off your self-imagined moral high horse and deal with reality - and the issues - as they're presented.

[katherineofdixie]

Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

Neither. That's the problem with your thinking. It only allows for two opinions. Both of which are silly.

The sacking of Constantinople by Latin Catholics while on a religious crusade sanctioned and promoted by the same Church, in whole or in part, is a fact. It happened. That the Latin Church benefited from the sacking, at least monetarily, is also a fact.

And if you think that the Sack of Constantinople or Orthodox anger over it or inability to forgive is the only thing keeping the two Churches apart, as I said, you simply don't get it.

You're just wrong.

[Papist]

^ You seem to think that the Catholic Church following it's own ecclesiology means oppressing all things eastern. That, again, is stupid. You have your ecclesiology. We have ours.

And the Eastern Catholics had theirs until it was suppressed by the Latin Church. If that is not the case why the need to "return to their Eastern Traditions" as you say and why have a synod to "take back" their traditional prerogatives from "excessive papal power"?  

But in our ecclesiology, they are not oppressed, because in our ecclesiology, they must submitt to Rome.

[katherineofdixie]

I have to say, though based upon only anecdotal evidence, that this is simply not true. First of all, despite the sometimes heated rhetoric around oc.net, I have yet to hear any Orthodox say they hate RCs. Based on what I read on oc.net (always a dangerous practice, I know!), what most RCs don't "get" about the Orthodox is that they don't hate Catholics. They simply don't give it a thought. What they do think is that Catholics have got it wrong, but that's their business.

You may not see it as an Orthodox, but being that a few Catholics and a non-Catholic see the smoke, don't you suppose there might be something there?

Not necessarily. Are only the Orthodox unaware of their own blind spots and sensitivities?

[Paisius]

You're projecting the attitude, IMHO.

No, just looking at recent historical facts and the conditions as they exist today.

Yeah, you are projecting your angry anti-latin attitude. It's not very becoming.

And you're demonstrating your inability to have a discussion without resorting to ad hominen attacks on those who disagree with you. It's a typical tactic of some internet Roman Catholics who, when faced with facts that contradict their insular world view, stick their fingers in their ears and claim anti-Catholicism. If you're argument is so strong why not just stick to the facts?

[Paisius]

But in our ecclesiology, they are not oppressed, because in our ecclesiology, they must submitt to Rome.

Are you so sure that really is their ecclesiology?

[Papist]

You're projecting the attitude, IMHO.

No, just looking at recent historical facts and the conditions as they exist today.

Yeah, you are projecting your angry anti-latin attitude. It's not very becoming.

And you're demonstrating your inability to have a discussion without resorting to ad hominen attacks on those who disagree with you. It's a typical tactic of some internet Roman Catholics who, when faced with facts that contradict their insular world view, stick their fingers in their ears and claim anti-Catholicism. If you're argument is so strong why not just stick to the facts?

You are engaging in ad hominem attacks.  

[Papist]

But in our ecclesiology, they are not oppressed, because in our ecclesiology, they must submitt to Rome.

Are you so sure that really is their ecclesiology?

It's Catholic ecclesiology.

[Fr. George]

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

There is something to forgive if you plan on bringing it up in debates and attempt to use it as a valid argument, as Fr. George did. It's cute how you all think it is appropriate to bring it up, but then when we talk about forgiveness you all claim that you are not really mad about it anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

What argument did someone try to make? You called all Orthodox Christians unloving and Fr George made a retort. So first you act like an ass yesterday and now criticize us for being unforgiving. You need to get a grip my friend.

Well it is a poor argument on Fr. George's part. I point out that a large majority of EOs are hateful to RCs now in the present (which one only has to look at some of the posts on this forum to realize), and he backtracks and tries to rehash something that some RCs did hundreds of years ago. Grasp at straws much?

That is not what you point out; you "pointed out" that, "So I guess that is the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love."  What is more hateful - some snide remarks about, from our POV, bad RC theology and history, or saying that we have no love - and therefore, no Christ, no union with God, no sacraments, etc., which are all expressions and manifestations in us of God's love for humankind.  

If you're going to ever make the claim that, "So I guess that is the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love," then you're going to have to back that up - and backing it up requires history, a fact that does not bode well for you viz-a-viz your relationship with the Orthodox, whether modern or ancient or anything in between.  I'm not going to claim that the RC church is all bad - there's been too much charity and compassion shown by millions of RCs to claim that - but don't tell me your collective excrement doesn't stink.

[Papist]

Well, I just flew in from sacking Constantinople, and boy are my arms tired.

[ialmisry]

You mean by asking them to return to their Eastern Traditions? How aweful. Bad! Bad Vatican! 

Just the fact that they have to return to them proves my point.

And the fact that they are being encouraged to be Eastern disproves  your point. So which is it? lol

The Vatican's Drang nach Osten? The same it has always been:

http://www.christisall.org/wp-content/images/Wolf%20-%20sheep.jpg

That they have to return is from a sincere effort to Latinize them.  The encouragement is disingenuous. Such tripe (wolves eat tripe, lambs do not) as this
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html
("Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church." Roman Cholij, Secretary of the Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainian Catholics in Great Britain)
on the Vatican's own official web site shows that. For those who can see.

[Aindriú]

I have to say, though based upon only anecdotal evidence, that this is simply not true. First of all, despite the sometimes heated rhetoric around oc.net, I have yet to hear any Orthodox say they hate RCs. Based on what I read on oc.net (always a dangerous practice, I know!), what most RCs don't "get" about the Orthodox is that they don't hate Catholics. They simply don't give it a thought. What they do think is that Catholics have got it wrong, but that's their business.

You may not see it as an Orthodox, but being that a few Catholics and a non-Catholic see the smoke, don't you suppose there might be something there?

Not necessarily. Are only the Orthodox unaware of their own blind spots and sensitivities?

Considering only the current topic, and only non-orthodox agree with RC-disaffection, I stand by my original statement.

[Paisius]

It's Catholic ecclesiology.

It's Latin ecclesiology. I've heard plenty of Eastern Catholics who see things differently.

[Aindriú]

Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

Neither. That's the problem with your thinking. It only allows for two opinions. Both of which are silly.

The sacking of Constantinople by Latin Catholics while on a religious crusade sanctioned and promoted by the same Church, in whole or in part, is a fact. It happened. That the Latin Church benefited from the sacking, at least monetarily, is also a fact.

A crusade for a different country.

I've already admitted the Catholics benefitted in a previous reply to isalmsry.

And if you think that the Sack of Constantinople or Orthodox anger over it or inability to forgive is the only thing keeping the two Churches apart, as I said, you simply don't get it.

You're just wrong.

Strawman.

[ialmisry]

Well, I just flew in from sacking Constantinople, and boy are my arms tired.

really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynuwcd8SAhE&feature=related
(the lyrics are wrong of course: it's the Greeks business).

[Aindriú]

It's Catholic ecclesiology.

It's Latin ecclesiology. I've heard plenty of Eastern Catholics who see things differently.

Both ecclesiologies are accentuating their own positions. The past shows Papal control WITH patriarchal management of regions. As communication has grown recently, the need for the Patriarchal system has been seen by some as no longer necessary. However, some Eastern Catholics are now saying that's not true, the Church can still benefit from the old structure.

[ialmisry]

But in our ecclesiology, they are not oppressed, because in our ecclesiology, they must submitt to Rome.

Are you so sure that really is their ecclesiology?

It's Catholic ecclesiology.

Patriarch St. Ignatius knew nothing of it when he wrote "where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church." The Vatican hadn't invented Ultramontanism yet.

[AMM]

The Native Americans want their land back.

[ialmisry]

Isa,

The point I'm making is it wasn't the desire of the Church to make any military move after Constantinople. I'll admit, after the deed was done, the Pope used the current situation to the Catholic Church advantage. Probably knowing, without means of communication beyond foot, trying to reconcile what had been done and then moving forward with unification would be that much harder. As you can see, the event hasn't been forgotten even 800 years later.

And as had been explained, there is a reason it hasn't been forgotten. The event epitomizes a Latin attitude that persists to this day. Just look at how the Vatican treats its fellow Eastern Catholics.

You're projecting the attitude, IMHO.

No, just noticing for instance the projection of the Vatican's mandated clerical celibacy, for instance, on everywhere outside majority Orthodox countries (where its ruse is obvious, and it can't get away with such antics).

[Aindriú]

Isa,

The point I'm making is it wasn't the desire of the Church to make any military move after Constantinople. I'll admit, after the deed was done, the Pope used the current situation to the Catholic Church advantage. Probably knowing, without means of communication beyond foot, trying to reconcile what had been done and then moving forward with unification would be that much harder. As you can see, the event hasn't been forgotten even 800 years later.

And as had been explained, there is a reason it hasn't been forgotten. The event epitomizes a Latin attitude that persists to this day. Just look at how the Vatican treats its fellow Eastern Catholics.

You're projecting the attitude, IMHO.

No, just noticing for instance the projection of the Vatican's mandated clerical celibacy, for instance, on everywhere outside majority Orthodox countries (where its ruse is obvious, and it can't get away with such antics).

Clerical celibacy is a discipline for all priests in the Catholic Church, not just Bishops as in the Orthodox Church (as you are well aware). Since they are in the Catholic Church, there was a period when that discipline was desired throughout the Church. Why? Because, while you see the Easter Catholics as hostage Orthodox under the Pope, the ECs are in reality a member of the greater Catholic Church. Therefore, the discipline had been pushed universally. Of course, there are also ECs that prefer to keep the Eastern discipline. Just as there are Latin Catholics that want to adopt the Eastern discipline.

[katherineofdixie]

And if you think that the Sack of Constantinople or Orthodox anger over it or inability to forgive is the only thing keeping the two Churches apart, as I said, you simply don't get it.

You're just wrong.

Strawman.

Why?

[Aindriú]

And if you think that the Sack of Constantinople or Orthodox anger over it or inability to forgive is the only thing keeping the two Churches apart, as I said, you simply don't get it.

You're just wrong.

Strawman.

Why?

You are creating a argument where there is none and then attacking it.

[Paisius]

Clerical celibacy is a discipline for all priests in the Catholic Church, not just Bishops as in the Orthodox Church (as you are well aware). Since they are in the Catholic Church, there was a period when that discipline was desired throughout the Church. Why? Because, while you see the Easter Catholics as hostage Orthodox under the Pope, the ECs are in reality a member of the greater Catholic Church. Therefore, the discipline had been pushed universally. Of course, there are also ECs that prefer to keep the Eastern discipline. Just as there are Latin Catholics that want to adopt the Eastern discipline.

Mandatory celibacy is a discipline for the Latin Church, not the Eastern Churches, and the Latin Church had/has no authority to impose it on the Eastern Churches.

[Aindriú]

Clerical celibacy is a discipline for all priests in the Catholic Church, not just Bishops as in the Orthodox Church (as you are well aware). Since they are in the Catholic Church, there was a period when that discipline was desired throughout the Church. Why? Because, while you see the Easter Catholics as hostage Orthodox under the Pope, the ECs are in reality a member of the greater Catholic Church. Therefore, the discipline had been pushed universally. Of course, there are also ECs that prefer to keep the Eastern discipline. Just as there are Latin Catholics that want to adopt the Eastern discipline.

Mandatory celibacy is a discipline for the Latin Church, not the Eastern Churches, and the Latin Church had/has no authority to impose it on the Eastern Churches.

As I said in the previous post, the Easten Catholics are members of the Catholic Church, therefore it has every authority.

You confuse Orthodox ecclesiology with Catholic. They aren't separate churches in communion, they are separate traditions in one Church.

[katherineofdixie]

You are creating a argument where there is none and then attacking it.

Naturally I don't agree. My point has been all along that I have not observed or personally witnessed any of these attitudes (i.e. Orthodox "hate" RCs and are irrationally angry with them over unfortunate events that are in the past, and lack love and forgiveness which adversely affects relationships between the two Churches).

I have stated that RCs just don't seem to "get" the general Orthodox opinion (outside oc.net) on these issues - which could be summed up as "What? Huh?Who cares?"

Orthodox consider RCs wrong on a number of things - way down the list are historic events. It is those things, not ancient grudges, that are keeping the two Churches apart. IMHO, of course.

[Paisius]

As I said in the previous post, the Easten Catholics are members of the Catholic Church, therefore it has every authority.

You confuse Orthodox ecclesiology with Catholic. They aren't separate churches in communion, they are separate traditions in one Church.

I'm sorry my friend but that is just wrong.

[Aindriú]

As I said in the previous post, the Easten Catholics are members of the Catholic Church, therefore it has every authority.

You confuse Orthodox ecclesiology with Catholic. They aren't separate churches in communion, they are separate traditions in one Church.

I'm sorry my friend but that is just wrong.

Perhaps my wording was too strong. However, the Catholic Church can impose disciplines on all it's parts. Why do you disagree with this?

[ialmisry]

Isa,

The point I'm making is it wasn't the desire of the Church to make any military move after Constantinople. I'll admit, after the deed was done, the Pope used the current situation to the Catholic Church advantage. Probably knowing, without means of communication beyond foot, trying to reconcile what had been done and then moving forward with unification would be that much harder. As you can see, the event hasn't been forgotten even 800 years later.

And as had been explained, there is a reason it hasn't been forgotten. The event epitomizes a Latin attitude that persists to this day. Just look at how the Vatican treats its fellow Eastern Catholics.

You're projecting the attitude, IMHO.

No, just noticing for instance the projection of the Vatican's mandated clerical celibacy, for instance, on everywhere outside majority Orthodox countries (where its ruse is obvious, and it can't get away with such antics).

Clerical celibacy is a discipline for all priests in the Catholic Church,

you mean the Vatican. Yes, I am aware of that. But the Vatican and many of its followers deny that when we bring it up.

not just Bishops as in the Orthodox Church (as you are well aware).

Yes I am. Unfortunately, not all are so aware. And then there are those who deny it.

Since they are in the Catholic Church,

No, they are not. They are under the Vatican.

there was a period when that discipline was desired throughout the Church.

That period is the present.

Why? Because, while you see the Easter Catholics as hostage Orthodox under the Pope,

Stockholm syndrome.

the ECs are in reality a member of the greater Catholic Church.

No, in reality they are not members of the greater One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The confusion over that is the sources of their problems.

As for them being subjects of the Vatican, yes, I agree. But that isn't the bill of goods they were sold when they signed the "union" (that's called fraud in the inducement btw). Cf. their "ecumenical" council of Lateran IV "...we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord..."

Therefore, the discipline had been pushed universally. Of course, there are also ECs that prefer to keep the Eastern discipline. Just as there are Latin Catholics that want to adopt the Eastern discipline.

St. Alexis Toth, pray for us all!

[Paisius]

Perhaps my wording was too strong. However, the Catholic Church can impose disciplines on all it's parts. Why do you disagree with this?

If you are using the term "Catholic Church" as being synonymous with the Latin Church then yes I disagree. The Latin Church cannot impose its disciplines on the other local Churches. Those issues are not within the authority of the pope.

[elijahmaria]

As I said in the previous post, the Easten Catholics are members of the Catholic Church, therefore it has every authority.

You confuse Orthodox ecclesiology with Catholic. They aren't separate churches in communion, they are separate traditions in one Church.

I'm sorry my friend but that is just wrong.

Perhaps my wording was too strong. However, the Catholic Church can impose disciplines on all it's parts. Why do you disagree with this?

Because we, eastern Catholics, are sister Churches in communion with Rome.  It is what the Anglo-Catholics wanted as well and may have yet.  But for now it is the personal prelature and the Vatican will not impose its will over that of the Anglo-Catholic Prelate.  The generations of heavy-handedness are gone for better or worse but they are gone, transformed.  The centuries where the Roman Church was near equivalent to the Roman Rite were few and they were an anomaly in the universal Church.

You may check with any canonist you like for corroboration.

M.

M.

[ialmisry]

Clerical celibacy is a discipline for all priests in the Catholic Church, not just Bishops as in the Orthodox Church (as you are well aware). Since they are in the Catholic Church, there was a period when that discipline was desired throughout the Church. Why? Because, while you see the Easter Catholics as hostage Orthodox under the Pope, the ECs are in reality a member of the greater Catholic Church. Therefore, the discipline had been pushed universally. Of course, there are also ECs that prefer to keep the Eastern discipline. Just as there are Latin Catholics that want to adopt the Eastern discipline.

Mandatory celibacy is a discipline for the Latin Church, not the Eastern Churches, and the Latin Church had/has no authority to impose it on the Eastern Churches.

As I said in the previous post, the Easten Catholics are members of the Catholic Church, therefore it has every authority.

You confuse Orthodox ecclesiology with Catholic. They aren't separate churches in communion, they are separate traditions in one Church.

Much to the dismay of the Vatican, we do not confuse its ecclesiology with the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

They are several ecclesiasical communions in schism which have federated.  How far fraud in the inducement vitiates the terms of their confederation is a matter which does not involve us, except to serve as a warning against promises their supreme pontiff makes.

So one can make the argument that the Vatican has the authority to impose its tradition on them, but cannot argue the credibility of the Vatican as to its sincerity to any union with the Orthodox.

[elijahmaria]

St. Alexis Toth, pray for us all!

There is no such state as "under the Vatican"

There can be no imposition of clerical celibacy in the eastern Catholic Churches except that which is willing accepted by their Metropolitans.

We Pray for Saint Alexis as well.

M.

[AMM]

Remember the Alamo.

[ialmisry]

Perhaps my wording was too strong. However, the Catholic Church can impose disciplines on all it's parts. Why do you disagree with this?

If you are using the term "Catholic Church" as being synonymous with the Latin Church then yes I disagree. The Latin Church cannot impose its disciplines on the other local Churches. Those issues are not within the authority of the pope.

No, under the principles of Ultramontanism enshrined in their dogma, canons, and councils, he can, something many fora have pointed out to mardukm for instance.

[ialmisry]

St. Alexis Toth, pray for us all!

There is no such state as "under the Vatican"

your ecclesiolgoy and canons say otherwise.

There can be no imposition of clerical celibacy in the eastern Catholic Churches except that which is willing accepted by their Metropolitans.

your history says otherwise.

We Pray for Saint Alexis as well.

You pray for him, and we will pray to him.

[Paisius]

No, under the principles of Ultramontanism enshrined in their dogma, canons, and councils, he can, something many fora have pointed out to mardukm for instance.

That is certainly the way we Orthodox see it, but it is not what Eastern Catholics say about themselves.