Did the Roman Catholic Church sack Constantinople?

[ialmisry]

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.

People in abusive relationships rationalize a lot.

[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?

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.

Interesting. Looks like I've got it wrong.

[Papist]

It's Catholic ecclesiology.

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

Well, those who have told you otherwise are just bad Catholics then.

[Paisius]

Well, those who have told you otherwise are just bad Catholics then.

Elijahmaria, Mardukm............did you hear that?

[Papist]

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.

Interesting. Looks like I've got it wrong.

No you didn't have it wrong.

[Fr. George]

I'm curious as to Wyatt's thought on my post, responding to his accusation about me:

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.

[Wyatt]

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.

That's because you didn't make a point. My "love versus no love" comment was based on real, visible, modern day Eastern Orthodox on this forum saying rude and hateful things to modern day Catholics. That has nothing to do with what some Catholics may have done centuries ago. We cannot apologize for something we did not do, but those on this forum who are anti-Catholic can certainly apologize for their conduct.

[AMM]

It makes all the sense in the world to argue about something that happened several centuries ago that nobody here can do anything about.  It doubly makes sense to criticize Catholic ecclesiology when by all accounts according to this http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30764.msg488425.html#msg488425 thread you've got a bishop throwing a priest out of his house before the Holidays over wearing a cassock.

Kudos!

[Fr. George]

Wyatt,

So your response to a handful of real-life situations (in which, IMO, you take things personally that are not intended to be personal) is to make the sweeping over-generalization (yes, I know that "sweeping over-generalization" is triply redundant) that, "the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love."  It is a statement that is ridiculous on its face, and will certainly do nothing but bring hostility to a situation that you claim is bad... because of hostility! 

There was a point, which I'm now explaining to you for the second time: your statement, that "the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love" requires proof, and proof can only come from observation in history.  Since that is the case, there are plenty of things that can be brought to bear that indicate that your simplistic statement is completely and demonstrably false because of un-loving things done by RC's in the past - the fact that I chose an event 806+ years in the past doesn't indicate that I couldn't have used a more recent topic, but rather indicates that I'm trying to make a point about how ridiculous a sweeping over-generalization like yours is.  You have chosen to characterize the Orthodox by your observations in very, very, very recent history - but it's still history (i.e. the past) - and I believe your characterization to be false for a number of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with our fundamental disagreement (the truth of EO vs. RC). 

I also, as I have stated before, believe that this history is, "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."  But you've ignored that point - that your statement exceeds the scope of your observation, experience, and, quite frankly, the "evidence" you've provided.

All that said - you need to not take statements of disagreement about faith so personally.  If it's always going to be "like this," then you need to choose another section of this forum to post in, because the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion subforum of the Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion forum on OrthodoxChristianity.net is always going to be a place where Orthodoxy is compared to Catholicism in a critical way, with preference given to the Orthodox since this is the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion subforum of the Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion forum on OrthodoxChristianity.net.  If every critique of Catholicism is going to elicit a "you guys are meanies" reaction, then spend more time in Other Topics talking about sports, or Liturgy talking about how much we all hate clown masses.

[theistgal]

Forget it, Jake - it's Chinatown.

[Fr. George]

It makes all the sense in the world to argue about something that happened several centuries ago that nobody here can do anything about.

I don't get why people are arguing about it; I brought it up to make a point about something unrelated to it.  But hey, that's the nature of the 'net.

[Iconodule]

Well, those who have told you otherwise are just bad Catholics then.

Elijahmaria, Mardukm............did you hear that?

Papist is right though. The "Eastern Catholics" who reject the new Papal dogmas, yet remain in communion with Rome, are engaged in some fantasy roleplaying where they live in the first millenium. It's funny now and then to visit certain fora and see the bizarre rationalizations they weave.

[Wyatt]

It makes all the sense in the world to argue about something that happened several centuries ago that nobody here can do anything about.

I don't get why people are arguing about it; I brought it up to make a point about something unrelated to it.  But hey, that's the nature of the 'net.

Because you rehashed something that's long been dead where as I brought up something that one can verify for themselves by reading this forum, perhaps?  

[AMM]

I don't get why people are arguing about it; I brought it up to make a point about something unrelated to it.  But hey, that's the nature of the 'net.

Because it's like having a perpetual undergrad course where you can hash over all the historical wrongs you've discovered somebody else is at fault for.  There are people who like that sort of thing.

[Wyatt]

.

[ChristusDominus]

The late Pope John Paul II did apologize for the sack :

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935&repos=4&subrepos=1&searchid=675847

[Papist]

Well, those who have told you otherwise are just bad Catholics then.

Elijahmaria, Mardukm............did you hear that?

Papist is right though. The "Eastern Catholics" who reject the new Papal dogmas Catholic teaching, yet remain in communion with Rome, are engaged in some fantasy roleplaying where they live in the first millenium Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome. It's funny now and then to visit certain fora and see the bizarre rationalizations they weave.

I fixed it for you and now we agree. 

[Papist]

.

Point taken.

[AMM]

.

%

[Deacon Lance]

^ 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.

Catholic ecclesiology unfortunately is lacking in how the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churhces relate and this is what the Eastern Bishops at the Middle East Synod were complaining about.  The Pope has the primacy to defend the rights of all Churches, not so he can micromanage Eastern Churches when it is good for the Latin Church.  Case in point: Married priests in the diaspora.  Most, but not all, Eastern Churches have resumed ordaining married men whether the Rome or Latin bishops like it.  Rome has said nothing and that is the problem.  The Pope should apologize for his predecessors ever restricting the ordination of married men in the Eastern Churches and state unequivocally it is the right of Eastern Churches to ordain married men everywhere.  Latin bishops should be told catechize their faithful and not complain they will be scandalized, which is a cop out.  Patriarchs should be given immediate jurisdiction over their faithful everywhere in the world.  Why is the Latin Church the only sui iuris church without territorial limitation?  The Congregation for Eastern Churches should be abolished.  It is disrespectful for Patriarchs to be reporting to Cardinals.  Setting aside doctrinal issues, these three disciplinary issues are a major roadblock the Eastern Orthodox  would never accept.  Lets take care of these things so they can see Rome is serious about reunion.  If Rome doesn't, all the talk about return to tradition is lip service.

[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.

Catholic ecclesiology unfortunately is lacking in how the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churhces relate and this is what the Eastern Bishops at the Middle East Synod were complaining about.  The Pope has the primacy to defend the rights of all Churches, not so he can micromanage Eastern Churches when it is good for the Latin Church.  Case in point: Married priests in the diaspora.  Most, but not all, Eastern Churches have resumed ordaining married men whether the Rome or Latin bishops like it.  Rome has said nothing and that is the problem.  The Pope should apologize for his predecessors ever restricting the ordination of married men in the Eastern Churches and state unequivocally it is the right of Eastern Churches to ordain married men everywhere.  Latin bishops should be told catechize their faithful and not complain they will be scandalized, which is a cop out.  Patriarchs should be given immediate jurisdiction over their faithful everywhere in the world.  Why is the Latin Church the only sui iuris church without territorial limitation?  The Congregation for Eastern Churches should be abolished.  It is disrespectful for Patriarchs to be reporting to Cardinals.  Setting aside doctrinal issues, these three disciplinary issues are a major roadblock the Eastern Orthodox  would never accept.  Lets take care of these things so tehy can see Rome is serious about reunion.  If Rome doesn't all the talk about return to tradition is lip service.

This reflects what I hear from other Eastern Catholics across the web.

[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.

Catholic ecclesiology unfortunately is lacking in how the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churhces relate and this is what the Eastern Bishops at the Middle East Synod were complaining about.  The Pope has the primacy to defend the rights of all Churches, not so he can micromanage Eastern Churches when it is good for the Latin Church.  Case in point: Married priests in the diaspora.  Most, but not all, Eastern Churches have resumed ordaining married men whether the Rome or Latin bishops like it.  Rome has said nothing and that is the problem.  The Pope should apologize for his predecessors ever restricting the ordination of married men in the Eastern Churches and state unequivocally it is the right of Eastern Churches to ordain married men everywhere.  Latin bishops should be told catechize their faithful and not complain they will be scandalized, which is a cop out.  Patriarchs should be given immediate jurisdiction over their faithful everywhere in the world.  Why is the Latin Church the only sui iuris church without territorial limitation?  The Congregation for Eastern Churches should be abolished.  It is disrespectful for Patriarchs to be reporting to Cardinals.  Setting aside doctrinal issues, these three disciplinary issues are a major roadblock the Eastern Orthodox  would never accept.  Lets take care of these things so they can see Rome is serious about reunion.  If Rome doesn't, all the talk about return to tradition is lip service.

Hey, I am not saying that because the Pope "can" that he "should" in all circumstances.

[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.

Catholic ecclesiology unfortunately is lacking in how the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churhces relate and this is what the Eastern Bishops at the Middle East Synod were complaining about.  The Pope has the primacy to defend the rights of all Churches, not so he can micromanage Eastern Churches when it is good for the Latin Church.  Case in point: Married priests in the diaspora.  Most, but not all, Eastern Churches have resumed ordaining married men whether the Rome or Latin bishops like it.  Rome has said nothing and that is the problem.  The Pope should apologize for his predecessors ever restricting the ordination of married men in the Eastern Churches and state unequivocally it is the right of Eastern Churches to ordain married men everywhere.  Latin bishops should be told catechize their faithful and not complain they will be scandalized, which is a cop out.  Patriarchs should be given immediate jurisdiction over their faithful everywhere in the world.  Why is the Latin Church the only sui iuris church without territorial limitation?  The Congregation for Eastern Churches should be abolished.  It is disrespectful for Patriarchs to be reporting to Cardinals.  Setting aside doctrinal issues, these three disciplinary issues are a major roadblock the Eastern Orthodox  would never accept.  Lets take care of these things so tehy can see Rome is serious about reunion.  If Rome doesn't all the talk about return to tradition is lip service.

This reflects what I hear from other Eastern Catholics across the web.

Yeah, I am aware. It is NOT what i hear from Eastern Catholics in person. Just as the average EO is not the same as the "netodox" neither is the average Eastern Catholic the same as the online "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" crowd.

[elijahmaria]

Well, those who have told you otherwise are just bad Catholics then.

Elijahmaria, Mardukm............did you hear that?

Yup!!

I don't worry about it any more than I worry about what Orthodox believers say that just ain't so 

M.

[elijahmaria]

St. Alexis Toth, pray for us all!

There is no such state as "under the Vatican"

your ecclesiolgoy and canons say otherwise.

No they do not.  Your assertions are factually out of some other reality than the lived reality and the formal reality of the Catholic Church, of which I am a member, and I am not Orthodox.

When you can actually speak to me from that reality  then perhaps there will be room for dialogue.  Till then you are talking to yourself and to those who are willing to believe anything if it suits their own distorted vision of the Catholic Church.

Mary

[stanley123]

So no, the sack wasn't by the Church, but by a rogue Army lead by Princes', intent on getting their own political agenda fulfilled.  

I am not so sure about that.

[elijahmaria]

^ 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.

Catholic ecclesiology unfortunately is lacking in how the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churhces relate and this is what the Eastern Bishops at the Middle East Synod were complaining about.  The Pope has the primacy to defend the rights of all Churches, not so he can micromanage Eastern Churches when it is good for the Latin Church.  Case in point: Married priests in the diaspora.  Most, but not all, Eastern Churches have resumed ordaining married men whether the Rome or Latin bishops like it.  Rome has said nothing and that is the problem.  The Pope should apologize for his predecessors ever restricting the ordination of married men in the Eastern Churches and state unequivocally it is the right of Eastern Churches to ordain married men everywhere.  Latin bishops should be told catechize their faithful and not complain they will be scandalized, which is a cop out.  Patriarchs should be given immediate jurisdiction over their faithful everywhere in the world.  Why is the Latin Church the only sui iuris church without territorial limitation?  The Congregation for Eastern Churches should be abolished.  It is disrespectful for Patriarchs to be reporting to Cardinals.  Setting aside doctrinal issues, these three disciplinary issues are a major roadblock the Eastern Orthodox  would never accept.  Lets take care of these things so they can see Rome is serious about reunion.  If Rome doesn't, all the talk about return to tradition is lip service.

Dear Father Deacon,

I agree with you here, with one reservation.  It seems to me that our bishops and metropolitans have an obligation to be polite to the curial secretariat, but being polite is not the same thing as yielding every time the curial offices try to meddle in the affairs of the eastern Churches.  

At any time our Metropolitan Archbishops could have thanked the Secretary of any of the Curial offices and told them that the matter would be taken up in the local synod.  Till then, it would be business as usual in the running of each particular Church.

Eastern Catholic leadership has wandered its way onto the rocks,  ever more surely than they were dragged there kicking and screaming.

And that is where you and I differ.

Mary

[FormerReformer]

I'm confused... I'm Italian AND Orthodox... did I sack Constantinople?  I admit to some rather heavy drinking during my 20's, so I suppose it could have happened one of those nights I don't remember...

Papist, maybe you can help me out... I would have been the skinny kid in the leather jacket with a mohawk... Do you remember if I was in on it?

[Irish Hermit]

The late Pope John Paul II did apologize for the sack :

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935&repos=4&subrepos=1&searchid=675847

There have not been any Vatican apologies.

The heartfelt apologies which John Paul apparently wished to make were subverted by Cardinal Ratzinger who saw John Paul as naively creating a dangerous precedent for the Roman Catholic Church and diminishing its dignity as the Una Sancta.

So grab some of those apologies and see what they became under Ratzinger's influence --- they actually became not an apology to the victims but a prayer offered by the Pope that God would forgive the Roman Catholics who had committed the wrong.

This cunning was not lost on the Orthodox.

The pseudo-apologies of Pope John Paul II, carefully crafted by Cardinal Ratzinger. 

For an example see message 46 and others in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27715.msg437881.html#msg437881

[Papist]

I'm confused... I'm Italian AND Orthodox... did I sack Constantinople?  I admit to some rather heavy drinking during my 20's, so I suppose it could have happened one of those nights I don't remember...

Papist, maybe you can help me out... I would have been the skinny kid in the leather jacket with a mohawk... Do you remember if I was in on it?

oh man... now I why I though you were so familiar.

[AMM]

[FormerReformer]

would you believe that as you were posting this I had the "Inquisition" musical piece from Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I running through my head?

"Hey, Torquemada, what do you say?"

"I just got back from da auto de fe"

"'Auto de fe', what's an 'auto de fe'"

"It's what you ought'nt to do but you do it anyway."

[Gamliel]

Recently I got sacked.     

[Papist]

Well boys, offer to another busy night of sacking. I got my sword, my sheild with the crusader's cross on it, and oh yeah, my hoad of Latins. See ya tomorrow.

[FormerReformer]

"The posters of this thread hired to continue the thread after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked."

[ialmisry]

St. Alexis Toth, pray for us all!

There is no such state as "under the Vatican"

your ecclesiolgoy and canons say otherwise.

No they do not.  Your assertions are factually out of some other reality than the lived reality and the formal reality of the Catholic Church, of which I am a member, and I am not Orthodox.

Then you are not a member of the Catholic Church.

I can't comment on your own reality you live in Oz. As for the facts, one need only read Lumen Gentium with understanding, not excuses.

When you can actually speak to me from that reality  then perhaps there will be room for dialogue.

There's plenty of room down in Wonderland, but I'm not jumping from reality down the rabbit hole.

 Till then you are talking to yourself and to those who are willing to believe anything if it suits their own distorted vision of the Catholic Church.

your little talk

^ 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.

Catholic ecclesiology unfortunately is lacking in how the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churhces relate and this is what the Eastern Bishops at the Middle East Synod were complaining about.  The Pope has the primacy to defend the rights of all Churches, not so he can micromanage Eastern Churches when it is good for the Latin Church.  Case in point: Married priests in the diaspora.  Most, but not all, Eastern Churches have resumed ordaining married men whether the Rome or Latin bishops like it.  Rome has said nothing and that is the problem.  The Pope should apologize for his predecessors ever restricting the ordination of married men in the Eastern Churches and state unequivocally it is the right of Eastern Churches to ordain married men everywhere.  Latin bishops should be told catechize their faithful and not complain they will be scandalized, which is a cop out.  Patriarchs should be given immediate jurisdiction over their faithful everywhere in the world.  Why is the Latin Church the only sui iuris church without territorial limitation?  The Congregation for Eastern Churches should be abolished.  It is disrespectful for Patriarchs to be reporting to Cardinals.  Setting aside doctrinal issues, these three disciplinary issues are a major roadblock the Eastern Orthodox  would never accept.  Lets take care of these things so they can see Rome is serious about reunion.  If Rome doesn't, all the talk about return to tradition is lip service.

Dear Father Deacon,

I agree with you here, with one reservation.  It seems to me that our bishops and metropolitans have an obligation to be polite to the curial secretariat, but being polite is not the same thing as yielding every time the curial offices try to meddle in the affairs of the eastern Churches.  

At any time our Metropolitan Archbishops could have thanked the Secretary of any of the Curial offices and told them that the matter would be taken up in the local synod.  Till then, it would be business as usual in the running of each particular Church.

Eastern Catholic leadership has wandered its way onto the rocks,  ever more surely than they were dragged there kicking and screaming.

And that is where you and I differ.

Mary

shows we're (yes, I'm not alone. Not by far) not the ones with a distorted vision of the Catholic Church.

[dcommini]

"The posters of this thread hired to continue the thread after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked."

And now for something completely different.

[Fr. George]

It makes all the sense in the world to argue about something that happened several centuries ago that nobody here can do anything about.

I don't get why people are arguing about it; I brought it up to make a point about something unrelated to it.  But hey, that's the nature of the 'net.

Because you rehashed something that's long been dead where as I brought up something that one can verify for themselves by reading this forum, perhaps?  

Don't give yourself too much credit - none of your posts have been all that stimulating.  I mean, they clearly haven't reflected any learning done in the course of debate, and instead expose a poorly-clad double standard of accusing others of lack of charity while being uncharitable.  Oh, well.  Good luck with that.

[AMM]

Well boys, offer to another busy night of sacking.

Remember to take a bag when you sack.

[dcommini]

I'm confused... I'm Italian AND Orthodox... did I sack Constantinople?  I admit to some rather heavy drinking during my 20's, so I suppose it could have happened one of those nights I don't remember...

Papist, maybe you can help me out... I would have been the skinny kid in the leather jacket with a mohawk... Do you remember if I was in on it?

Was it that night when we both got trashed when I was up for the wife's boot camp graduation?
Or perhaps it was that time when I was in Italy and got trashed and still don't remember most of the night...*

So... My family used to be RC, then Southern Baptist, and now my brother and I are EO (with my wife and daughter soon to follow). My family on my paternal great grandmother's side is slightly responsible for bringing southern Italy under Vatican control. The point I am trying to make is that if the EO were still blaming the people for what happened then they should still be blaming my brother and I for our families part in what transpired. However the EO do not blame the people themselves, but they use the sack of Constantinople as an example of the current RC attitude towards EO (or Western thought versus Eastern thought).

As Isa has pointed out, even though the Pope said "No, no don't do that! Shame on you!" (paraphrasing), he did not really back up what he said and instead he seemed to almost sanction what had happened. This showed that he really did not care about the EO and how they might possibly feel about having one of their Patriarchal thrones sacked. Instead he used the sacking for his own personal gain, and many EO still see this attitude prevalent in the Vatican (but not necessarily in the actual people who are RC).

*The poster no longer condones heavy drinking to the point of being "trashed" or to the point of blacking out and not remembering the fact that he projectile vomited on a commanding officer of another unit. He has learned his lesson and has thusly repented.*

[Wyatt]

Don't give yourself too much credit - none of your posts have been all that stimulating.  I mean, they clearly haven't reflected any learning done in the course of debate, and instead expose a poorly-clad double standard of accusing others of lack of charity while being uncharitable.  Oh, well.  Good luck with that.

When did I claim that my posts were stimulating? All I said was that I brought up a valid point, which is that there are several EO and OO members on here who are a very poor witness for their faiths. You are the one reaching centuries back in a vain attempt to spring a gotcha on us Catholics. I would think all of the moderation team of this forum would want to silence a few of their more aggressive members. It doesn't paint a very pretty picture of Orthodoxy.

[FormerReformer]

I'm confused... I'm Italian AND Orthodox... did I sack Constantinople?  I admit to some rather heavy drinking during my 20's, so I suppose it could have happened one of those nights I don't remember...

Papist, maybe you can help me out... I would have been the skinny kid in the leather jacket with a mohawk... Do you remember if I was in on it?

Was it that night when we both got trashed when I was up for the wife's boot camp graduation?
Or perhaps it was that time when I was in Italy and got trashed and still don't remember most of the night...*

So... My family used to be RC, then Southern Baptist, and now my brother and I are EO (with my wife and daughter soon to follow). My family on my paternal great grandmother's side is slightly responsible for bringing southern Italy under Vatican control. The point I am trying to make is that if the EO were still blaming the people for what happened then they should still be blaming my brother and I for our families part in what transpired. However the EO do not blame the people themselves, but they use the sack of Constantinople as an example of the current RC attitude towards EO (or Western thought versus Eastern thought).

As Isa has pointed out, even though the Pope said "No, no don't do that! Shame on you!" (paraphrasing), he did not really back up what he said and instead he seemed to almost sanction what had happened. This showed that he really did not care about the EO and how they might possibly feel about having one of their Patriarchal thrones sacked. Instead he used the sacking for his own personal gain, and many EO still see this attitude prevalent in the Vatican (but not necessarily in the actual people who are RC).

*The poster no longer condones heavy drinking to the point of being "trashed" or to the point of blacking out and not remembering the fact that he projectile vomited on a commanding officer of another unit. He has learned his lesson and has thusly repented.*

Slightly responsible?!!  They only sacked the entire southern peninsula and Sicily!  And then held the city of Naples under their iron fist until the 19th century!!  I don't see any reason why anyone should trust either you or me!  

We might sack them when their backs are turned.

[dcommini]

I'm confused... I'm Italian AND Orthodox... did I sack Constantinople?  I admit to some rather heavy drinking during my 20's, so I suppose it could have happened one of those nights I don't remember...

Papist, maybe you can help me out... I would have been the skinny kid in the leather jacket with a mohawk... Do you remember if I was in on it?

Was it that night when we both got trashed when I was up for the wife's boot camp graduation?
Or perhaps it was that time when I was in Italy and got trashed and still don't remember most of the night...*

So... My family used to be RC, then Southern Baptist, and now my brother and I are EO (with my wife and daughter soon to follow). My family on my paternal great grandmother's side is slightly responsible for bringing southern Italy under Vatican control. The point I am trying to make is that if the EO were still blaming the people for what happened then they should still be blaming my brother and I for our families part in what transpired. However the EO do not blame the people themselves, but they use the sack of Constantinople as an example of the current RC attitude towards EO (or Western thought versus Eastern thought).

As Isa has pointed out, even though the Pope said "No, no don't do that! Shame on you!" (paraphrasing), he did not really back up what he said and instead he seemed to almost sanction what had happened. This showed that he really did not care about the EO and how they might possibly feel about having one of their Patriarchal thrones sacked. Instead he used the sacking for his own personal gain, and many EO still see this attitude prevalent in the Vatican (but not necessarily in the actual people who are RC).

*The poster no longer condones heavy drinking to the point of being "trashed" or to the point of blacking out and not remembering the fact that he projectile vomited on a commanding officer of another unit. He has learned his lesson and has thusly repented.*

Slightly responsible?!!  They only sacked the entire southern peninsula and Sicily!  And then held the city of Naples under their iron fist until the 19th century!!  I don't see any reason why anyone should trust either you or me!  

We might sack them when their backs are turned.

SHHHHH! Don't show our hand just yet! 

I bid you all a good night.

[AMM]

I think we can all join together and do something more productive with our time by protesting at the local British consulate or embassy for burning down the white house during the War of 1812.  They probably never even apologized.

[Gamliel]

"The posters of this thread hired to continue the thread after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked."

paper or plastic?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Did the Roman Catholic Church sack Constantinople?