OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 07:34:02 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Papal Apologies to Eastern Catholics?  (Read 1790 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,205


WWW
« on: January 07, 2011, 02:18:02 AM »

Simple enough topic.   Smiley

During a Papal Visit to Greece in 2001, the late Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.

Has any Roman Catholic Pope ever apologized to any Eastern Catholic for their forced conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

Edited to correct date
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 02:19:44 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2011, 02:48:29 AM »

Simple enough topic.   Smiley

During a Papal Visit to Greece in 2001, the late Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.

Has any Roman Catholic Pope ever apologized to any Eastern Catholic for their forced conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

Edited to correct date
Couldn't they re-convert if they so choose?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2011, 11:07:01 AM »

Simple enough topic.   Smiley

During a Papal Visit to Greece in 2001, the late Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.

Has any Roman Catholic Pope ever apologized to any Eastern Catholic for their forced conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

Edited to correct date
Couldn't they re-convert if they so choose?
exactly
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2011, 11:38:01 AM »

All is forgiven if you return to us the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch... don't tell me you actually used it?! 
Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,410


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2011, 12:54:12 PM »

Simple enough topic.   Smiley

During a Papal Visit to Greece in 2001, the late Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.

Has any Roman Catholic Pope ever apologized to any Eastern Catholic for their forced conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

Edited to correct date

Considering not all Eastern Catholics were "forced" into conversion, your question is ridiculous, especially in the 21st century where any and all Catholics who are so inclined may freely convert to Holy Orthodoxy, just like I did.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2011, 01:13:25 PM »

Simple enough topic.   Smiley

During a Papal Visit to Greece in 2001, the late Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.

Has any Roman Catholic Pope ever apologized to any Eastern Catholic for their forced conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

Edited to correct date

Considering not all Eastern Catholics were "forced" into conversion, your question is ridiculous, especially in the 21st century where any and all Catholics who are so inclined may freely convert to Holy Orthodoxy, just like I did.
Yes and no. The Irish have been quite free to speak Irish for 91 years, but centuries of Anglo-Saxon assimilation are not undone so easily.  Being raised and told that ones salvation depends on communion with the supreme pontiff, I am told, becomes deeply engrained. Has there been any apology for Latinization at least?

Perhaps the OP could better ask, has the Vatican apologized to the various Orthodox local Churches for causing schisms in them? (Antioch being an exception, except for the Syriacs, in that. The Melkites and Maronites freely joined, as did the Armenians).
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2011, 01:22:24 PM »

Yes and no. The Irish have been quite free to speak Irish for 91 years, but centuries of Anglo-Saxon assimilation are not undone so easily.  Being raised and told that ones salvation depends on communion with the supreme pontiff, I am told, becomes deeply engrained. Has there been any apology for Latinization at least?
That's odd. Our RCIA class must have been lacking because I never remember being told that my salvation will come to me as a result of my full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Here I was under the impression that it was Christ who is saving me. Wow...silly me.......
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,242



« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2011, 01:27:47 PM »

Our RCIA class must have been lacking ...

Indeed. Smiley
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2011, 01:35:51 PM »

Our RCIA class must have been lacking ...

Indeed. Smiley
Hey now...you aren't supposed to agree with me. Tongue
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2011, 01:36:28 PM »

Yes and no. The Irish have been quite free to speak Irish for 91 years, but centuries of Anglo-Saxon assimilation are not undone so easily.  Being raised and told that ones salvation depends on communion with the supreme pontiff, I am told, becomes deeply engrained. Has there been any apology for Latinization at least?
That's odd. Our RCIA class must have been lacking because I never remember being told that my salvation will come to me as a result of my full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Here I was under the impression that it was Christ who is saving me. Wow...silly me.......
The RICA program implemented in the East tend to be more rigorous
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2011, 02:14:06 PM »

Yes and no. The Irish have been quite free to speak Irish for 91 years, but centuries of Anglo-Saxon assimilation are not undone so easily.  Being raised and told that ones salvation depends on communion with the supreme pontiff, I am told, becomes deeply engrained. Has there been any apology for Latinization at least?
That's odd. Our RCIA class must have been lacking because I never remember being told that my salvation will come to me as a result of my full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Here I was under the impression that it was Christ who is saving me. Wow...silly me.......
The RICA program implemented in the East tend to be more rigorous

Straw man
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 525


« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2011, 03:12:27 PM »

That's odd. Our RCIA class must have been lacking because I never remember being told that my salvation will come to me as a result of my full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Here I was under the impression that it was Christ who is saving me. Wow...silly me.......

Outside the (catholic) church there is no salvation. The pope is the visible head of the catholic church. There's a bit more reasoning from there which some groups still take to the extreme.

Interestingly enough, the Baltimore Catechism took a more ... economical... take of things. Hence, the thread below, "The Baltimore Catechism Heresy") - with appropriate references to Fr. Feeney's group:.
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=9789


Logged

Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatoris.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2011, 03:13:34 PM »

Simple enough topic.   Smiley

During a Papal Visit to Greece in 2001, the late Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.

Has any Roman Catholic Pope ever apologized to any Eastern Catholic for their forced conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

Edited to correct date
Couldn't they re-convert if they so choose?
exactly

Not only that but they've been destroyed in Orthodox countries and when it came time to be released they remain in communion and are growing.  Which is, of course, why they are an irritant to Orthodoxy.
Logged

Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 964


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2011, 04:00:39 PM »

(Antioch being an exception, except for the Syriacs, in that. The Melkites and Maronites freely joined, as did the Armenians).

Isa, my brother,

I'd certainly agree that the history of conversions to Catholicism - Eastern or Latin - in most of the Slavic nations, and in many instances involving the Oriental Churches, is less than edifying (although, as we both know, neither side exhibited much Christian charity toward one another in an era when most everyone seems to have considered the sword and politico-socio-economic pressures and repression to be acceptable and necessary accompaniments to Holy Scripture - best dished up with heavy duty proselytizing and the hurling of anathemas).

I would, however, add to your list: the Italo-Grieco-Albanian Church, which owes its origin to the displacement of Albanian Orthodox to Italy due to war and their subsequent entry into union with the native Italo-Greek Catholics, in consequence of being geographically separated from their own pastoral care;  the small Russian Greek-Catholic Church, formed in the aftermath of a request to be received into union by Father Nicholas (Tolstoy) in 1896 (who was, interestingly, incardinated to the Melkites on reception); the tiny Albanian Greek-Catholic Church, with its modern union dated to a 1912 request by a presbyter and his parish (and consisting now of little more than the descendent community of that initial body); the Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church, albeit the latter's incentive for union was ecclesio-political, originating in a dispute between the Bulgarian Orthodox and Constantinople which, once resolved, resulted in the return to Orthodoxy of the vast majority of the faithful; and, the very small community of Georgian Greek-Catholics, whose Church is now only of blessed memory.

Many years,

Neil
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2011, 04:56:57 PM »

Yes and no. The Irish have been quite free to speak Irish for 91 years, but centuries of Anglo-Saxon assimilation are not undone so easily.  Being raised and told that ones salvation depends on communion with the supreme pontiff, I am told, becomes deeply engrained. Has there been any apology for Latinization at least?
That's odd. Our RCIA class must have been lacking because I never remember being told that my salvation will come to me as a result of my full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Here I was under the impression that it was Christ who is saving me. Wow...silly me.......
The RICA program implemented in the East tend to be more rigorous

Straw man
I see a lot of swords, not much straw.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2011, 05:05:51 PM »

Yes and no. The Irish have been quite free to speak Irish for 91 years, but centuries of Anglo-Saxon assimilation are not undone so easily.  Being raised and told that ones salvation depends on communion with the supreme pontiff, I am told, becomes deeply engrained. Has there been any apology for Latinization at least?
That's odd. Our RCIA class must have been lacking because I never remember being told that my salvation will come to me as a result of my full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Here I was under the impression that it was Christ who is saving me. Wow...silly me.......
The RICA program implemented in the East tend to be more rigorous

Straw man
I see a lot of swords, not much straw.

I'm not defending Roman Catholic heresy BUT for the sake of never forgetting history...

I guess they were angry at what was done to their relatives 20 years earlier. Read:

Quote
a Byzantine mob destroyed all the Italian quarters in Constantinople during the “Latin massacre” of 1182, reportedly resulting in thousands of deaths. The Byzantine chronicler Nicetas Choniates has described the event as follows.

               While Andronikos was still biding his time across the straits, he dispatched all the triremes under
               the command of the grand duke, and with his elite troops that had been selected from among the
               soldiers who had enlisted in his cause as he made his way through the provinces, he mounted a
               war against the Latins in the city. The city's populace regained their courage and incited one another
               to fight side by side, and strife broke out on land and sea. Surrounded and hemmed in by both throngs,
               the Latin's were unable to resist. They attempted to save themselves as best they could, leaving behind
               their homes filled with riches and treasures of all kinds such as are sought by men bent on plunder; nor
               did they dare to remain where they were or to attack the Romans or to submit to, and endure, their
               onslaught. Some took their chances by scattering throughout the City, others sought asylum in the
               homes of the nobility, while yet others borded the long ships manned by their fellow countrymen and
               escaped being cut down by the sword. Those apprehended were condemned to death, and all lost their
               properties and possessions. The triremes, loaded with refugees, put out from the City's harbors in the
               direction of the Hellespont and spent the rest of that day anchored at the seagirt islands which are
               neither far from the queen of cities nor far out in the open sea: I speak of Prinkipos and Prote and all
               the islands around them rising up from the deep. The next day, after burning down and destroying
               several monasteries on these islands, they departed, plying all oars and with sails unfurled. Pursued by
               no one and putting in wherever they wished, they inflicted as much injury as possible on the Roman's
               in these parts. (1)

[Continued...]

The events of 1182 confused at least one Muslim chronicler, Ibn Jubayr, who mistakenly believed it was Muslims who rampaged and captured Constantinople in 1182, killing 50,000 during the massacre. Below is a selection from an article by Nadia Maria El-Cheikh, describing the confusion and providing a quote from Ibn Jubayr's work.

               The Muslim authors of the thirteenth century were aware of the two momentous events in the
               recent history of the city, namely, the massacre of the Latins in 1182 and the conquest of the
               city by the Latins in 1204.Concerning the events of 1182, Ibn Jubayr relates the following
               confused and inaccurate story:

               The report had it that the Sovereign of Constantinople had died, leaving his kingdom to his wife
               and young son.But his cousin usurped the throne, killed the widow, and seized the boy.The usurper
               fell in love with the boy’s sister, who was famed for her beauty.Yet he could not marry her since it
               was forbidden for the Ru¯m to take their kinswomen in marriage.Impetuous love, blind and deafening
               desire ... impelled him to take her and go to Prince Mas‘u¯d, Sovereign of Konia.... The two of them
               embraced Islam ... and got married ... then with the backing of Muslim armies he entered
               Constantinople, slaying some fifty thousand of its inhabitants.T he Muslims seized Constantinople,
               and all its money was transported to Amir Masu¯d.... This conquest is one of the signs of the Hour,
               ashra¯t. al-sa¯‘a.(46)  [See footnote below]

               Ibn Jubayr, here, has the Muslims conquering Constantinople in 1182.Of course, no Muslim
               army captured Constantinople until the Ottoman conquest of 1453, and it was the Latin
               inhabitants who were slaughtered by the Byzantines.As for the last phrase on ashra¯t. al-sa¯‘a, it
               belongs to the Muslim apocalyptic literature that developed very early on in connection with the
               military expeditions against the Byzantine capital in the seventh and eighth centuries.Numerous
               traditions going back to the Prophet Muhammad made its conquest one of the six portents of
               the Hour signaling the approaching end of the world.47 These traditions, found in the earliest
               compilations, are naturally included in the twelfth- and thirteenth-century texts, albeit in an
               altered form at times. (2)

The only known surviving Latin text referencing the massacre of 1182 is found in the lengthy history of William of Tyre.

              This change of affairs spread consternation among the Latins, for they feared that the citizens
              would make sudden attack upon them; in fact they had already received warning of such intention
              from certain people who had private knowledge of the conspiracy. Those who were able to do so,
              therefore, fled from the wiles of the Greeks and the death which threatened them. Some embarked
              on forty-four galleys which chanced to be in the harbor, and others placed all their effects on some
              of the many other ships there. The aged and infirm, however, with those who were unable to flee,
              were left in their homes, and on them fell the wicked rage which the others had escaped. For
              Andronicus, who had secretly caused ships to be prepared, led his entire force into the city. As
              soon as they entered the gates these troops, aided by the citizens, rushed to that quarter of the
              city occupied by the Latins and put to the sword the little remnant who had been either unwilling
              or unable to flee with the others. Although but few of these were able to fight, yet they resisted
              for a long time and made the enemy’s victory a bloody one.

              Regardless of treaties and the many services which our people had rendered to the empire, the
              Greeks seized all those who appeared capable of resistance, set fire to their houses, and speedily
              reduced the entire quarter to ashes. Women and children, the aged and the sick, all alike perished
              in the flames. To vent their rage upon secular buildings alone, however, was far from satisfying
              their unholy wickedness; they also set fire to churches and venerated places of every description
              and burned, together with the sacred edifices, those who had fled thither for refuge. No distinction
              between clergy and laymen, except that greater fury was displayed toward those who wore the
              honorable habits of high office or religion. Monks and priests were the especial victims of their
              madness and were put to death under excruciating torture. Among these latter was a venerable
              man named John, a subdeacon of the holy Roman church, whom the pope had sent to Constantinople
              on business relating to the church. They seized him and, cutting off his head, fastened it to the tail
              of a filthy dog as an insult to the church. In the midst of such frightful sacrilege, worse than
              parricide, not even the dead, whom impiety itself generally spares, were suffered to rest undisturbed.
              Corpses were torn from the tombs and dragged through the streets and squares as if the insensate
              bodies were capable of feeling the indignities offered them.

              The vandals then repaired to the hospital of St. John, as it is called, where they put to the sword
              all the sick they found. Those whose pious duty it should have been to relieve the oppressed,
              namely the monks and priests, called in footpads and brigands to carry on the slaughter under
              promise of reward. Accompanied by these miscreants, they sought out the most secluded retreats
              and the inmost apartments of homes, that none who were hiding there might escape death. When
              such were discovered, they were dragged out with violence and handed over to the executioners,
              who, that they might not work without pay, were given the price of blood for the murder of these
              wretched victims. Even those who seemed to show more consideration sold into perpetual slavery
              among the Turks and other infidels the fugitives who had resorted to them and to whom they had
              given hope of safety. It is said that more than four thousand Latins of various age, sex, and
              condition were delivered thus to barbarous nations for a price. In such fashion did the perfidious
              Greek nation, a brood of vipers, like a serpent in the bosom or a mouse in the wardrobe evilly
              requite their guests—those who had not deserved such treatment and were far from anticipating
              anything of the kind; those to whom they had given their daughters, nieces, and sisters as wives
              and who, by long living together, had become their friends. (3)

[Continued...]

Catholic scholar Dr. Warren Carroll has connected the events of 1182 with the events of 1204 and the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. He wrote,

               Horrible and utterly indefensible as the sack was, it should in justice be remembered that it was
               not totally unprovoked; more than once (as in the massacre of 1182) the Greeks of Constantinople
               had treated the Latins there as they were now being treated ... Historians who wax eloquent and
               indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the
               massacre of the Westerners in Constantinople in 1182 ... a nightmarish massacre of thousands [about
               2000 Greeks were killed in Constantinople in 1204, according to secular historian Will Durant].... in
               which the slaughterers spared neither women nor children, neither old nor sick, neither priest nor
               monk.Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the
               streets at the tail of a dog; children were cut out of their mother's wombs; bodies of dead Westerners
               were exhumed and abused; some 4,000 who escaped death were sold into slavery to the Turks. (4)

Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, while addressing the historical legacy of mistrust between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, has also commented on the events of 1182.

               Each [Catholics and Orthodox] ... must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance.
               Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to
               prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for
               example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine
               period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182,
               when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (5)

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 05:09:44 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,205


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2011, 02:49:53 AM »

Maybe the Pope doesn't own the Ruthenian Catholics an apology after all ... after doing some research1, schismatic Metropolitans (of the EP) of Kiev delivered the "now" Ruthenian Catholics straight to Rome following the failed attempts at reunion between East and West.

1 Based on a cursory reading of the following Apostolic letter and Papal Encyclical:

APOSTOLIC LETTER OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II FOR THE FOURTH CENTENARY OF THE UNION OF BREST

ORIENTALES OMNES ECCLESIAS





Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2011, 11:17:01 AM »

Simple enough topic.   Smiley

During a Papal Visit to Greece in 2001, the late Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.

Has any Roman Catholic Pope ever apologized to any Eastern Catholic for their forced conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

Edited to correct date
Couldn't they re-convert if they so choose?
exactly

Not only that but they've been destroyed in Orthodox countries and when it came time to be released they remain in communion and are growing.  Which is, of course, why they are an irritant to Orthodoxy.

Yes, but in many parts of the Slavic world, of which you know where I speak, this is true because of the historical fear of the Russian bear and the perceived Russopilistic tendencies of many within the local Orthodox communities rather than as a true commitment to the full tenets of the Catholic faith. If this were not so, why then the use of the term Orthodox in union with Rome by many including the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church? Why the debate over what the Melkites did, or did not, accept in terms of the role of the Papacy?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2011, 11:51:17 AM »

Maybe the Pope doesn't own the Ruthenian Catholics an apology after all ... after doing some research1, schismatic Metropolitans (of the EP) of Kiev delivered the "now" Ruthenian Catholics straight to Rome following the failed attempts at reunion between East and West.

1 Based on a cursory reading of the following Apostolic letter and Papal Encyclical:

APOSTOLIC LETTER OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II FOR THE FOURTH CENTENARY OF THE UNION OF BREST

ORIENTALES OMNES ECCLESIAS
LOL. Don't believe everything the Vatican tells you, even if it is ex cathedra.  Btw, Brest wasn't for the Ruthenians, but the Ukrainians.  The Ruthenians submitted in Uzhhorod.  There's an letter celebrating that grand event too on the vatican.va

Somewhere (actually, several places) Orthodoc and I (and others) have posted the facts of the matter and the documentation, e.g. the Polish king, acting as the agent of the Vatican, secured an Orthodox Church in Brest/Lviv, while locking the rest down so the schismatic bishops could meet and approve the union while the Orthodox bishops could not.  The Orthodox bishops (including some who had been inclined to submit to the Vatican) met anyway and deposed the schismatic bishops.  The Polish king, however, wrote the union into law, and legally declared the Orthodox non-existent.  The Patriarch of Jerusalem came and consecrated replacement bishops in secret, as the king forbade foreign (i.e. Orthodox) clergy to enter the kingdom. The farce persisted until the king was forced to recognize the Orthodox, which reconstituted the metropolia of Kiev under Met. St. Peter Movila, around two decades later.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 12:01:52 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2011, 11:58:04 AM »

I'm not defending Roman Catholic heresy BUT for the sake of never forgetting history...

I guess they were angry at what was done to their relatives 20 years earlier. Read:

Yes, we have read:
The papal Church continues to grow a pace.  We don't need you any more than you need us...after all

Throughout history, whenever the papal Church has come into contact with the Christian Church, the result has generally been the slaughter of the Christians. So I agree with you.  

Vatican II has set a new direction for the papal Church but a mere 40 years is not long enough to judge if the papal Church has really changed its spots.

"Forgive we must, forget we dare not."
I don't think you're being totally fair. It isn't as if no EO Christians have ever done anything wrong to RC Christians.

I honestly don't know of any major wrongs that the EO has committed against the RC; that is not to say that none exist, just that I am unfamiliar with any of those types of happenings.
There was the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople prior to the Sack of Constantinople that EOs so often bring up.
I do recal that the Crusades, massacring and pillaging and colonizing along the way to Jerusalem happening almost a century before. The seige of Jerusalem was spectacularly bloody, according to the Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish and even Crusader sources.

They left quite an example, which the Romans at Constantinople turned against the parasites strangling the ciy:
Quote
Since the late 11th century, Western merchants, primarily from the Italian city-states of Venice, Genoa and Pisa, had started appearing in the East. The first had been the Venetians, who had secured large-scale trading concessions from Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Subsequent extensions of these privileges and Byzantium's own naval impotence at the time resulted in a virtual maritime monopoly and stranglehold over the Empire by the Venetians.[3] Alexios' grandson, Manuel I Komnenos, wishing to reduce their influence, began to reduce the privileges of Venice while concluding agreements with her rivals: Pisa, Genoa and Amalfi.[4] Gradually, all four Italian cities were also allowed to establish their own quarters in the northern part of Constantinople itself, towards the Golden Horn.

The predominance of the Italian merchants caused economic and social upheaval in Byzantium: it accelerated the decline of the independent native merchants in favour of big exporters, who became tied with the landed aristocracy, who in turn increasingly amassed large estates.[1] Together with the perceived arrogance of the Italians, it fueled popular resentment amongst the middle and lower classes both in the countryside and in the cities.[1] The religious differences between the two sides, who viewed each other as schismatics, further exacerbated the problem. The Italians proved uncontrollable by imperial authority: in 1162, for instance, the Pisans together with a few Venetians raided the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, causing much damage.[1] Emperor Manuel subsequently expelled most of the Genoese and Pisans from the city, thus giving the Venetians a free hand for several years.[5]

In early 1171, however, when the Venetians attacked and largely destroyed the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, the Emperor retaliated by ordering the mass arrest of all Venetians throughout the Empire and the confiscation of their property.[1] A subsequent Venetian expedition in the Aegean failed: a direct assault was impossible due to the strength of the Byzantine forces, and the Venetians agreed to negotiations, which the Emperor stalled intentionally. As talks dragged on through the winter, the Venetian fleet waited at Chios, until an outbreak of the plague forced them to withdraw.[6] The Venetians and the Empire remained at war, with the Venetians prudently avoiding direct confrontation but sponsoring Serb uprisings, besieging Ancona, Byzantium's last stronghold in Italy, and signing a treaty with the Norman Kingdom of Sicily.[7] Relations were only gradually normalized: there is evidence of a treaty in 1179,[8] although a full restoration of relations would only be reached in the mid-1180s.[9] Meanwhile, the Genoese and Pisans profited from the dispute with Venice, and by 1180, it is estimated that up to 60,000 Latins lived in Constantinople.[1]

Death of Manuel I and massacre
Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.[1][10] Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins. Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.[11] Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[2] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.[2][12] Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
So they were upset that instead of Venetians and Genoese killing each other in Constantinople, the locals turned on both and threw them out, so they had to fight back home in Italy. Seems according to your quotes that they already took their revenge on their way out:
Quote
next day, after burning down and destroying several monasteries on these islands, they departed, plying all oars and with sails unfurled. Pursued by  no one and putting in wherever they wished, they inflicted as much injury as possible on the Roman's in these parts. (1)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 12:03:52 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,205


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2011, 02:51:08 PM »

Maybe the Pope doesn't own the Ruthenian Catholics an apology after all ... after doing some research1, schismatic Metropolitans (of the EP) of Kiev delivered the "now" Ruthenian Catholics straight to Rome following the failed attempts at reunion between East and West.

1 Based on a cursory reading of the following Apostolic letter and Papal Encyclical:

APOSTOLIC LETTER OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II FOR THE FOURTH CENTENARY OF THE UNION OF BREST

ORIENTALES OMNES ECCLESIAS
LOL. Don't believe everything the Vatican tells you, even if it is ex cathedra.  Btw, Brest wasn't for the Ruthenians, but the Ukrainians.  The Ruthenians submitted in Uzhhorod.  There's an letter celebrating that grand event too on the vatican.va

Somewhere (actually, several places) Orthodoc and I (and others) have posted the facts of the matter and the documentation, e.g. the Polish king, acting as the agent of the Vatican, secured an Orthodox Church in Brest/Lviv, while locking the rest down so the schismatic bishops could meet and approve the union while the Orthodox bishops could not.  The Orthodox bishops (including some who had been inclined to submit to the Vatican) met anyway and deposed the schismatic bishops.  The Polish king, however, wrote the union into law, and legally declared the Orthodox non-existent.  The Patriarch of Jerusalem came and consecrated replacement bishops in secret, as the king forbade foreign (i.e. Orthodox) clergy to enter the kingdom. The farce persisted until the king was forced to recognize the Orthodox, which reconstituted the metropolia of Kiev under Met. St. Peter Movila, around two decades later.

The Apostolic Letter celebrating 350 years post-Uzhhorod is far shorter than the 1995 Apostolic Letter celebrating 400 years post-Brest.

In 1646, the Ottomans were within earshot of Vienna; Constantinople was becoming a Sublime backwater and the xenophobic Russians were ascendant ... the forebearers of today's Greek Catholics needed the security of the Vatican and secular powers ... knowing that if the secular powers ever went away, the Vatican would still exist (like it does today).
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2011, 03:26:04 PM »

Maybe the Pope doesn't own the Ruthenian Catholics an apology after all ... after doing some research1, schismatic Metropolitans (of the EP) of Kiev delivered the "now" Ruthenian Catholics straight to Rome following the failed attempts at reunion between East and West.

1 Based on a cursory reading of the following Apostolic letter and Papal Encyclical:

APOSTOLIC LETTER OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II FOR THE FOURTH CENTENARY OF THE UNION OF BREST

ORIENTALES OMNES ECCLESIAS
LOL. Don't believe everything the Vatican tells you, even if it is ex cathedra.  Btw, Brest wasn't for the Ruthenians, but the Ukrainians.  The Ruthenians submitted in Uzhhorod.  There's an letter celebrating that grand event too on the vatican.va

Somewhere (actually, several places) Orthodoc and I (and others) have posted the facts of the matter and the documentation, e.g. the Polish king, acting as the agent of the Vatican, secured an Orthodox Church in Brest/Lviv, while locking the rest down so the schismatic bishops could meet and approve the union while the Orthodox bishops could not.  The Orthodox bishops (including some who had been inclined to submit to the Vatican) met anyway and deposed the schismatic bishops.  The Polish king, however, wrote the union into law, and legally declared the Orthodox non-existent.  The Patriarch of Jerusalem came and consecrated replacement bishops in secret, as the king forbade foreign (i.e. Orthodox) clergy to enter the kingdom. The farce persisted until the king was forced to recognize the Orthodox, which reconstituted the metropolia of Kiev under Met. St. Peter Movila, around two decades later.

The Apostolic Letter celebrating 350 years post-Uzhhorod is far shorter than the 1995 Apostolic Letter celebrating 400 years post-Brest.

In 1646, the Ottomans were within earshot of Vienna; Constantinople was becoming a Sublime backwater and the xenophobic Russians were ascendant ... the forebearers of today's Greek Catholics needed the security of the Vatican and secular powers ... knowing that if the secular powers ever went away, the Vatican would still exist (like it does today).
In 1646 "the forebears of today's Greek Catholics" were already asking the Czar of All the Russias to take over, which he and his successors did.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2011, 05:22:02 PM »

Simple enough topic.   Smiley

During a Papal Visit to Greece in 2001, the late Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.

Has any Roman Catholic Pope ever apologized to any Eastern Catholic for their forced conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?

Edited to correct date
Couldn't they re-convert if they so choose?
exactly

Not only that but they've been destroyed in Orthodox countries and when it came time to be released they remain in communion and are growing.  Which is, of course, why they are an irritant to Orthodoxy.

Yes, but in many parts of the Slavic world, of which you know where I speak, this is true because of the historical fear of the Russian bear and the perceived Russopilistic tendencies of many within the local Orthodox communities rather than as a true commitment to the full tenets of the Catholic faith. If this were not so, why then the use of the term Orthodox in union with Rome by many including the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church? Why the debate over what the Melkites did, or did not, accept in terms of the role of the Papacy?

I don't agree with you in this entirely.  There are places in Europe where eastern Catholics were suppressed so violently that they not only had to come back from the ashes but had to grow in order to do so.  I expect that they had other free and open choices that would not have put them under the thumb of Moscow, if we are thinking of the same places, so one would have to presume that they are choosing what they believe to be the better part.

Since Pius IX, bad press and all, it has been clear that the eastern Churches in communion with Rome are going to go their own way.  It took some time to encourage that path forcefully, but that admission has been in effect formally since at least Pius IX learned that a stiff necked Patriarch could be extremely reasonable and respectful, when accorded due respect to his own ecclesiastical estate.

It is Orthodox believers who demand parity and equality in every particular...not the Catholic Church.  That is not to say that you will not find stiff-necked local bishops in the Catholic Church.   We have them and we have learned from their excesses and wrong-doings.

M.
Logged

SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,205


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2011, 02:26:28 AM »

Maybe the Pope doesn't own the Ruthenian Catholics an apology after all ... after doing some research1, schismatic Metropolitans (of the EP) of Kiev delivered the "now" Ruthenian Catholics straight to Rome following the failed attempts at reunion between East and West.

1 Based on a cursory reading of the following Apostolic letter and Papal Encyclical:

APOSTOLIC LETTER OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II FOR THE FOURTH CENTENARY OF THE UNION OF BREST

ORIENTALES OMNES ECCLESIAS
LOL. Don't believe everything the Vatican tells you, even if it is ex cathedra.  Btw, Brest wasn't for the Ruthenians, but the Ukrainians.  The Ruthenians submitted in Uzhhorod.  There's an letter celebrating that grand event too on the vatican.va

Somewhere (actually, several places) Orthodoc and I (and others) have posted the facts of the matter and the documentation, e.g. the Polish king, acting as the agent of the Vatican, secured an Orthodox Church in Brest/Lviv, while locking the rest down so the schismatic bishops could meet and approve the union while the Orthodox bishops could not.  The Orthodox bishops (including some who had been inclined to submit to the Vatican) met anyway and deposed the schismatic bishops.  The Polish king, however, wrote the union into law, and legally declared the Orthodox non-existent.  The Patriarch of Jerusalem came and consecrated replacement bishops in secret, as the king forbade foreign (i.e. Orthodox) clergy to enter the kingdom. The farce persisted until the king was forced to recognize the Orthodox, which reconstituted the metropolia of Kiev under Met. St. Peter Movila, around two decades later.

The Apostolic Letter celebrating 350 years post-Uzhhorod is far shorter than the 1995 Apostolic Letter celebrating 400 years post-Brest.

In 1646, the Ottomans were within earshot of Vienna; Constantinople was becoming a Sublime backwater and the xenophobic Russians were ascendant ... the forebearers of today's Greek Catholics needed the security of the Vatican and secular powers ... knowing that if the secular powers ever went away, the Vatican would still exist (like it does today).
In 1646 "the forebears of today's Greek Catholics" were already asking the Czar of All the Russias to take over, which he and his successors did.

Hence the reference to ascendant Russia.   Wink
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.145 seconds with 51 queries.