OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 04:27:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Intentional misrepresentation?  (Read 7053 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2012, 06:32:44 PM »

--besides, you're as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel,

Often just what the Orthodox think of the Catholic polemicists they engage in discussion - with their distorted quotes from the Fathers and their ability to slide from “this is our teaching” to “this doesn’t count, it’s not magisterial.”

Quote
with far too much antipathy towards the Catholic Church to engage in a truly give-and-take kind of discussion  Wink.

I detest the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.  Even the Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny detests it and more than I do, I would say..  He has thrown the Papal Nuncio out of Ireland.  The Government has permanently dismantled the Papal Nunciature after the Government published its report on sexual abuse in the Diocese of Cloynes.  He points out that the Vatican worked furtively to subvert the course of justice in Ireland.  If you read the Irish papers you will know that the Catholics of Ireland agree with him.

I detest it for abusing its authority to create mortal sins where there were none before (meat on Friday), imposing this burden on the faithful and thereby bringing about the damnation of thousands of its members.  It set itself up as a vehicle of damnation and not a vehicle of salvation.

I detest it for it efforts over many centuries to damage Orthodoxy, by wars and crusades and the creation of look-alike Churches in Orthodox countries.  The Orthodox detestation of these Churches is evidenced by the number of times meetings of the International Dialogue have come to a grinding halt over this matter.

But we must be absolutely clear....  I do not detest individual Catholics nor the Catholics of Ireland nor Catholic faithful general.  I love them as persons.   


 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2012, 06:33:49 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I am Father Ambrose's age and raised in the pre-Vatican II Church the same way that he was in an Irish Catholic family in America, rather than in Ireland.  And even I know that his caricatures are just that: cartoons of his experiences.  The things I talk about here and the interpretations that I offer were given to me back in the years before influence of Vatican II took hold fully, or more fully.

So you cannot just paint a happy face on what Father Ambrose does here...at least you will not ever convince me.

So in other words, your personal experience is different from Fr. Ambrose's and I should believe yours and not his?


I will continue to push against the negative interpretations that Father Ambrose has to offer, in those cases where he is wrong.

I will also continue to maintain that he says these things knowingly to fan the flames of an already consuming dislike...dislike caused by attitudes that are both factual and just as often contrived.

M.

Never contrived, sweet Lady!   

But "Thank you, thank you- I didn't know I was the worst person in the world until you told me."

- Eugene O'Neill, 'Long Day's Journey Into Night'

Hardly the worst. 

Frustrating as the dickens but not the worst...God forbid!!
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,113



« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2012, 06:55:19 PM »

To be honest with you, there's too much going on, both on this thread (far too many sub-topics and tangents for me to concentrate on) and in my life and work to devote the kind of time and energy needed to continue to engage here on a truly meaningful level--besides, you're as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel

Interesting. So does that mean that calling someone "as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel" isn't engaging on truly meaningful level?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 704



« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2012, 06:59:30 PM »

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the middle of wolves: be you therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." St. Matthew 10:16

 Smiley
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,113



« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2012, 07:03:41 PM »

Aha! I thought you had said it.

Forgive me for not having instant recall.... laugh after all, the message is May 2010

No need to apologize, you gave me a good opportunity for an "Aha".

BTW, post #331 of that thread is also interesting:

Quote from: Michał Kalina
Quote
Ukrainian GreeK Catholic Churches have not yet come back from Russian Orthodoxy, which recieved them from soviet desition to destroy catholicism in Ukraine.

False. http://www.ugcc.org.ua/index.php?L=2 We wait for them to come back once again.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #50 on: January 28, 2012, 07:54:45 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2012, 08:59:30 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #52 on: January 28, 2012, 09:03:49 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: January 28, 2012, 09:10:29 PM »

Sorry, I never saw that question.  By that logic I think I'd like to be Buddhist. Grin

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2012, 09:16:57 PM »

Sorry, I never saw that question.  By that logic I think I'd like to be Buddhist. Grin

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?  

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country.  
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?
By your grin emoticon I take it that you do not agree with that logic, but that is your logic that you put forth taken to its logical conclusion. How do you determine where to draw the line? Why remain Eastern Orthodox when you could join Oriental Orthodoxy or the Assyrian Church of the East? If the sanctity of a Church is based solely on the least number of mistakes in its past, then you, too, are in the wrong Church. How many miaphysites have been killed at the hands of your Church, Father?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 09:17:14 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #55 on: January 28, 2012, 09:20:23 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?


Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #56 on: January 28, 2012, 09:25:36 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?


Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel

Violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church? How so? I've never read anything in Scripture, the Catechism, the Bible, or any other Catholic text that condones killing even those considered by the Church to be schismatics, heretics, or apostates. If you mean that some Popes or some theologians personally believed that such actions were justified theologically, that is much different than violence being formally received into the theology of the Catholic Church. What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: January 28, 2012, 09:38:06 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?


Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel

Violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church? How so? I've never read anything in Scripture, the Catechism, the Bible, or any other Catholic text that condones killing even those considered by the Church to be schismatics, heretics, or apostates. If you mean that some Popes or some theologian
Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?


Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel

For me there is a majoy dofferencde between the blod shed by the Orthodox ansd the institutionalised bllod shed of Catholicism.  It is institutauoned, for example, via Thomas Aquinas and his theologhicla justification fior the mirder of dissidents.   Orthodox haas mursdeerd them too,lthough to a much lesser extent - but it has never tried to theologically jusdify these ervils as pleassing to God. s personally believed that such actions were justified theologically, that is much different than violence being formally received into the theology of the Catholic Church. What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

History shows, to the unbiased eye, that violence is an acceptable mode when it suits the Catholic Church and when it is in a position to get away with it.

Pius IX killed hundreds of young Italian man to defend his Papal States against the Kingdom of Italy.  He was utterly shocked when he appealed to the French and Spanish to come and help him fight his bloody war and they refused.  Imagine pious Catholics refusing to go to war for the Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ on earth!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #58 on: January 28, 2012, 09:44:31 PM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2012, 12:35:23 AM »

The Orthodox know they are sinning.
They know they are sinning and yet they still do it? That's more serious than a sin committed out of ignorance.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Source?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2012, 12:47:12 AM »

How many miaphysites have been killed at the hands of your Church, Father?

None, as far as I know.  I don’t think that any Miaphysites have been killed, except by Muslims in recent decades.   Or are you considering Miaphysites as the historical descendants of Monophysites who were indeed repressed by the Church of the Supreme Pontiff (Mods – this is using the term historically to distinguish them from modern Miaphysites who are not Monophysites doctrinally but apparently the equivalent of Diophysites.)

Wyatt, do you have any statistics for the numbers killed by the Catholic Church in those early centuries?  also those killed  in the assaults on Jerusalem when the city was inches deep in the Christian blood spilled by the Italian, French and Spanish Crusaders?

On an opposite note, I found this on the Net – the slaughter of 350 Maronite monks

“The earliest information that is available on the Maronite sect was recorded by Theodoret,
bishop of Cyrrhus (d. 458). Early in the sixth century, Maronite monks were foremost among
the defenders of the doctrine of Chalcedon, which, owing to the controversy generated in its
aftermath, brought on a permanent schism between adherents of Chalcedon and those of
Monophysitism, the faith of the Jacobites and the Nestorians. In the battles that ensued with
the Monophysites, Maronites lost 350 monks. Many of their monasteries were destroyed by
the Monophysites. Saint Maron's monastery, however, continued to serve until the middle of
the seventh century as the stronghold of the Chalcedonians as well as the center of their missionary a
ctivities in northern Syria.”

http://www.everyculture.com/Africa-Middle-East/Maronites-History-and-Cultural-Relations.html

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2012, 12:57:40 AM »

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Source?

Phew!  It’s tough having discussions with the Catholic members of the forum when they don’t seem to know very much about their own history prior to Vatican II.  No doubt I risk incurring another charge of hating Catholics for bringing this history to their attention. Cry

How’s about.......

"The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence


And from the Catholic Encyclopedia (looking for things you might find trustworthy)....

"At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 01:07:34 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2012, 02:26:07 AM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,

Nice thing is there's no real penalty for Orthodox sinning.

They are rewarded by the silence of the lamb and apologist priests.

Perhaps the worst after all...
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2012, 03:44:25 AM »

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?
Maybe I have not kept up sufficiently with the many theological changes that have swept over the RCC, but I would guess that the terminology may have been changed, but the teaching behind it has not. I suppose  that a lesser sin would be a venial sin, while a serious sin is a mortal sin. I am not sure about the use of the word "fault" instead of "sin". It should be kept in mind that, although grave matter is required for mortal sin, for the person to be guilty of mortal sin, there has to be sufficient knowledge and reflection and as well full consent of the will on his part. For example, if a person were to eat meat on a Friday of Lent, it would probably not be a sin if he had forgotten that it was a day of abstinence. 
For the examples which you have cited, I think you have to look at the circumstances and motivation. For example, to kick a dog who is chasing after you and biting at your leg as you are riding your bicycle, would not, in my estimation be a sin. You are trying to get the dog to stop harassing you and from possibly causing an accident. To kick your grandmother is wrong of course, but it would depend on the circumstances as to whether it would be venial or mortal. To deliberately kick your grandmother with severe force and with the intention of causing her serious harm or death, would be a mortal sin. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2012, 05:41:19 AM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,

Nice thing is there's no real penalty for Orthodox sinning.

They are rewarded by the silence of the lamb and apologist priests.

Perhaps the worst after all...


The canonical consequence of kiling in war is exclusion from communion for three years.

A very good article on this is...

St. Basil’s Guidance on War and Repentance

http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2012, 09:24:46 AM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,

Nice thing is there's no real penalty for Orthodox sinning.

They are rewarded by the silence of the lamb and apologist priests.

Perhaps the worst after all...


The canonical consequence of kiling in war is exclusion from communion for three years.

A very good article on this is...

St. Basil’s Guidance on War and Repentance

http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/

Quote
Several commentators (not least many of the later western Church fathers) have regarded this as fudge, but it seems to me to express, in a finely tuned economic way, the tension in the basic Christian message that there is an unresolvable shortfall between the ideal and the real in an apocalyptically charged religion. What this Basilian canon does most effectively is to set a No Entry sign to any potential theory of Just War within Christian theology, and should set up a decided refusal of post-war church-sponsored self-congratulations for victory.

I have to agree with these "commentators".

Quote
All violence, local, individual, or nationally-sanctioned, is here stated to be an expression of hubris that is inconsistent with the values of the Kingdom of God, and while in many circumstances that violence may be necessary or unavoidable (Basil states the only legitimate reasons as the defense of the weak and innocent), it is never justifiable.

If it's necessary or unavoidable, the it is by nature justified. That doesn't make it less a horrible thing, but it was still necessary.

Quote
Even for the best motives in the world, the shedding of blood remains a defilement, such that the true Christian, afterwards, would wish to undergo the cathartic experience of temporary return to the lifestyle of penance, that is be penitent. Basils restriction of the time of penance to three years, seemingly harsh to us moderns, was actually a commonly recognized sign of merciful leniency in the ancient rule book of the early Church.

So even after Confession, you're required to be restricted from the Grace of the Sacraments? Illogical, and counter-productive for the sake of pacifism. I'm glad this isn't the practice in Orthodoxy.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2012, 10:40:08 AM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,

Nice thing is there's no real penalty for Orthodox sinning.

They are rewarded by the silence of the lamb and apologist priests.

Perhaps the worst after all...


The canonical consequence of kiling in war is exclusion from communion for three years.

A very good article on this is...

St. Basil’s Guidance on War and Repentance

http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/

Binding and loosing...mostly loosing from what you've said here.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2012, 10:40:08 AM »


So even after Confession, you're required to be restricted from the Grace of the Sacraments? Illogical, and counter-productive for the sake of pacifism. I'm glad this isn't the practice in Orthodoxy.

As I said before:  consequences...what consequences?
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2012, 11:00:12 AM »


So even after Confession, you're required to be restricted from the Grace of the Sacraments? Illogical, and counter-productive for the sake of pacifism. I'm glad this isn't the practice in Orthodoxy.

As I said before:  consequences...what consequences?

One of the OCA bishops, San Francisco, was speaking of applying this canon to the American soldiers who caused deaths in Iraq.  I think he was writing on Orthodox-Forum.

Of course one has to observe that Saint Basil does say that it was out of kilter with previous tradition and it was only his personal suggestion.

"Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean."
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 11:09:51 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2012, 11:31:02 AM »


So even after Confession, you're required to be restricted from the Grace of the Sacraments? Illogical, and counter-productive for the sake of pacifism. I'm glad this isn't the practice in Orthodoxy.

As I said before:  consequences...what consequences?

Certainly our holy Fathers imposed heavy penances, ones which neither of our Churches apply today...

Caution: R18, Not for the delicate.

"The Penitential of Saint Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury in 670 required 1 year for inter-femoral contact (penis between thighs); 3 years for all lesbian activity, undifferentiated; 7 to 15 years for anal intercourse; 7 to 22 years for fellatio; and, for comparison, 7 to 10 years for murder; 15 years for infanticide (reduced to 7 years if the mother was a pauper).

"If caught kissing, boys under the age of 20 were subject to 6 special fasts; 8 fasts if it was "licentious kissing"; 10 fasts if it was "kissing with emission"; more if it involved mutual masturbation; and much longer if the partners were over the age of 20.”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CeltList/message/36577
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2012, 12:11:24 PM »

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Source?

Phew!  It’s tough having discussions with the Catholic members of the forum when they don’t seem to know very much about their own history prior to Vatican II.  No doubt I risk incurring another charge of hating Catholics for bringing this history to their attention. Cry

How’s about.......

"The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence


And from the Catholic Encyclopedia (looking for things you might find trustworthy)....

"At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It's not as if the Pope is encouraging cold-blooded rape and murder. This was about defending the Catholic Church, was it not? If none of the crusades had happened I might be praying to allah right now.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2012, 05:59:19 PM »

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Source?

Phew!  It’s tough having discussions with the Catholic members of the forum when they don’t seem to know very much about their own history prior to Vatican II.  No doubt I risk incurring another charge of hating Catholics for bringing this history to their attention. Cry

How’s about.......

"The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence


And from the Catholic Encyclopedia (looking for things you might find trustworthy)....

"At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It's not as if the Pope is encouraging cold-blooded rape and murder. This was about defending the Catholic Church, was it not? If none of the crusades had happened I might be praying to allah right now.

Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2012, 06:11:37 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2012, 06:32:40 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 06:34:26 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2012, 06:50:40 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #75 on: January 29, 2012, 07:07:36 PM »

Somewhere on the forum we have spoken already of the first-hand account of Count Geoffrey de Villehardouin but a search did not find it.

Here is de Villehardouin's account

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/villehardouin.asp

"Villehardouin's Conquest of Constantinople is a standard reference work on the Fourth Crusade; it is the first work in medieval French prose."
~Wkikpedia
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 07:11:16 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #76 on: January 30, 2012, 09:01:44 AM »

Here is another take on what happened!

Quote
The Fourth Crusade and the Latin empire of Constantinople

Pope Innocent III was the first pope since Urban II to be both eager and able to make the Crusade a major papal concern. In 1198 he called a new Crusade through legates and encyclical letters. In 1199 a tax was levied on all clerical incomes—later to become a precedent for systematic papal income taxes—and Fulk of Neuilly, a popular orator, was commissioned to preach. At a tournament held by Thibaut III of Champagne, several prominent French nobles took the cross. Among them was Geoffrey of Villehardouin, author of one of the principal accounts of the Crusade; other important nobles joined later, and contact was made with Venice to provide transport.

Unfortunately, Thibaut of Champagne died before the Crusaders departed for Venice, and the barons turned to Boniface of Montferrat, whose involvement as leader of the Crusade proved to be fateful. He had close family ties with both the Byzantine Empire and the Crusader states. His brother, Conrad of Montferrat, had received the crown of Jerusalem only to be murdered by the Assassins shortly thereafter. Before going to the Holy Land, Conrad had married the sister of Emperor Isaac II Angelus and received the title of Caesar. Boniface was also the vassal of Philip of Swabia, who was a contender for the German throne and the son-in-law of Isaac II. In 1195 Isaac was blinded and deposed by his brother, who took the throne as Alexius III. Several years later Isaac's son, also named Alexius, escaped from Constantinople and fled to Philip's court. At Christmas 1201 Boniface, Philip, and the young Alexius discussed the possibility of using the Crusade to depose Alexius III and place the young man on the throne. Boniface sought the approval of the pope for the diversion, but Innocent refused to allow it. The young Alexius also journeyed to Rome but had no better luck with Innocent III. Despite the papal prohibition, Boniface and the Byzantine prince still hoped to find a way to move the Crusade toward Constantinople on its way to the Holy Land.

When the Crusade army arrived in Venice in the summer of 1202, it was only one-third of its projected size. This was a serious problem, since the French had contracted with the Venetians for a fleet and provisions that they now realized they neither needed nor could afford. The Venetians had incurred enormous expense for the French and were understandably upset by their inability to pay. The leader of Venice, Doge Enrico Dandolo, was a man of great sagacity and prudence who was in his 90s and completely blind by the time of the Crusade. Dandolo proposed that if the French would assist the Venetians in capturing the rebellious city of Zadar (now in Croatia), he would be willing to suspend the outstanding debt until it could be paid in captured booty. With few options, the Crusaders agreed, even though Zadar was a Christian city under the control of the king of Hungary, who had taken the Crusader's vow. Innocent was informed of the plan, but his veto was disregarded. In November 1202 the Crusaders captured Zadar and wintered there. Reluctant to jeopardize the Crusade, Innocent gave conditional absolution to the Crusaders, but not to the Venetians.

Meanwhile, envoys from Philip of Swabia arrived at Zadar with an offer from Alexius, the Byzantine prince. If the Crusaders would sail to Constantinople and topple the reigning emperor, Alexius would place the Byzantine church in submission to Rome, pay the Crusaders an enormous sum, and join the Crusade to Egypt (now the centre of Muslim power in the Levant) with a large army. It was a tempting offer for an enterprise that was short on funds. The Crusade leaders accepted it, but a great many of the rank and file wanted nothing to do with the proposal, and many deserted. The Crusade sailed to Corfu before arriving in Constantinople in late June 1203. After the Crusaders attacked the northeastern corner of the city and then set a destructive fire, the citizens of Constantinople turned against Alexius III, who then fled. The Byzantine prince was elevated to the throne as Alexius IV along with his blind father, Isaac II.

Although the new emperor tried to make good his promises to the Crusaders, he soon ran short of money. He also faced anti-Latin hatred in Constantinople, which had been endemic for decades and now reached a fever pitch. Alexius IV, who owed his throne to Latins, became bitterly unpopular and was finally toppled in a palace coup in late January 1204. The Crusaders, now cheated of their reward and disgusted at the treachery of the Byzantines, declared war on Constantinople, which fell to the Fourth Crusade on April 12, 1204. What followed was one of the most profitable and disgraceful sacks of a city in history. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on. Many also broke their vows to respect the women of Constantinople and assaulted them. When Innocent III heard of the conduct of his pilgrims, he was filled with shame and strongly rebuked them.

Before the capture of the city, the Crusaders had decided that 12 electors (6 Venetians and 6 Franks) should choose an emperor who would rule one-fourth of the imperial domain. The other three-fourths was to be divided. The clergy of the party that did not include the emperor-elect were to oversee Hagia Sophia and choose a patriarch. A small amount of property was specifically designated to support the clergy, and the rest was divided as booty.

Once order had been restored, the Franks and the Venetians implemented their agreement; Baldwin of Flanders was elected emperor, and the Venetian Thomas Morosini was chosen patriarch. Various Latin-French lordships throughout Greece—in particular, the duchy of Athens and the principality of the Morea—did provide cultural contacts with western Europe and promoted the study of Greek. There was also a French impact on Greece. Notably, a collection of laws, the Assises de Romanie (Assizes of Romania), was produced. The Chronicle of the Morea appeared in both French and Greek (and later Aragonese) versions. Impressive remains of Crusader castles and Gothic churches can still be seen in Greece. Nevertheless, the Latin empire always rested on shaky foundations. Indeed, not all the Byzantine Empire was conquered by the Crusade. The imperial government continued in Nicaea, and the offshoot empire of Trebizond, at the eastern end of the Black Sea, lasted until 1461. The Byzantine despotate of Epirus was also established, and the Bulgarians remained hostile to the Crusaders. Finally, in 1261 a sadly diminished Constantinople was reconquered by Michael VIII Palaeologus with the aid of Genoa, the traditional rival of Venice. The city, however, would never be the same. For the remainder of its Christian history, it would remain poor, dilapidated, and largely abandoned.

The belief that the conquest of Constantinople would help Crusading efforts was a mirage. Indeed, the opposite was true, for the unstable Latin empire siphoned off much of Europe's Crusading energy. The legacy of the Fourth Crusade was the deep sense of betrayal the Latins had instilled in their Greek coreligionists. With the events of 1204, the schism between the Catholic West and Orthodox East was complete.

Crusades.  (2012). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #77 on: January 30, 2012, 05:55:32 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.

Intent matters.

The sack can either be portrayed as a betrayal of the evil Latins, OR it can be understood to be manipulation by the Byzantines themselves for the benefit of the Byzantine royals, who's blame is left on the evil Latins.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,556



« Reply #78 on: January 31, 2012, 02:29:31 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.

Intent matters.

The sack can either be portrayed as a betrayal of the evil Latins, OR it can be understood to be manipulation by the Byzantines themselves for the benefit of the Byzantine royals, who's blame is left on the evil Latins.

Yes, the royals really intended for the crusaders to come, destroy their imperial city, steal their treasures and relics, kill their men and rape their women. Roll Eyes
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,349


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #79 on: January 31, 2012, 02:41:17 PM »

I think it was nothing more than the latins grabbing a carrot that was dangled infront of them. They grabbed it and gobbled it in one chomp, then took the whole box of carrots Wink

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #80 on: January 31, 2012, 02:50:33 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #81 on: January 31, 2012, 02:51:28 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
What about when the Orthodox massacred the Latins in Constantinople years before this event?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,552



« Reply #82 on: January 31, 2012, 03:06:47 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?

I've noticed that a number of mods are very poor topic namers.  They stink, frankly. I guess they need the practice though, so keep at it dear, dear mods! You'll get better! I know you can do it! Grin Tongue
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,935


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #83 on: January 31, 2012, 03:57:45 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #84 on: January 31, 2012, 04:11:46 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Okeedokee!  Thanks for clarifying.  Wink

Back to the topic, anyone?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,237


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 31, 2012, 05:06:38 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
What about when the Orthodox massacred the Latins in Constantinople years before this event?

They're all dead and in God's hands. We need to get over it - both sides. Don't forget that at the time of the fall in 1453 the Latins were celebrating Mass at Hagia Sophia on a side altar at the same time the Patriarch's Liturgy was interrupted by the Sultan's entry.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,349


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #86 on: January 31, 2012, 05:14:25 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
What about when the Orthodox massacred the Latins in Constantinople years before this event?

They're all dead and in God's hands. We need to get over it - both sides. Don't forget that at the time of the fall in 1453 the Latins were celebrating Mass at Hagia Sophia on a side altar at the same time the Patriarch's Liturgy was interrupted by the Sultan's entry.
They also died together, swords in hand. So maybe there is hope Smiley

All we need is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to storm the next meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue and we're in business Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #87 on: January 31, 2012, 05:15:45 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
What about when the Orthodox massacred the Latins in Constantinople years before this event?

They're all dead and in God's hands. We need to get over it - both sides. Don't forget that at the time of the fall in 1453 the Latins were celebrating Mass at Hagia Sophia on a side altar at the same time the Patriarch's Liturgy was interrupted by the Sultan's entry.
I actually agree with you. The only reason I bring up what I did, was so that I could provide the other side of the story.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #88 on: January 31, 2012, 05:45:02 PM »



Dear Witega,  I appreciate your postings and from what I have gleaned of your character you are a good person.

But I must say that I do not think I am happy to have a thread devoted to me with the Title of "Intentional misrepresentation?"   I do not think it was intentional but that impugns my honesty and integrity.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 05:50:40 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #89 on: January 31, 2012, 06:35:55 PM »



Dear Witega,  I appreciate your postings and from what I have gleaned of your character you are a good person.

But I must say that I do not think I am happy to have a thread devoted to me with the Title of "Intentional misrepresentation?"   I do not think it was intentional but that impugns my honesty and integrity.

I believe Fr. Ambrose has already been made aware, but just for the record, I did not start this thread and I certainly did not choose the title for it. For whatever reason, the mod found my post on the previous thread to be the most convenient point for separating out the part he wanted to separate, and he chose the title with zero input from me.

I do not always agree with Fr. Ambrose but I have never implied, much less stated, that he is posting anything but his honest memories and opinions.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   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 0.265 seconds with 72 queries.