133 ad

[josie_L]

SingleMomMonica:
Just letting you know Single Mom Monica the Pope did not send the Crusaders to sack Constantinople (where did you get such an idea. The heading of the quote I posted is reflective of all the myths surrounding the Crusades:

1. “The sack of Constantinople took place under the indirect orders of Pope Innocent III as a means to recapture Byzantine Christianity for the Western Church.”

Pope Innocent III, who was elected in 1198, dedicated his pontificate to recapturing Jerusalem, which had been lost to Saladin. He negotiated with the Eastern emperor, Alexios III—who had ascended to the imperial throne in 1195 after overthrowing (and blinding) his brother—for a healing of the schism and a joint effort to reclaim the Holy Land.

But Innocent lost control of the endeavor virtually from the start. The French barons leading the Crusade planned to sail directly to the Holy Land and bypass Constantinople. The Crusaders’ transportation from Venice was secured, but when the time came, a much smaller army assembled in Venice than had been planned. The Venetians had constructed a fleet for a much bigger invasion, and they wanted to be paid accordingly. It was finally decided that the Crusaders could start to make good on the cost by subduing the rebellious city of Zara on the Dalmatian coast. The problem was that Zara was Catholic and under the control of a Catholic crusading king whose lands the Pope had pledged to protect. When the Crusaders attacked Zara, an outraged Pope Innocent excommunicated them.

Eventually the French Crusaders were reconciled to the Church, and it seemed the Crusade was finally ready to embark. Then, the son of the former emperor (who was deposed by his uncle, Alexios III) entered the picture. This young Alexios hoped to regain the throne taken from his father by his uncle. He convinced the Crusaders that, if they helped him retake Constantinople and place him on the throne, he would pay the Crusaders what they still owed the Venetians and supply them with all they needed to proceed to the Holy Land. Innocent, thinking little of the young Alexios, called on the Crusaders to move on to Palestine and forget any interference in Christian Constantinople, warning them against attacks on fellow Christians.

**In June 1203, the Venetians and the French Crusaders, along with young Alexios, arrived at the gates of Constantinople. Alexios had assured them that the city would rise up in his favor. That did not happen. His uncle did flee, his father was restored to the throne, and Alexios co-ruled with his father as Alexios IV. But the treasury he found could not pay off the Venetians. In February 1204, he was overthrown and killed by the citizens of Constantinople. The Crusaders saw this revolution as a direct attack on them, and they abandoned their plans to continue on to the Holy Land. The French and the Venetians poured into the city, and plunder and murder became the order of the day. Constantinople fell completely to Islamic invasion in 1453.

No serious historian of the Crusades would argue that Pope Innocent brought about or wanted the sack of Constantinople, but this Catholic urban legend remains. The simple fact is that the Pope explicitly begged them not to attack Constantinople; besides, the Crusaders paid little mind to a pope far away when there was plunder nearby. Though some argue that Innocent was privately pleased at Constantinople being brought back under Latin control, there is nothing in his actions that would lend credence to this. Three times he warned the Crusaders not to travel to Constantinople, he incessantly warned against any attack on Christians, and he complained bitterly after the fact about the ruin of the city.**
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603tbt.asp

p.s. SingleMomMonica I read in your previous posts you were raised Baptist and converted to the Catholic faith since 14 years ago, when were you Orthodox?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Just letting you know Single Mom Monica the Pope did not send the Crusaders to sack Constantinople (where did you get such an idea. The heading of the quote I posted is reflective of all the myths surrounding the Crusades:

1. “The sack of Constantinople took place under the indirect orders of Pope Innocent III as a means to recapture Byzantine Christianity for the Western Church.”

Pope Innocent III, who was elected in 1198, dedicated his pontificate to recapturing Jerusalem, which had been lost to Saladin. He negotiated with the Eastern emperor, Alexios III—who had ascended to the imperial throne in 1195 after overthrowing (and blinding) his brother—for a healing of the schism and a joint effort to reclaim the Holy Land.

But Innocent lost control of the endeavor virtually from the start. The French barons leading the Crusade planned to sail directly to the Holy Land and bypass Constantinople. The Crusaders’ transportation from Venice was secured, but when the time came, a much smaller army assembled in Venice than had been planned. The Venetians had constructed a fleet for a much bigger invasion, and they wanted to be paid accordingly. It was finally decided that the Crusaders could start to make good on the cost by subduing the rebellious city of Zara on the Dalmatian coast. The problem was that Zara was Catholic and under the control of a Catholic crusading king whose lands the Pope had pledged to protect. When the Crusaders attacked Zara, an outraged Pope Innocent excommunicated them.

Eventually the French Crusaders were reconciled to the Church, and it seemed the Crusade was finally ready to embark. Then, the son of the former emperor (who was deposed by his uncle, Alexios III) entered the picture. This young Alexios hoped to regain the throne taken from his father by his uncle. He convinced the Crusaders that, if they helped him retake Constantinople and place him on the throne, he would pay the Crusaders what they still owed the Venetians and supply them with all they needed to proceed to the Holy Land. Innocent, thinking little of the young Alexios, called on the Crusaders to move on to Palestine and forget any interference in Christian Constantinople, warning them against attacks on fellow Christians.

**In June 1203, the Venetians and the French Crusaders, along with young Alexios, arrived at the gates of Constantinople. Alexios had assured them that the city would rise up in his favor. That did not happen. His uncle did flee, his father was restored to the throne, and Alexios co-ruled with his father as Alexios IV. But the treasury he found could not pay off the Venetians. In February 1204, he was overthrown and killed by the citizens of Constantinople. The Crusaders saw this revolution as a direct attack on them, and they abandoned their plans to continue on to the Holy Land. The French and the Venetians poured into the city, and plunder and murder became the order of the day. Constantinople fell completely to Islamic invasion in 1453.

No serious historian of the Crusades would argue that Pope Innocent brought about or wanted the sack of Constantinople, but this Catholic urban legend remains. The simple fact is that the Pope explicitly begged them not to attack Constantinople; besides, the Crusaders paid little mind to a pope far away when there was plunder nearby. Though some argue that Innocent was privately pleased at Constantinople being brought back under Latin control, there is nothing in his actions that would lend credence to this. Three times he warned the Crusaders not to travel to Constantinople, he incessantly warned against any attack on Christians, and he complained bitterly after the fact about the ruin of the city.**
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603tbt.asp

p.s. SingleMomMonica I read in your previous posts you were raised Baptist and converted to the Catholic faith since 14 years ago, when were you Orthodox?

I did not say that the Pope sent the Crusaders to Sack Constantinople. I said that the Pope ordered the Crusade that did indeed Sack Constantinople - whether that was the Pope’s true intention or not, it did happen. Personally, I think that it was not his intention, but the person he set in charge of that particular Crusade.

My point is still the same - regardless of what people in the Catholic Church do or have done - I DO NOT HATE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

As far as my personal spiritual journey: It’s a complicated one. Try not to get dizzy :
I became a Baptist via baptism when I was 3. When I was 8, my family took us to a Nazarene Church. When I was 12, my family moved to a Non-Denominational Church. When I was 18 and living on my own, I immediately began attending Catholic Church, but I did not know the teachings of the Church (& had no idea of the existence of the Orthodox Church otherwise, I’d have gone to it first) and I still lived by the “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine. At 19, I became a “Single Mom” as a result of the practice of that false doctrine. At 20, my child and I were brought into the Roman Catholic Church at Easter Vigil 1995. In 2002, after spending those 7 years in Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox Churches, we were chrismated Greek Orthodox. About a year ago, retrospectly: for the easy way out, we began receiving the Sacraments in the Catholic Church (RC CCL 844.3 allows this). Since the veil has been removed from my eyes allowing me to see clearly that I left Orthodoxy for something easier even though I fully believe (although, you will see posts here of me defending the Catholic Church’s teachings) the Orthodox Church teachings are not only correct, but also make the most sense, I will go to Confession to my Orthodox spiritual father to come back fully to the much more difficult, but true, Orthodox Faith. God Willing, I will die Orthodox.

 

[josie_L]

I did not say that the Pope sent the Crusaders to Sack Constantinople. I said that the Pope ordered the Crusade that did indeed Sack Constantinople - whether that was the Pope’s true intention or not, it did happen. Personally, I think that it was not his intention, but the person he set in charge of that particular Crusade.

My point is still the same - regardless of what people in the Catholic Church do or have done - I DO NOT HATE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

As far as my personal spiritual journey: It’s a complicated one. Try not to get dizzy :
I became a Baptist via baptism when I was 3. When I was 8, my family took us to a Nazarene Church. When I was 12, my family moved to a Non-Denominational Church. When I was 18 and living on my own, I immediately began attending Catholic Church, but I did not know the teachings of the Church (& had no idea of the existence of the Orthodox Church otherwise, I’d have gone to it first) and I still lived by the “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine. At 19, I became a “Single Mom” as a result of the practice of that false doctrine. At 20, my child and I were brought into the Roman Catholic Church at Easter Vigil 1995. In 2002, after spending those 7 years in Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox Churches, we were chrismated Greek Orthodox. About a year ago, retrospectly: for the easy way out, we began receiving the Sacraments in the Catholic Church (RC CCL 844.3 allows this). Since the veil has been removed from my eyes allowing me to see clearly that I left Orthodoxy for something easier even though I fully believe (although, you will see posts here of me defending the Catholic Church’s teachings) the Orthodox Church teachings are not only correct, but also make the most sense, I will go to Confession to my Orthodox spiritual father to come back fully to the much more difficult, but true, Orthodox Faith. God Willing, I will die Orthodox.

Did you notice that he initiated a crusade because Saracens/Muslims had overtaken the Holy Land (after more than 400 years of Islamic expansion you think people would get why the crusades were necessary) and he was requested by Alexios III (emperor) to help fend off their aggression?

p.s. I don’t think the sacking would have taken place had the young (rightful) heir to the throne of Constantinople asked for help (with the incentive of treasure he did not have) to dispossess his uncle.

 

[PaulDupre]

SingleMonMonoca:

PaulDupre:

Consider that if you must hate the Catholic Church in order to be accepted into Orthodoxy, then perhaps Orthodoxy is not the right choice for you.

I don’t know where you are getting that strange idea that to be accepted into Orthodoxy someone has to hate the Catholic Church. It’s the one of the strangest things I’ve heard someone say.

I’m getting that from your own posts. You sound very hateful.

One of the most hurtful things I’ve encountered on these fora is the anti-Catholic sentiments of the Orthodox, whom I used to think was on our side. Because of posters like you, I now know different. How sad.