Catholic/Orthodox question

[marlo]

yup like the creed with the filioque its not heretical.

Contradicitur to you too.

Arianism was not dead during the second council to toledo, it ended because of the modified creed.

Contradicitur to you too.

There was a union, as a proof, your greek bishops was happy to announced the union upon returning home, They did even celebrate Liturgy together with the latins, Unfortunately the greek bishops who did not come to the union did not know how that happened, they thought your bishops they can reverse the so called latin claims, however, they were the one mistaken as they did not read and heard the latin explanation.

Contradicitur to you too.

for the holy spirit, its not too late to speak for the next 4 ecumenical council approving the filioque, in fact some orthodox theologians now believe that filioque was never a heresy, what they want now is just to keep the nicene-constantinoplitan creed to be used and only avoid an insertion.

Contradicitur to you too.

the Holy spirit did spoke on the next 4 ecumenical council, in fact, it was to filled with the holy spirit that greek churches used the florence council documents and united with the see of rome. excellent

Contradicitur to you too.

But the local Church Creed didn’t contradict the Ecumenical Creed. Unless it was a heretic’s creed.

Contradicitur.

Arianism was dead when Toledo adopted it. Killing dead heresies is not too difficult.

They reasoned wrong. Filioque alters the Faith, something your church even admits when it is translated into Greek.

Contradicitur.

Contradicitur.

“Western Ecumenical” council. Is that like being world famous in Peoria?

If there was really a union, then the councils would be Ecumenical. I am always intrigued when the Latins accuse us of Caesaropapism, but complain when the majority of bishops and the Faithful refuse to accept the decisions of the bishops that the emperor, ever a supporter of union for imagined aid from the West (think Crusades), was able to strong arm.

Contradicitur.

2 Councils excommunicate for accepting what the Second and Third said could not be done. And two councils to join the excommunicate. What do we care what the ecommunicate does? Ecumenical Councils are for those in communion with the Church.

Contradicitur.

But He has spoken through 7.

And He didn’t speak at the 4 you refer to.

Contradicitur.

 

[marlo]

i read one time, of russian orthodox theologians stated that Photius did a mistake and the filioque is just equivalent to through the Son, shocking revelations by orthodox.

Actually it does.

On a previous forum there were threads, all with sources, etc. about the term for proceeds refers only to hypostatic procession, such that even the Latin church (at least now) does not allow the filioque in Greek, as the result renders a theology that even the Latins wouldn’t accept.

We still have a thread on this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=188428&highlight=filioque

 

[Isa_Almisry]

yup like the creed with the filioque its not heretical.

Then recite it in Greek, and tell your pope that he is wrong to forbid that.

Arianism was not dead during the second council to toledo, it ended because of the modified creed.

That’s like saying the priest giving last rites killed the person.

The Visigoths came to submit, it was dead and over when they showed up at Toledo.

There was a union, as a proof, your greek bishops was happy to announced the union upon returning home, They did even celebrate Liturgy together with the latins, Unfortunately the greek bishops who did not come to the union did not know how that happened, they thought your bishops they can reverse the so called latin claims, however, they were the one mistaken as they did not read and heard the latin explanation.

Yes, and Chamberlain announced peace for out time.

And the Henotikon was a union too. With what and between whom is the question.

for the holy spirit, its not too late to speak for the next 4 ecumenical council approving the filioque, in fact some orthodox theologians now believe that filioque was never a heresy, what they want now is just to keep the nicene-constantinoplitan creed to be used and only avoid an insertion.

Since it deals with the eternal procession of the Spirit, once a heresy, always a heresy. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Tell that to the people at the “some Orthodox” seminary and the people at the “They” institute.

the Holy spirit did spoke on the next 4 ecumenical council, in fact, it was to filled with the holy spirit that greek churches used the florence council documents and united with the see of rome. excellent

Are you referring to those churches who used those documents to try to evade the oppression of the Polish and Austrian crowns, or those who learned the hard way not to await aid from the West against the Turk?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

i read one time, of russian orthodox theologians stated that Photius did a mistake and the filioque is just equivalent to through the Son, shocking revelations by orthodox.

I can’t address misconceptions of nameless experts.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Isa,

Make soime space in your PMs will ya please?

Many years,

Neil

 

[prodromos]

Dear brother Hesychios,

I’m sorry I did not give a link earlier. Since the information I have came from an EASTERN ORTHODOX POSTER (given before the New Forum), I assumed all the EO were aware of it.

Here is the link which provides the original text:

acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

The linked text does not support your claims. It provides what it claims is the original and unaltered text of the excommunication which happens to be exactly the same text which has been posted in a number of threads on this forum in the past.

Because like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God; like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy; like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins; like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world; like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; like Severians, they say that the law of Moses is accursed; like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum); like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and, in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan; and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church. For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent.

and this bit just before the anathema…

Therefore, because we did not tolerate this unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and apostolic see and were concerned that the catholic faith would be undermined in many ways, by the authority of the holy and individuated Trinity and the apostolic see, whose embassy we are performing, and of all the orthodox fathers from the seven councils and of the entire catholic Church, we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.

I’ve seen that last bit translated as “and those in agreement with him” so I would be interested to see the Latin (or Greek). In any case the other patriarchs were found to follow the same belief as Michael (and not the caricature presented in the bull of excommunication) so Humbert, in his arrogance, cut Rome off from communion with the other four Sees.
This is no lie. It is a statement of the facts of the matter as they eventually unfolded.

 

[Melchior]

The linked text does not support your claims. It provides what it claims is the original and unaltered text of the excommunication which happens to be exactly the same text which has been posted in a number of threads on this forum in the past.

and this bit just before the anathema…

I’ve seen that last bit translated as “and those in agreement with him” so I would be interested to see the Latin (or Greek). In any case the other patriarchs were found to follow the same belief as Michael (and not the caricature presented in the bull of excommunication) so Humbert, in his arrogance, cut Rome off from communion with the other four Sees.
This is no lie. It is a statement of the facts of the matter as they eventually unfolded.

Yet in most places local communion was never broken for another few centuries.

 

[Hesychios]

Brother Mardukm,

Excellent Research, if this is the original papal bull of excommunication by Cardinal Humbert, then the Greeks had falsely accused the Roman Church.

Falsely accused the Roman church of what…specifically?

Of initiating the schism?..

NO. That is not a false accusation. The Bull came from west to east…and was delivered upon the altar of Hagia Sophia! Is this not the act that separated us? Who then made the decision? The decision to excommunicate the Eastern Catholics came from the Western Catholics.

The typical Roman accusation is that the Orthodox withdrew from Papal obedience, as if in some kind of protest of authority, when it is perfectly clear that the Popes had no authority OVER the Eastern Cartholics at all, and could not force the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs to do anything.

When will it ever be understood that the patriarchal Synods are all equal…not one over any other? They are mutually supportive and interdependent but none are subordinated. That is the original ecclesiology of the church, and the Great East-West Schism of the Orthodox-Catholic Communion amounted to one church withdrawing from association with the other four. History is very clear about this! The western church, in the form of a Bull from the Pope carried by two of his Cardinals (one a future Pope himself) split the Latin church off from the rest by their actions.

In the hope of maintain civility and charity, I did not mention before the many FALSE accusations the Roman church made against the Eastern Catholics (called Orthodox as well today) in the initiating document. But since you, in your wisdom (and following my brother Marduk) have pronounced that Orthodox have been making false accusations (and the evidence is already posted above) I will have to enumerate them for you and all of the lurking witnesses here:

1. 
   *]they sell the gift of God
   *]they castrate their guests (and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy !)
   *]they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, (and especially Latins)
   *]they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world
   *]they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; like Severians,
   *]they say that the law of Moses is accursed
   *]they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
   *]they state that leave is ensouled (animatum);
   *]they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth
   *]refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan;
   *]they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.
   For these errors and many others committed by them, <etc.>
   
   Mike’s comments:
   #1 - If this refers to Simony, it will be hard to prove or disprove at this late date. But since simony was so widespread (and institutionalized) in the Latin church for centuries, I think that they would probably know it when they saw it.
   
   #2, #3, #4 & #5 - are patently false accusations.
   
   #6 - I have no idea what that means, I think that it is up to you Marlo to demonstrate it for the rest of us.
   
   #7 - The Eastern Catholic churches (Orthodox) had not had any theology beyond the Monarchy of the Father and the true original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Nothing has ever been cut off.
   
   #8 - Whatever this is, you can explain it to us. I have a possible idea, but this is the Roman Catholic church talking, so you must know.
   
   #9 - You can explain this one too, and show proof that we refuse (or ever refused) to baptize dying babies.
   
   #10 - There might be some truth to this. I am not clear about the complete details of the 40 days policy. A similar practice is known in many, if not most Oriental Orthodox churches and is practiced in the Byzantine Catholic parish in Illinois I once belonged to.
   
   #11 - Once again, patently false!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John

The linked text does not support your claims. It provides what it claims is the original and unaltered text of the excommunication which happens to be exactly the same text which has been posted in a number of threads on this forum in the past.

Can you please point out for us exactly what my claim was, and why you think the text does not support it?

I’ve seen that last bit translated as “and those in agreement with him” so I would be interested to see the Latin (or Greek). In any case the other patriarchs were found to follow the same belief as Michael (and not the caricature presented in the bull of excommunication) so Humbert, in his arrogance, cut Rome off from communion with the other four Sees.

This is no lie. It is a statement of the facts of the matter as they eventually unfolded.

Uhhh. The excerpt you are highlighting refers to the two other hierarchs already mentioned in the text. Presuming to assign it to all the other Patriarchs is nothing more than a polemical tactic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

1. 
   *]they sell the gift of God
   *]they castrate their guests (and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy !)
   *]they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, (and especially Latins)
   *]they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world
   *]they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; like Severians,
   *]they say that the law of Moses is accursed
   *]they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
   *]they state that leave is ensouled (animatum);
   *]they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth
   *]refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan;
   *]they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.
   For these errors and many others committed by them, <etc.>

1. 
   Don’t expect brother Marlo to support claims that everyone agrees were nonsensical. The claim about rebaptism seems, however, valid, as it is the practice of the EO even today (though by economy, many probably don’t), along with the claim that valid baptism is in the Greek Church alone (at that time).
   The accusation about baptism on the eight day, and refusing to communicate menstruating women and tonsured men seems to be more of a misunderstanding than anything else.
   I’m not sure if the accusation about “cutting off procession from the Son” is valid or not. There appears to be differing opinions among the EO on the matter (of course, such a thing has never been defined in Council, so that is understandable).
   
   Blessings,
   Marduk

 

[bobzills]

The Bull came from west to east…and was delivered upon the altar of Hagia Sophia! Is this not the act that separated us?

This is correct and I don’t see how anyone can deny it.

 

[mardukm]

Hesychios:

The Bull came from west to east…and was delivered upon the altar of Hagia Sophia! Is this not the act that separated us?

This is correct and I don’t see how anyone can deny it.

No one can deny that the Bull came from the west to the East and was delivered upon the altar of Hagia Sophia.

Whether or not THAT is what separated us is the false part of the claim. The fact of the matter is:

1. BEFORE the Bull was even conceived, the Patriarch of Constantinople had ALREADY taken the name of the Pope of Rome off the diptychs. So who was the one that separated from whom?
2. BEFORE the Bull was even conceived, the Patriarch of Constantinople had imposed the Greek rite on the Latins in the East, and forcibly closed down Latin churches in the East who did not accede to his tyranny.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[prodromos]

No one can deny that the Bull came from the west to the East and was delivered upon the altar of Hagia Sophia.

Whether or not THAT is what separated us is the false part of the claim. The fact of the matter is:

1. BEFORE the Bull was even conceived, the Patriarch of Constantinople had ALREADY taken the name of the Pope of Rome off the diptychs. So who was the one that separated from whom?
2. BEFORE the Bull was even conceived, the Patriarch of Constantinople had imposed the Greek rite on the Latins in the East, and forcibly closed down Latin churches in the East who did not accede to his tyranny.

This of course was in response to the Byzantine Churches and monasteries in southern Italy having been closed or taken over by Latins after the Normans invaded, churches that were under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. You seem to think that Michael woke up one morning and decided to do something nasty and unprovoked to the Latins. That does seem to be the way Catholic historians tend to present things, just as they demonize St Photius.

Fact: Byzantine Churches under Constantinople’s jurisdiction had been taken over by Latins in gross violation of Church Canons.

Fact: Patriarch Michael closed Latin churches under his jurisdiction in response to violations.

Fact: Cardinal Humbert and others travel from Rome to Constantinople carrying a Papal Bull of Excommunication.

Now it would seem to me that the choice of Cardinal Humbert as legate, and the existence of the Bull of Excommunication, that the Latins had no intention of trying to make peace with Patriarch Michael. They had gotten control of Southern Italy and had no intention of giving that up

 

[Hesychios]

No one can deny that the Bull came from the west to the East and was delivered upon the altar of Hagia Sophia.

Whether or not THAT is what separated us is the false part of the claim. The fact of the matter is:

1. BEFORE the Bull was even conceived, the Patriarch of Constantinople had ALREADY taken the name of the Pope of Rome off the diptychs. So who was the one that separated from whom?
2. BEFORE the Bull was even conceived, the Patriarch of Constantinople had imposed the Greek rite on the Latins in the East, and forcibly closed down Latin churches in the East who did not accede to his tyranny.

Blessings,
Marduk

Prodromos has already commented quite accurately on this. I would like to expand upon this for the benefit of others.

As many know, under the old ecclesiology of the church, the Latin-rite parishes were set up under the Patriarch of Constantinople to serve merchants and travelers, as well as some probable immigrants from the west. They were representation parishes set up for the benefit of those people with the permission of the Patriarchal Synod at Constantinople.

When those parishes were closed, the people were not thereby denied the Eucharist, they had only to go down to the nearest church, serving the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

A different situation existed in Italy and Sicily. The whole of southern Italy was following the ‘Byzantine’ rite: the typica and holorologion of the Greek church, and not the liturgy of Rome, but of St John Chrysostom. That was because they were Hellenes in the Patriarchate of Constantinople at the time and within the bounds of the Byzantine empire.

When southern Italy was seized by the Frankish Normans (who were nothing but bandits) they, who followed the Roman rite as used in northern Gaul, politically transferred the entire territory into the Roman Patriarchate, replacing the bishops with Latin ones and began closing down the Greek churches and converting them to Latin rite liturgies.

There had not been any formal agreement yet, confirming the transfer. The political situation was far too unstable and the Byzantines might have mounted an attack that would have reversed the process. In any case, the theological/spiritual/ritual practices of the Eastern Orthodox Catholics should have been protected under the new Patriarch. They were not.

This is why today, almost the entire population of southern Italy can claim Greek roots in their family histories, but they are Roman Catholics. It is also why the Pope was no longer commemorated in the dyptichs, and the Patriarch was no longer commemorated in the Roman dyptichs. That issue had not been settled yet, but they were not out actually of communion.

To be sure the Pope felt under threat from the Normans himself, and initially had looked for Byzantium to kick them out. But Byzantium was busy with the Turks at the time and could not spare the resources. It was a perfect crime of opportunity for some French knights looking for spoil.

This must have helped set up the later pattern, because the illegal action of the Norman bandits in southern Italy was forgiven even as the churches were converted to Papal obedience. A nice deal all around for western Christians.

But that is why the Latin parishes in Constantinople were closed, under the original ecclesiology of the church, the local patriarchal synod had control of all of the parishes within it’s own territory, and this was a diplomatic response.

Michael

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothers Neil and John,

A secular power takes over southern Italy and forcibly imposes Latin practices. The Pope objects but in the long run cannot do anything about it. Yet, the EO blames the Pope when the status quo becomes Latin.

On the other hand, the EO Patriarch ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE closes and forcibly enforces Greek practies on Latin Churches. Yet that is OK to the EO, and no blame can be imputed onto the EO Patriarch.

Of course, EO conveniently forget that until the latter 5th and 6th centuries, Siciliy and southern Italy were part of the Latin patriarchate. EO conveniently forget that the Pope objected to the Eastern emperor’s forcible translation of portions of the Latin patriarchate to the Greek patriarchate. But the Pope did not strike anyone’s name of the diptychs for that reason.

But about 600 years later, the bishop of Rome’s name is struck from the diptychs because of what the SECULAR authorities did. What possible precedence could there be for this move in the history of the Church, brother? And being struck from the diptychs means the Churches were still in union? The fact is, being struck from the diptychs is THE MAIN evidence of non-communion between two Churches. A nice bit of mental gymnastics, brother, to try to wriggle the Easterns out of any guilt in the matter.

EO apologetics is normally full of hypocritical errors, and this episode simply demonstrates the same. Jesus hates hypocrites, brother, so I pray you no longer use the arguments you have utilized here.

Blessings,
Marduk

Prodromos has already commented quite accurately on this. I would like to expand upon this for the benefit of others.

As many know, under the old ecclesiology of the church, the Latin-rite parishes were set up under the Patriarch of Constantinople to serve merchants and travelers, as well as some probable immigrants from the west. They were representation parishes set up for the benefit of those people with the permission of the Patriarchal Synod at Constantinople.

When those parishes were closed, the people were not thereby denied the Eucharist, they had only to go down to the nearest church, serving the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

A different situation existed in Italy and Sicily. The whole of southern Italy was following the ‘Byzantine’ rite: the typica and holorologion of the Greek church, and not the liturgy of Rome, but of St John Chrysostom. That was because they were Hellenes in the Patriarchate of Constantinople at the time and within the bounds of the Byzantine empire.

When southern Italy was seized by the Frankish Normans (who were nothing but bandits) they, who followed the Roman rite as used in northern Gaul, politically transferred the entire territory into the Roman Patriarchate, replacing the bishops with Latin ones and began closing down the Greek churches and converting them to Latin rite liturgies.

There had not been any formal agreement yet, confirming the transfer. The political situation was far too unstable and the Byzantines might have mounted an attack that would have reversed the process. In any case, the theological/spiritual/ritual practices of the Eastern Orthodox Catholics should have been protected under the new Patriarch. They were not.

This is why today, almost the entire population of southern Italy can claim Greek roots in their family histories, but they are Roman Catholics. It is also why the Pope was no longer commemorated in the dyptichs, and the Patriarch was no longer commemorated in the Roman dyptichs. That issue had not been settled yet, but they were not out actually of communion.

To be sure the Pope felt under threat from the Normans himself, and initially had looked for Byzantium to kick them out. But Byzantium was busy with the Turks at the time and could not spare the resources. It was a perfect crime of opportunity for some French knights looking for spoil.

This must have helped set up the later pattern, because the illegal action of the Norman bandits in southern Italy was forgiven even as the churches were converted to Papal obedience. A nice deal all around for western Christians.

But that is why the Latin parishes in Constantinople were closed, under the original ecclesiology of the church, the local patriarchal synod had control of all of the parishes within it’s own territory, and this was a diplomatic response.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Thanks for the kind words Marduk, you are one in a million

Did I jump all over you when you alleged that Patriarch Michael Caerularius personally falsified the Bull of Excommunication?

You couldn’t prove it…and fell flat on your face.

Nor did I call you a hypocrite for neglecting to mention the suppression of the Greek churches in Italy. Although your post had a decidedly one-sided slant to it.

I have noticed your attitude getting much more shrill and edgy lately, is the pressure getting to you?

---

So back to your original complaint: Yes, the region of southern Italy and Sicily was originally in the western half of the Roman Empire, according to the political divisions set by Diocletion.

An interesting map of the transitional period (as the west was collapsing) is here…

The western church was far form uniform in it’s liturgical practices and ecclesiology for many centuries as everyone knows. Thus, there was a rite in North Africa, one among the Celts, one in Spain, one in Gaul and another (the ‘Ambrosian’) in northern Italy. In southern Italy it was not the “Latin” rite as known in Rome that was practiced but some local version of the liturgy, possibly similar to either the Roman or the North African, but probably influenced by the church in the Peloponnese because of the vigorous trade that normally existed between those points. The local bishops were elected by the diocesan synods, not appointed by the Pope or any Patriarch. Eventually the area fell to Germanic Arians, and orthodoxy was in peril there for years. See map…

That changed after Justinian drove out the Arian Vandals and Goths who controlled the region, and occupied all of Italy. As you should know he influenced and dominated both the See of Rome and the See of Constantinople. In fact there were a string of Popes appointed by the East Roman emperors! Recently, an interesting church has been uncovered in Rome itself (near the lateran Palace, if I remember correctly) from the period, covered in Byzantine mozaics.

http://www.allaboutturkey.com/img/bizans.jpg

This is probably why we don’t have a record of complaints about the first transfer of that territory, if indeed there was such a thing as a formal transfer. It was all done within the confines of the Byzantine empire, under two prelates who were both dependant upon the will and protection of a king. Apparently, as the borders shifted southward the Patriarchal synod of Constantinople continued to shepherd those people for about four hundred years. Meanwhile the Patriarch at Rome found himself in the exarchate of Ravenna, and then eventually outside of the empire.

As you should very well be able to tell from my post above, I was explaining the situation of 1054AD, and the nature of the dispute. I specifically tried to avoid spinning the account, and I am sorry I did not do so to your satisfaction. I try to be sensitive to this kind of critique, but I will admit to a bias.

I never stated that the Synod of Rome did not have a right to the region, but I did state the advantages and disadvantages that this situation created for everyone. I tried to show how it developed a pattern of western policy toward Eastern Christians. This pattern continued unabated for centuries.

I did state that the Latin bishops began to suppress the Byzantine Catholic rite in favor of the Latin (I would call it poor stewardship of another well established Sui Iuris church, I don’t know what you would call it). The formal disposition or transfer of that church territory was clearly going to depend upon the political or military outcome, as it has all over Europe from that day to this.

I tried to be as factual as I could be, but it seems that this is not enough for some around here. I need to post the entire contents of an encyclopedia in order to avoid being called a hypocrite by you.

I would really appreciate it if you did not get personal in your criticism of me. We can’t go on like this.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael

Thanks for the kind words Marduk, you are one in a million

Thank you for the kind response, as well. A few others may have gone off the handle, but you are as gentlemanly as ever.

Did I jump all over you when you alleged that Patriarch Michael Caerularius personally falsified the Bull of Excommunication?

You couldn’t prove it…and fell flat on your face.

Far from it. I gave a link to a translated ancient document written by an historian soon after the excommunications took place, which mentioned that very fact. And one of the EO posters responded and admitted that the the link was actually one normally utilized by EO posters. So I don’t know why you think I did not prove it. If you challenge the use of that link, why not say so?

Nor did I call you a hypocrite for neglecting to mention the suppression of the Greek churches in Italy. Although your post had a decidedly one-sided slant to it.

I did not mention the Greek Churches because the suppression was not initiated by the ecclesiastical power, unlike in the East. Correct? That is also why I did not mention the even PRIOR suppression of the Latin churches in southern Italy or in Sicily, for neither were those forcible translations initiated by the ecclesiastical power. So, a little further thought on the matter, and a little less emotion, and one discovers no hypocrisy can be levelled against the Catholic position on the matter.

The prior statements is also basically a response to the rest of your post.

I have noticed your attitude getting much more shrill and edgy lately, is the pressure getting to you?

As I mentioned in the “My Witness” thread, I always go after hypocrisy rather zealously, and I do not apologize for it.

I would really appreciate it if you did not get personal in your criticism of me. We can’t go on like this.

I was quite careful with my language. I did not charge you with being a hypocrite. I simply asked you not to use the hypocritical arguments you may have acquired from your EO histories. I don’t believe you are personally the source of these hypocritical arguments.

Peace and Blessings,
Marduk

 

[prodromos]

Of course, EO conveniently forget that until the latter 5th and 6th centuries, Siciliy and southern Italy were part of the Latin patriarchate. EO conveniently forget that the Pope objected to the Eastern emperor’s forcible translation of portions of the Latin patriarchate to the Greek patriarchate. But the Pope did not strike anyone’s name of the diptychs for that reason.

We forget nothing Marduk. We know the Pope protested and never ceased to take opportunities to demand Southern Italy back. Not only did he do nothing when the Normans took over, he probably considered it God’s providence. He took full advantage of the situation

EO apologetics is normally full of hypocritical errors

If you say so, I guess it must be true then

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Michael

Thank you for the kind response, as well. A few others may have gone off the handle, but you are as gentlemanly as ever.

Far from it. I gave a link to a translated ancient document written by an historian soon after the excommunications took place, which mentioned that very fact. And one of the EO posters responded and admitted that the the link was actually one normally utilized by EO posters. So I don’t know why you think I did not prove it. If you challenge the use of that link, why not say so?

Just a point of order: Jefferson Davis wrote his “Rise and Fall of the Confederacy” soon after the events took place, but hardly an unbiased statement of historical fact, due to the apologia.

The “falsification” would have to be evaluated in the context of the rest of the historian’s accuracy, etc.

Fact remains: something happened. Btw, compare the Ems dispatch incident.

I did not mention the Greek Churches because the suppression was not initiated by the ecclesiastical power, unlike in the East. Correct? That is also why I did not mention the even PRIOR suppression of the Latin churches in southern Italy or in Sicily, for neither were those forcible translations initiated by the ecclesiastical power. So, a little further thought on the matter, and a little less emotion, and one discovers no hypocrisy can be levelled against the Catholic position on the matter.

This seperation of Church and State that keeps “exhonerating” the papacy is an anachronism. Case in point: the Crusades might be said to be a movement, but the ecclesiastical power set them in motion.

And why was aid from the West always linked to submission to the church of Rome?

 

[Ridgerunner]

And why was aid from the West always linked to submission to the church of Rome?

It wasn’t. The East gained a great deal from the earlier crusades, and the only “linkage” was negotiation that did not result in reunion or determine whether the crusaders went, or what they did when they got there. The early crusades actually extended the life of the Byzantine empire beyond what it could have otherwise expected.

Certainly, reunion was part of the “deal” negotiated between Alexius and the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade. The Pope was not a party to that “deal” and, as you know, condemned it. It was rejected by the Greeks after Alexius and his father were reinstated on the throne of Constantinople by the crusaders. The Greeks deposed Alexius and his father again and left the crusaders to starve outside the city walls. Had the Greeks kept the financial end alone, resupplied the crusaders and sent them on their way to Palestine, it is entirely likely the latter would have let the “reunion” promise go.

At the end, reunion was offered again by the Greeks, but the West no longer believed in Greek promises, and probably didn’t have the ability to prevent the Turks from taking Constantinople at that point anyway. Had it not been for the western victory at Lepanto shortly after, which was a very near thing, Rome would have shared Constantinople’s fate. Even after Lepanto, the Turks made further attempts to conquer the West.

But none of this has any relevance to the 21st century anyway, except to the extent the West and the East again face Islamic aggressiveness.