Define "Supremacy"

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAssisi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
GAssisi:
AFTER 1054 – that you find the Orthodox teaching the Catholic truth so well expressed by Khomiakov: “The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day.”
This may be contemporary Catholic truth but you should become acquainted with Catholicism and its teachings prior to the changes introduced by Vatican II?

We can produce literally dozens of papal pronouncements which proclims the exact opposite of Khomiakov’s statement. Again and again the Popes declare that those outside the Roman Catholic Church will not be saved, that those not in communion with the Supreme Pontiff must go to eternal fire.

This is such a pervasive papal teaching through so many centuries that one could suggest that the current liberal post-Vatican II teaching, a 180 degree turn-about on this matter, is a mere transient blip in the history of the Catholic Church and not likely to endure.

It is useful to keep in mind that Vatican II has been declared by the Popes to be not a doctrinal Council, so this basically leaves all the pre-Vatican II teachings intact.
 
steve b:
[It was either you or Orthodoc who introduced the unia issue, not me.
40.png
orthodoc:
Actually the subject of the Unia came up as a reply to the ridiculous claim the the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian entity in the world and it was all accomplished through evangelization rather than ‘sheep stealing’. [See Post #237]
  1. The Catholic Church ***IS ***the single biggest Christian entity. Who is bigger?
  2. Sheep aren’t being stolen when they are shown the way home.
40.png
orthodoc:
Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of both the Unia and how and why Latin Patriachates were set up in predominately Orthodox lands as a result of the crusades, will not let such a ludicrous claim go unanswered! Especially since the RCC has been sheep stealing from the Orthodox Catholic Church for over a thousand years.
  1. “Orthodox lands” ? Wasn’t it Cyprian who said James was bishop of Jerusalem but Peter had the world?
  2. The crusades were to counteract Islam and retake the holy lands. What part of that did the Orthodox participate in?.
  3. Catholics don’t sheep steal. We bring runaway souls home.
40.png
orthodoc:
It seems that when you run out of ammo both Fr Ambrose and myself become the object of slander for defending our faith and correcting erroneous statements.
You’ve got it exactly backwards.
40.png
orthodoc:
And what supporting evidence? All we have seen so far is a rewrite of history with no factual evidence to back it up other than a claim another Orthodox bishop converted after the death of Kuntsevitch! You have yet to prove that the letter to Kuntsevitch by the Roman Catholic governor at the time doesn’t exist or is a forgery.
Are you saying Bp Meletius didn’t reconcile with Rome? I gave you the Orthodox response to it in a URL.
40.png
orthodoc:
Your first insinuation was that the Orthodox were angry because so many were converting to the RCC when in fact the exact opposite was taking place. People were returning back to the faith that was made illegal by the Roman Catholic government. It was a result of the Poles lifting the edict making the Orthodox Church illegal so they could have the support of the Cossacks against the Turks.
Who were the Turks after?
40.png
orthodoc:
[The church there was literally and figuratively in ruins with buildings falling apart, clergy marrying two or three times, and monks and clergy everywhere not really interested in pastoral care or model Christian living. Within three years, Josaphat had rebuilt the church by holding synods, publishing a catechism to be used all over, and enforcing rules of conduct for clergy.]

Ever to stop and ask yourself why the Orthodox Churches and seminaries were is such deplorable condition? If you did, you would find your first clue in the following article contained in the Union of Brest -

Article 17 [snip]

One has to take into consideration that at the time the churches as well as the theological institutions were all paid for and supported by the governament Even the salaries of the clergy were paid by the governemnet. Once the new Roman Catholic government took over in Orthodox lands it began to undermine the Orthodox Church by failing to monetarily support both the churches and seminaries while they remained Orthodox.
  1. Why should Catholics support seperatists?
2, The “Church” didn’t take over Orthodox lands.
40.png
orthodoc:
Once again, all one has to do is read the 33 articles and use some common sense to be able to see what life was like being an Orthodox in RC conquered lands. And ask why such a saintly man was so hated by some of his own people.

Orthodoc
Josaphat was an Orthodox bishop who wanted reunion with the pope. The Orthodox bishop who led the opposition revolt against unity with the Catholic Church, also took part in the martyrdom of Bp Josaphat. He however, converted to Catholicism after the revolt and the death of Josaphat. He was hated by seperatists who wanted to stay seperate.
[/quote]
 
Fr Ambrose:
This may be contemporary Catholic truth but you should become acquainted with Catholicism and its teachings prior to the changes introduced by Vatican II?

We can produce literally dozens of papal pronouncements which proclims the exact opposite of Khomiakov’s statement. Again and again the Popes declare that those outside the Roman Catholic Church will not be saved, that those not in communion with the Supreme Pontiff must go to eternal fire.

This is such a pervasive papal teaching through so many centuries that one could suggest that the current liberal post-Vatican II teaching, a 180 degree turn-about on this matter, is a mere transient blip in the history of the Catholic Church and not likely to endure.

It is useful to keep in mind that Vatican II has been declared by the Popes to be not a doctrinal Council, so this basically leaves all the pre-Vatican II teachings intact.
Re: Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

**848 **“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
 
steve b:
Re: Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

**848 **“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
Have I not affirmed that this is contemporary Catholic teaching on this point (which the CCC encapsulates nicely)? I do not dispute it.

But this modern Vatican II teaching is at odds with the papal teaching of the preceding millennium.

How is it possible to overthrow the consistent teaching of 1000 years and supplant it with the CCC’s liberal one? Of course I empathise strongly with the current teaching because it resonates with Orthodoxy, God be praised.
 
Fr Ambrose:
is a mere transient blip in the history of the Catholic Church and not likely to endure.

It is useful to keep in mind that Vatican II has been declared by the Popes to be not a doctrinal Council, so this basically leaves all the pre-Vatican II teachings intact.
That is NOT going to happen - this is no blip - that genie is never going back in the bottle again. Not simply because of this particular pope but the curia itself almost to a man is insisting that ANY future pope not close the doors on these issues. A candidate to be totally viable would have to support it.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
That is NOT going to happen - this is no blip - that genie is never going back in the bottle again. Not simply because of this particular pope but the curia itself almost to a man is insisting that ANY future pope not close the doors on these issues. A candidate to be totally viable would have to support it.
Deo gratias!
 
Fr Ambrose:
Have I not affirmed that this is contemporary Catholic teaching on this point (which the CCC encapsulates nicely)? I do not dispute it.

But this modern Vatican II teaching is at odds with the papal teaching of the preceding millennium.

How is it possible to overthrow the consistent teaching of 1000 years and supplant it with the CCC’s liberal one? Of course I empathise strongly with the current teaching because it resonates with Orthodoxy, God be praised.
The CCC takes a pastoral view and explains the text without watering down scripture and tradition or previous popes and councils. Bottomline, God doesn’t hold one culpable for ignorance. And that is the Church’s constant teaching. But once a person knows, then they are culpable.
 
[2. Sheep aren’t being stolen when they are shown the way home. ]

[3. Catholics don’t sheep steal. We bring runaway souls home.]

Hahahahahahaha!!! Thanks for the laugh. A very unique way of showing them the way home. By taking their basic human rights away from them! And persecuting them and their church. By denying them things like the right to ring their bells, bring the Sacraments to the sick, and hold processions. By requiring them to pay to have services and to use their own churches. How Christian!

[2. The crusades were to counteract Islam and retake the holy lands. What part of that did the Orthodox participate in?.]

We Orthodox were too busy trying to stay alive and protecting the few relics we had left that weren’t either stolen & carted back to Rome or destroyed forever.

[Who were the Turks after?]

It becomes obvious if you reread what I posted and you just quoted. The Poles were worried about the Turkish Ottoman Empire invading Poland.

[1. Why should Catholics support seperatists? }

The question is why should they persecute them and make their religion illegal in their own land? And then offer them an imitation form of their beloved faith. To an Orthodox that’s like trading a diamond for a rhinstone!

[2, The “Church” didn’t take over Orthodox lands.]

So what is now Ukraine was never an Orthodox country? What source of history do you have to back up that ridiculous claim? Read the history of ‘The Baptism of Rus’.

[Josaphat was an Orthodox bishop who wanted reunion with the pope. The Orthodox bishop who led the opposition revolt against unity with the Catholic Church, also took part in the martyrdom of Bp Josaphat. He however, converted to Catholicism after the revolt and the death of Josaphat. He was hated by seperatists who wanted to stay seperate.]

So you base your whole rewrite of history on a conversion of another bishop to Roman Catholicism after Kuntsevich was slain? What kind of proof is that?

Orthodoc
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
Which I believe bears out my point. I am particularly fond of: "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal "

Our churches could all benefit from a “great healing” and it will come only when we meet Jesus’ wish to do what it takes to get it.
Dear HagiaSophia,

Healing is indeed needed.

However, it has always been a great effort to balance ecumenism with Truth.

I belonged to a emailing list of a group young Catholics and I responded to a letter that we should not forget that there is One True Church established by Christ. I got one response to beware of such ideas because they were unchristian and not what our Lord wanted.

Sadly, so many Catholics are willing to sacrifice Truth for ecumenism and “unity”.

I know you are not one of them but many Catholics I know would not discuss Faith and instead just remain silent.

I guess there is no real answer to this question and we can only pray to our Lord that we can sufficiently answer non-Catholics’ questions without appearing to be unchristianlike.
 
40.png
Aris:
Healing is indeed needed.

However, it has always been a great effort to balance ecumenism with Truth…I got one response to beware of such ideas because they were unchristian and not what our Lord wanted.
Apparently yours was not an isolated incident - because of DePuy and several other things, we got Dominus Iesus. Deo Gratias.
40.png
Aris:
Sadly, so many Catholics are willing to sacrifice Truth for ecumenism and “unity”.

I know you are not one of them but many Catholics I know would not discuss Faith and instead just remain silent.
I fear many are confused and don’t know what to think. They simply want to “get along” and don’t have a clue. Then some are afraid, these overtures on both sides are melting ice that has been frozen in time since the original split.

Many of us “in a hurry” forget that there is great responsibility on the shoulders of these very human men - they are not making these decisions based on one pontificate, nor one conference, they all feel that there are the “future ages” of their churches to consider. They don’t want to go down into history as the one who sold out, who caused another schism, etc. So they worry and they move slowly if they move at all.
40.png
Aris:
I guess there is no real answer to this question and we can only pray to our Lord that we can sufficiently answer non-Catholics’ questions without appearing to be unchristianlike.
There is through the grace of God, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the enduring good will of men and women everywhere. These things happen in the fullness of their time - although when I see some of the dissension just in the forum there are days I wonder, what will it take. It just seems so odd that as I have mentioned before, we have been persecuted together, we have been in the gulags together, we have betrayed one another and caused each other harm over centuries. One does have days when you just want to stand up and scream - stop it, just stop it. Sigh…
 
Dear Father,

Forgive me, but your claim that you can properly represent Catholic teaching on the issue of invincible ignorance, which you have consistently maligned until you all of a sudden bring up this little piece by Khomiakov – which, by the way, you conveniently brought up ONLY AFTER you were proven to be wrong in your contention that the principle of ignorance was unscriptural - is simply unfounded.

First, let’s consider some facts. You know very well that you have not a shred of evidence that the Orthodox Church at any time before Khomiakov expressed the Catholic views you so casually ascribe to Orthodoxy (as distinct from Catholicism). On the contrary, Catholicism has given various and continuous expression through its scholastic theology since the turn of the millennium on the idea that, as Khomiakov expressed so well, “The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day.”****

While there is no evidence of this belief in Orthodoxy before Khomiakov, it is a fact that Khomiakov was very cosmopolitan, knowing several languages including Latin and Greek, and had traveled to the West several times. In all likelihood, it is in the course of such travels that he was exposed to this Catholic tenet taught in all the great universities of the West who were the purveyors of scholastic theology. The translator of Khomiakov’s work, Father Grabbe, informs us candidly that his works were not at first very popular because Khomiakov seemed to be using “new expressions.” No doubt - because his “new expressions” were nothing more than the truths (one of them about invincible ignorance) to which he was exposed in the West that had always been present in the Catholic Church, truths which the Orthodox Church temporarily lost, or perhaps merely forgot for 800 years, since the split between the lungs.

Having considered the facts, let’s discuss the theological ramifications of your claim that papal statements (apparently) contradict the Catholic truth expressed by Khomiakov. According to you, it is a contradiction to claim that “no one can be saved outside the Church” or “you can’t be saved without this particular belief” and to claim at the same time that “you may be saved if you are (invincibly) ignorant.” I will appeal to an irrefutable source, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ adamantly teaches that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, but it is this same Jesus who told the Pharisees, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt.” And Jesus proclaims this in the very context of believing in Him (see John 9:35 – 10:18)! Was Jesus wrong? If He was not, how can you claim any contradiction in Catholic teaching?

God bless,

Greg
 
40.png
GAssisi:
Catholicism has given various and continuous expression through its scholastic theology since the turn of the millennium on the idea that, as Khomiakov expressed so well, “The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day.”
I absolutely hate flooding a discussion with a plethora of quotes but in this case it may be justified.

No doubt you will be able to take them one by one and show why the plain meaning of these papal statements are not plain at all and that they are really in full agreement with your own view 🙂

Popes through the centuries have vigorously defended the doctrine that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Here is a small reference to their teachings on the matter:

**Pope Innocent III ** (A.D. 1198 - 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

**Pope Leo XII ** (A.D. 1823 - 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)
 
**Pope Gregory XVI ** (A.D. 1831 - 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

**Pope Pius IX ** (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

**Pope Leo XIII ** (A.D. 1878 - 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)

**Pope Saint Pius X ** (A.D. 1903 - 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

**Pope Benedict XV ** (A.D. 1914 - 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

**Pope Pius XI ** (A.D. 1922 - 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. …Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

**Pope Pius XII ** (A.D. 1939 - 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

Then, as though to set this constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes “in concrete,” so to speak, we have the following definitions from the Popes in union with the Magisterium of the Church which are (or were!) considered to meet the criteria of infallibility:

**Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV ** (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

**Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam ** (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

**Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence ** (A.D. 1438 - 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
 
Dear Father,

You really did not have to bother with all those quotes. All you needed to do to prove your point is to respond to the “theological ramifications” portion of my post. Care to give it a try?

God bless,

Greg
 
40.png
GAssisi:
You really did not have to bother with all those quotes. All you needed to do to prove your point is to respond to the “theological ramifications” portion of my post. Care to give it a try?
I don’t think so. If you are being coached by the Holy Spirit, then all of us need to stand back and reassess how we interact with you.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Popes through the centuries have vigorously defended the doctrine that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Here is a small reference to their teachings on the matter:

**Pope Innocent III **(A.D. 1198 - 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

**Pope Leo XII **(A.D. 1823 - 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)
The Catechism quotes I gave you earlier, don’t contradict these statements. “outside” is clarifified. Culpability of being outside, requires knowledge on the part of the individual. Outside, is not a wooden literal meaning. That was an idea condemned by the Church. If one is not truly ignorant of this subject, then there is fault.

As St Paul said, discenters who bring factions and divisions in the Church, are acting out on their sinful nature and will not inherit the kingdom of God. [Gal 5:19…] Another way perhaps of saying, outside the Church there is no salvation?

Your faith has been reported all over the world. I want to impart to you a spiritual gift to make you strong, and that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. [Rm 1:8: 11-12] Watch out for those who cause division. Keep away from them. Such people aren’t serving Our Lord but their own appetites and are putting obstacles in front of you that is contrary to what you have been taught… They deceive the minds of the naive. But everyone has heard about your faith, and*** God will soon crush Satan under your feet.*** [Rm 16: 17…].

And we pray, do not delay any longer.
 
40.png
Orthodoc:
[2. The crusades were to counteract Islam and retake the holy lands. What part of that did the Orthodox participate in?.]

We Orthodox were too busy trying to stay alive and protecting the few relics we had left that weren’t either stolen & carted back to Rome or destroyed forever.
If you’re referring to the 4th crusade, The pope apologised for the sacking of Constantinople, even though the papacy had nothing to do with how the crusaders acted then. But it would be good for you to read the history just the same. Constantinople wasn’t completely innocent.
40.png
Orthodoc:
[Who were the Turks after?]

It becomes obvious if you reread what I posted and you just quoted. The Poles were worried about the Turkish Ottoman
Empire invading Poland.
Take a look at the map circa the time we’re talking about. The Poles are Catholic you know. What happened to all these Catholics when the boundries changed?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Now what exactly is “Orthodox land” here? Or was it that Catholic and Orthodox were together in the same region, and Rome naturally supported the Catholics and since the Orthodox aren’t one Church, no ONE came to your support when the biscuits hit the fan. Why didn’t the other Orthodox churches elsewhere help you?
40.png
Orthodoc:
[1. Why should Catholics support seperatists? }

The question is why should they persecute them and make their religion illegal in their own land? And then offer them an imitation form of their beloved faith. To an Orthodox that’s like trading a diamond for a rhinstone!
Thanks for the complement and the poke in the eye. Anyway, ask yourself how this map got changed to what we see today. Map makers have been very busy over the millenias. It’s called aggression. Now, who is it again that did what to who?
40.png
Orthodoc:
[2, The “Church” didn’t take over Orthodox lands.]

So what is now Ukraine was never an Orthodox country? What source of history do you have to back up that ridiculous claim? Read the history of ‘The Baptism of Rus’.
look at the map for your answer.
40.png
Orthodoc:
[Josaphat was an Orthodox bishop who wanted reunion with the pope. The Orthodox bishop who led the opposition revolt against unity with the Catholic Church, also took part in the martyrdom of Bp Josaphat. He however, converted to Catholicism after the revolt and the death of Josaphat. He was hated by seperatists who wanted to stay seperate.]

So you base your whole rewrite of history on a conversion of another bishop to Roman Catholicism after Kuntsevich was slain? What kind of proof is that?

Orthodoc
When the Orthodox Bp who leads the revolt against union with the pope, and Josaphat, and wins, then becomes Catholic after he wins, that’s not a rewrite of history, that’s fact, and It’s proof for the point I made.
 
After receiving absolution, the Crusaders attacked. Constantinople fell after three days of the final, furious attack by land and by sea. Once inside the walls, the Crusaders began an orgy of carnage, brutality and vandalism not seen in Europe since the barbarians invaded seven centuries earlier. No one was spared: not bishop, priest, nun, man, woman or child. Few women escaped being violated, whether at home, in the street, or in the convent. Fires were started throughout the city. The butchery ended only when the Crusaders were so tired that they no longer could lift their swords. Then began looting and profanation on a scale unparalleled in history. A mob rushed into Santa Sophia. With the Image of the Pantacrator looking down upon them from the great dome, they broke up the altar for its gold content, smashed the icons, threw the Holy Gifts to the floor, seized the church vessels for their Jewels, and tore mosaics and tapestries from the walls. Horses and mules were brought into the church the better to carry off the sacred vessels, gold, silver, and whatever else they could gather. Drunken soldiers drank from chalices and ate from patens while riding asses draped with priestly vestments. A mocking prostitute was placed on the Patriarch’s chair to dance and sing obscene songs. This pattern of pilferage and desecration was repeated in churches, monasteries and palaces throughout the city. The tombs of the emperors were rifled, and all of the classical statues and monuments which had survived from ancient Greece and imperial Rome were destroyed. One writer wrote that never in history had so much beauty, so much superb craftsmanship been so wantonly destroyed in so short a space of time. What was not carried off was burned, smashed, melted down for its precious metal content, or stripped for its jewels.

After the killing, after the city had been subdued, there began a slow and steady removal of treasures out of the Orthodox temples and into the cathedrals, churches, monasteries, convents, cities and towns of Latin Europe. Some of these items had been venerated, cherished, and protected for centuries, others for a millennium. Now they were being carted away from over a hundred and fifty churches: altars, altar screens, tabernacles, antimins, icons, icon frames, processional, pectoral and altar crosses, gold and silver chains, panagias, mitres, croziers, chalices, patens, star covers and spears, Gospels, Epistle books, ladles, church plate, censers, votive lights, relics, candelabra, epitaphia, fans, reliquaries, vestments, banners, manuscripts, miniatures, ivories, carvings, mosaics, thrones, tapestries, furniture and architectural items. Cartloads of gold and silver from Santa Sophia found their way into the Vatican treasury. Constantinople had become the gold mine which supplied Latin Christendom.

The wealth was so great that the looting continued for sixty years. A century earlier, after the First Crusade, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Edessa were similarly stripped for a period of forty years. Now it was happening to the imperial city. A scandalous traffic in relics was started. The head of St. John the Baptist was carried off to Amiens. Amalfi, Italy took the head of St. Andrew the First-Called from the Church of the Holy Apostles, along with a set of heavy bronze doors. The bishop of Soissons shipped home the head of St. Stephen and a relic of St. John. The remains of St. Clement, pillaged from the Church of St. Theodosia, were taken to Cluny. St. Albans received the relics of St. Marina. Halbstadt claimed the relics of St. James. The True Cross was divided up among the barons, with a portion sent to the pope, and another fragment taken to Paris. A priceless gold and enamel reliquary encrusted with jewels, containing a fragment of the Wood wound up in a nunnery in Steuben. King Louis IX of France paid 10,000 silver marks for the “true” Crown of Thorns, for which he built St. Chapells in Paris. Gone was the maphorion of the Theotokos, as was her zone and the wonder-working icon. Gone or destroyed—the relics of St. Luke and St. Timothy; no trace of the relics of St. John Chrysostom. An altar cloth with the relic of St. Paul was missing. Nothing is known of the stone seat of St. Mark.

Orthodoc
 
Post #374:

[If you’re referring to the 4th crusade, The pope apologised for the sacking of Constantinople, even though the papacy had nothing to do with how the crusaders acted then. But it would be good for you to read the history just the same. Constantinople wasn’t completely innocent.]

Before attacking the city a Mass was said outside the gates and the Crusaders received absolution. After the Crusaders took over the city the Pope set up a Latin Patriachate. The Pope accepted all the loot that was taken back to Rome during the next 60 some years while the Latin Patriarch sat on the throne -
stmichael.org/ConSack.shtml

Excerpts:

After receiving absolution, the Crusaders attacked. Constantinople fell after three days of the final, furious attack by land and by sea. Once inside the walls, the Crusaders began an orgy of carnage, brutality and vandalism not seen in Europe since the barbarians invaded seven centuries earlier. No one was spared: not bishop, priest, nun, man, woman or child. Few women escaped being violated, whether at home, in the street, or in the convent. Fires were started throughout the city. The butchery ended only when the Crusaders were so tired that they no longer could lift their swords. Then began looting and profanation on a scale unparalleled in history. A mob rushed into Santa Sophia. With the Image of the Pantacrator looking down upon them from the great dome, they broke up the altar for its gold content, smashed the icons, threw the Holy Gifts to the floor, seized the church vessels for their Jewels, and tore mosaics and tapestries from the walls. Horses and mules were brought into the church the better to carry off the sacred vessels, gold, silver, and whatever else they could gather. Drunken soldiers drank from chalices and ate from patens while riding asses draped with priestly vestments. A mocking prostitute was placed on the Patriarch’s chair to dance and sing obscene songs. This pattern of pilferage and desecration was repeated in churches, monasteries and palaces throughout the city. The tombs of the emperors were rifled, and all of the classical statues and monuments which had survived from ancient Greece and imperial Rome were destroyed. One writer wrote that never in history had so much beauty, so much superb craftsmanship been so wantonly destroyed in so short a space of time. What was not carried off was burned, smashed, melted down for its precious metal content, or stripped for its jewels. After the killing, after the city had been subdued, there began a slow and steady removal of treasures out of the Orthodox temples and into the cathedrals, churches, monasteries, convents, cities and towns of Latin Europe. Some of these items had been venerated, cherished, and protected for centuries, others for a millennium. Now they were being carted away from over a hundred and fifty churches: altars, altar screens, tabernacles, antimins, icons, icon frames, processional, pectoral and altar crosses, gold and silver chains, panagias, mitres, croziers, chalices, patens, star covers and spears, Gospels, Epistle books, ladles, church plate, censers, votive lights, relics, candelabra, epitaphia, fans, reliquaries, vestments, banners, manuscripts, miniatures, ivories, carvings, mosaics, thrones, tapestries, furniture and architectural items. Cartloads of gold and silver from Santa Sophia found their way into the Vatican treasury. Constantinople had become the gold mine which supplied Latin Christendom. The wealth was so great that the looting continued for sixty years. A century earlier, after the First Crusade, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Edessa were similarly stripped for a period of forty years. Now it was happening to the imperial city. A scandalous traffic in relics was started. The head of St. John the Baptist was carried off to Amiens. Amalfi, Italy took the head of St. Andrew the First-Called from the Church of the Holy Apostles, along with a set of heavy bronze doors. The bishop of Soissons shipped home the head of St. Stephen and a relic of St. John. The remains of St. Clement, pillaged from the Church of St. Theodosia, were taken to Cluny. St. Albans received the relics of St. Marina. Halbstadt claimed the relics of St. James. The True Cross was divided up among the barons, with a portion sent to the pope, and another fragment taken to Paris. A priceless gold and enamel reliquary encrusted with jewels, containing a fragment of the Wood wound up in a nunnery in Steuben. King Louis IX of France paid 10,000 silver marks for the “true” Crown of Thorns, for which he built St. Chapells in Paris. Gone was the maphorion of the Theotokos, as was her zone and the wonder-working icon.

End Part One
 
Part Two:

[Take a look at the map circa the time we’re talking about. The Poles are Catholic you know. What happened to all these Catholics when the boundries changed?]

I don’t understand your response at all. You take a look at the map. The Ottoman Empire was practically at the doorstep of the Polish Lithuanian Union. The Ottoman Empire is bordered in Green. See how close it comes to Cracow?

[Now what exactly is “Orthodox land” here?]

Look where it lists Livov and Kiev which had been Orthodox since 988 until their Orthodoxy was taken by force. However, this was only temporary since they took it back as soon as they were once again free.

[Or was it that Catholic and Orthodox were together in the same region, and Rome naturally supported the Catholics and since the Orthodox aren’t one Church, no ONE came to your support when the biscuits hit the fan. Why didn’t the other Orthodox churches elsewhere help you?]

Your comments show a poor knowledge of history my friend. The other Orthodox were under Ottoman Rule and could do nothing. What the map does show is how at the time Holy Orthodoxy was being attacked on two fronts. The Moselms from the South and the Roman Catholics from the West.

[look at the map for your answer.]

I did and what I see is contained in my last answer.

[When the Orthodox Bp who leads the revolt against union with the pope, and Josaphat, and wins, then becomes Catholic after he wins, that’s not a rewrite of history, that’s fact, and It’s proof for the point I made.]

I already address this issue when I quoted from a Ukrainian Catholic Theologian. Read the comments on this Bishop you speak of in the quotes from Dr Alex Roman. Especially the part where the UGC wanted him beatified and the Pope refused.

Orthodoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top