S
SteveVH
Guest
Immaculate reception.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
K
Kliska
Guest
Hahaha!Immaculate reception.
And he can’t touch the Church on Earth. Christ said so.Hey brother hope you are doing well. :thumbsup:I’m doing OK.
Jon
S
steve_b
Guest
Those who returned did so on their own free will and knew WHY they returned.
g:
didn’t you read the link from Bp John the Melkite bishop that I gave you?
g:
Here’s something for your data base, so that you do NOT bring up that incident again like you did. Teach your friends the whole story. Don’t just put this information in your data base for later reading. Read it NOW and teach your non Catholic friends the rest of the story
- JPII asked forgiveness for the sacking of Constantinople. He didn’t really have to do that. The issue was already settled. But he did in good gesture wwrn.org/articles/14825/?&place=greece-cyp-malta & the apology was accepted by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935 And since the pope can speak for ALL Catholics, that’s a powerful apology.
- Now for some context. What about the slaughter of 50,000 Catholics in 1182, which was only 22 years earlier in Constantinople by the Orthodox archive.is/81CV Read that link.
- Re: 1204, The Crusaders didn’t just sack Constantinople for no reason. Alexius requested them, promising to pay them, to restore him to power as emperor. After all, why waste a good army at your doorstep when you can use them. And the crusaders restored him to power. But Alexius didn’t pay them.
sheesh! So the army took their payment by sacking Constantinople. 2000 people were killed in that episode vs 22 years earlier in Constantinople, where 50,000 Latins were slaughtered and their children sold into slavery to the muslims by the Orthodox. You didn’t know this. I know you didn’t know this or you wouldn’t have brought up the incident of 1204 the way you did. . - So WHERE is the apology from the ORTHODOX for 1182? The patriarch was standing right there with JPII. Where is Christodoulos apology to correspond with JPII’s apology? If you have a link showing his apology please quote it. Just as JPII made the apology so could Christodoulos or Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople could make the same gesture in return.
Looking at this objectively,- that intrigue in Constantinople 1204, happened because Alexius struck a quid pro quo deal with the crusaders. The Crusaders restore him to emperor, and he pays them an agreed sum of money. The crusaders did their job and Alexius didn’t pay them. So the crusaders took their pay out on the city.
- One could surmise, without Alexius, the Crusaders would have bypassed the city and gone on to Jerusalem.
makes interesting points about these events
“As regards my own communion, I must reluctantly report that there are some Eastern Christians who have become incapable of defining what it is to be Orthodox except in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism; … For such as these,there can never be any limit set to the number of grievances that need to be cited against Rome, nor any act of contrition on the part of Rome sufficient for absolution. There was something inherently strange in the spectacle of John Paul asking pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople and its sequel; but there is something inherently unseemly in the refusal of certain Eastern polemicists to allow the episode to sink back to the level of utter irrelevancy to which it belongs. (In any event, I eagerly await the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a gesture of unqualified Christian contrition, makes public penance for the brutal mass slaughter of the metic Latin Christians of Byzantium - men, women and children - at the rise of Andronicus I Comnenus in 1182, and the sale of thousands of them into slavery to the Turks. Frankly, when all is said and done, the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that particular abomination, I would think).”
For full context clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html
Now that you know the rest of the story, feel free to pass this on to all your non Catholic friends.
S
spina1953
Guest
Those who returned did so on their own free will and knew WHY they returned.
didn’t you read the link from Bp John the Melkite bishop that I gave you?
Here’s something for your data base, so that you do NOT bring up that incident again like you did. Teach your friends the whole story. Don’t just put this information in your data base for later reading. Read it NOW and teach your non Catholic friends the rest of the story
btw, when news of that 1204 episode reached the pope, pope Innocent excommunicated all the crusaders.
- JPII asked forgiveness for the sacking of Constantinople. He didn’t really have to do that. The issue was already settled. But he did in good gesture wwrn.org/articles/14825/?&place=greece-cyp-malta & the apology was accepted by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935 And since the pope can speak for ALL Catholics, that’s a powerful apology.
- Now for some context. What about the slaughter of 50,000 Catholics in 1182, which was only 22 years earlier in Constantinople by the Orthodox archive.is/81CV Read that link.
- Re: 1204, The Crusaders didn’t just sack Constantinople for no reason. Alexius requested them, promising to pay them, to restore him to power as emperor. After all, why waste a good army at your doorstep when you can use them. And the crusaders restored him to power. But Alexius didn’t pay them.
- So WHERE is the apology from the ORTHODOX for 1182? The patriarch was standing right there with JPII. Where is Christodoulos apology to correspond with JPII’s apology? If you have a link showing his apology please quote it. Just as JPII made the apology so could Christodoulos or Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople could make the same gesture in return.
Looking at this objectively,Orthodox Theologian David Bentley Hart “the myth of schism”
- that intrigue in Constantinople 1204, happened because Alexius struck a quid pro quo deal with the crusaders. The Crusaders restore him to emperor, and he pays them an agreed sum of money. The crusaders did their job and Alexius didn’t pay them. So the crusaders took their pay out on the city.
- One could surmise, without Alexius, the Crusaders would have bypassed the city and gone on to Jerusalem.
makes interesting points about these events
“As regards my own communion, I must reluctantly report that there are some Eastern Christians who have become incapable of defining what it is to be Orthodox except in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism; … For such as these,there can never be any limit set to the number of grievances that need to be cited against Rome, nor any act of contrition on the part of Rome sufficient for absolution. There was something inherently strange in the spectacle of John Paul asking pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople and its sequel; but there is something inherently unseemly in the refusal of certain Eastern polemicists to allow the episode to sink back to the level of utter irrelevancy to which it belongs. (In any event, I eagerly await the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a gesture of unqualified Christian contrition, makes public penance for the brutal mass slaughter of the metic Latin Christians of Byzantium - men, women and children - at the rise of Andronicus I Comnenus in 1182, and the sale of thousands of them into slavery to the Turks. Frankly, when all is said and done, the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that particular abomination, I would think).”
For full context clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html
Now that you know the rest of the story, feel free to pass this on to all your non Catholic friends.
Hi Steve B: Vey well said!
G
guanophore
Guest
Or the journalists really need better catechism!
You know, this does answer a lot of questions about HH having such a distorted view of the faith. Perhaps he is getting his ideas from the newspaper!
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, a choice between bad and worse is still a choice.
*]JPII asked forgiveness for the sacking of Constantinople. He didn’t really have to do that. The issue was already settled. But he did in good gesture
Yes. Our shepherds are going above and beyond to foster reconciliation. It does go a long way to heal the wounds to unity.
steve b;12420344:
I was wondering if you would mention this, since your approach seems to be that the status of the Ecumenical Patriarch does not, inactuality exist, or has no validity. I disagree, of course, with that point of view, and I think his participation in this outstanding reconciliatory act of JPII has great power in it’s effects. That being said, there are some EO who are not so accepting/forgiving. I have met them here on CAF.
Nothing could be better.
Yes, let us pray that the EO will follow the lead of the Vicar of Christ on this issue, as well as all the others that separate us.
I am delighted you are studying this, Steve. I am satisfied that I can now stop yanking your chain about it.
G
guanophore
Guest
Outstanding, really.
And, I must note, not any of that triumphalism - just the facts.
S
steve_b
Guest
What kind of remark is that? You’re saying the Orthodox who reunited with the CC made a bad vs worse decision?Yes, a choice between bad and worse is still a choice.
g:
Enough with the accusations.
I said NOTHING up to now about the EP. No reson to bring him up. And probably would have said nothing about him if you hadn’t brought up Constantinople 1204, in the way you did with all the non Catholic polemic to go with it.
as an aside
Card Kasper in 2002 was then the head of ecumenical dialogue for the CC and the EO. He said then
“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
http://www.zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
That says alot.
g:
finally we can agree
G
guanophore
Guest
Some of them did, yes. It was more tolerable to be overrun by Rome than by the Muslims. They had less to lose, but lose they did.
I think it will actually improve the re-unification process. The conditions are also much better for the EO, because the West can now better understand and appreciate the cultural, linguistic, and liturgical differences.
Good work Steve b! It was a lovely spar.
J
joe371
Guest
And he can’t touch the Church on Earth. Christ said so.
Jon
S
steve_b
Guest
Who did Rome overrun? Name them
g:
Once a majority of the East was conquored by Islam, education was very difficult for easterners to acquire, even about their own faith… #131 you need to read that internal link I posted intratext.com/x/eng0804.htmI think it will actually improve the re-unification process. The conditions are also much better for the EO, because the West can now better understand and appreciate the cultural, linguistic, and liturgical differences.
Education as Bp Ware wrote in his book, suffered as a result of Muslim rule over Orthodoxy.
“Greeks who wished for a higher education were obliged to travel to the non-Orthodox world, to Italy and Germany, to Paris, and even as far as Oxford. Among the distinguished Greek theologians of the Turkish period, a few were self-taught, but the overwhelming majority had been trained in the west under Roman Catholic or Protestant masters. Inevitably this had an effect upon the way in which they interpreted Orthodox theology. Certainly Greek students in the west read the Fathers, but they only became acquainted with such of the Fathers as were held in esteem by their non-Orthodox professors.”
Be sure and read the following sections
The Church under Islam
When I posted earlier, the EP authority is questionable among the ROC, the following doesn’t help
“The millet system performed one invaluable service: it made possible the survival of the
Greek nation as a distinctive unit through four centuries of alien rule. But on the life of the Church it had two melancholy effects. It led first to a sad confusion between Orthodoxy and nationalism. With their civil and political life organized completely around the Church, it became all but impossible for the Greeks to distinguish between Church and nation. The Orthodox faith, being universal, is limited to no single people, culture, or language; but to the Greeks of the Turkish Empire .Hellenism. and Orthodoxy became inextricably intertwined, far more so than they had ever been in the Byzantine Empire. The effects of this confusion continue to the present day. In the second place, the Church.s higher administration became caught up in a degrading system of corruption and simony. Involved as they were in worldly affairs and matters political, the bishops fell a prey to ambition and financial greed. Each new Patriarch required a berat from the Sultan before he could assume office, and for this document he was obliged to pay heavily. The Patriarch recovered his expenses from the episcopate, by exacting a fee from each bishop before instituting him in his diocese; the bishops in turn taxed the parish clergy, and the clergy taxed their flocks. What was once said of the Papacy was certainly true of the Ecumenical Patriarchate under the Turks: everything was for sale. When there were several candidates for the Patriarchal throne, the Turks virtually sold it to the highest bidder; and they were quick to see that it was in their financial interests to change the Patriarch as frequently as possible, so as to multiply occasions for selling the berat. Patriarchs were removed and reinstated with kaleidoscopic rapidity. .Out of 159 Patriarchs who have held office between the fifteenth and the twentieth century, the Turks have on 105 occasions driven Patriarchs from their throne; there have been 27 abdications, often involuntary; 6 Patriarchs have suffered violent deaths by hanging, poisoning, or drowning; and only 21 have died natural deaths while in office.”
So tell me again why being under the Sultan is better than being under the pope?
g:
Personally, I prefer to converse not spar.
T
Tomster
Guest
Those who returned did so on their own free will and knew WHY they returned.
didn’t you read the link from Bp John the Melkite bishop that I gave you?
Here’s something for your data base, so that you do NOT bring up that incident again like you did. Teach your friends the whole story. Don’t just put this information in your data base for later reading. Read it NOW and teach your non Catholic friends the rest of the story
btw, when news of that 1204 episode reached the pope, pope Innocent excommunicated all the crusaders.
- JPII asked forgiveness for the sacking of Constantinople. He didn’t really have to do that. The issue was already settled. But he did in good gesture wwrn.org/articles/14825/?&place=greece-cyp-malta & the apology was accepted by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935 And since the pope can speak for ALL Catholics, that’s a powerful apology.
- Now for some context. What about the slaughter of 50,000 Catholics in 1182, which was only 22 years earlier in Constantinople by the Orthodox archive.is/81CV Read that link.
- Re: 1204, The Crusaders didn’t just sack Constantinople for no reason. Alexius requested them, promising to pay them, to restore him to power as emperor. After all, why waste a good army at your doorstep when you can use them. And the crusaders restored him to power. But Alexius didn’t pay them.
- So WHERE is the apology from the ORTHODOX for 1182? The patriarch was standing right there with JPII. Where is Christodoulos apology to correspond with JPII’s apology? If you have a link showing his apology please quote it. Just as JPII made the apology so could Christodoulos or Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople could make the same gesture in return.
Looking at this objectively,Orthodox Theologian David Bentley Hart “the myth of schism”
- that intrigue in Constantinople 1204, happened because Alexius struck a quid pro quo deal with the crusaders. The Crusaders restore him to emperor, and he pays them an agreed sum of money. The crusaders did their job and Alexius didn’t pay them. So the crusaders took their pay out on the city.
- One could surmise, without Alexius, the Crusaders would have bypassed the city and gone on to Jerusalem.
makes interesting points about these events
“As regards my own communion, I must reluctantly report that there are some Eastern Christians who have become incapable of defining what it is to be Orthodox except in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism; … For such as these,there can never be any limit set to the number of grievances that need to be cited against Rome, nor any act of contrition on the part of Rome sufficient for absolution. There was something inherently strange in the spectacle of John Paul asking pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople and its sequel; but there is something inherently unseemly in the refusal of certain Eastern polemicists to allow the episode to sink back to the level of utter irrelevancy to which it belongs. (In any event, I eagerly await the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a gesture of unqualified Christian contrition, makes public penance for the brutal mass slaughter of the metic Latin Christians of Byzantium - men, women and children - at the rise of Andronicus I Comnenus in 1182, and the sale of thousands of them into slavery to the Turks. Frankly, when all is said and done, the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that particular abomination, I would think).”
For full context clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html
Now that you know the rest of the story, feel free to pass this on to all your non Catholic friends.
Hubba, hubba and a double yowser! steve b has got his back up!
Nice job steve-a-reeno.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Gaunophore: I have to agree with you, just the facts, just the facts as Joe the cop used to say on Dragnet.
- Status