James bishop of Jerusalem

[Apolonio]

I do not follow this line of reasoning. All the great heresies and those who founded them were adjudicated by Ecumenical Councils held in the Eastern Church. To my knowledge none of them appealed to Rome. The most grave problems of faith were judged in the East.

Even in this thread we can see that the first hiccup in the Church was appealed, not to Peter and to Rome, but to James and to Jerusalem.

Response:
I wasn’t talking about any Ecumenical Council. I was talking about Eastern Patriarchs asking for Rome for judgment on matters of doctrine and even disciplines. No scholar denies this. One Eastern Orthodox’s interpretation is that the Eastern Patriarch needed an “equal authority” to appeal to. The problem is that Rome never asked the East for doctrinal judgments. So again, when the East saw “primacy” in Rome, they simply did not see a primacy of honor. The interpretation that they simply had primacy of honor without jurisdiction is a theological novum.

Second, I don’t agree with you that they appealed to James and Jerusalem. They appealed to the Church as a collective subject. But I know of no scholar who denies that Peter was the leader of the Church in the first century. Some Eastern Orthodox believe he had primacy of honor, but again, that is very unlikely.

Nicholas Koulomzine actually has some good things to say. I do have disagreements, but it’s good. Even he says that Peter had primacy within the twelve. And I would say that’s true. It’s actually similar to the priesthood of the Sadducees in the first century.

 

[Thal59]

Apart from the dislike felt in Rome that the Holy Places were under the control of non-Christians, there was no great need for the Crusades…<<

Fr.Ambrose

I had intended to argue with your “replies” at length, but it would be a terrible waste of time. I have no inclination towards being your history teacher. The bulk of your reply is not only historically inaccurate, but your conclusions are totally absurd being based as they are, not on fact, but on Eastern Orthodox revisionist history. The opening comment I have left intact will suffice.

When Islam first “conquered” Christian holy sites, it was the Byzantines who intervened to protect them. Less than 40 years later Jerusalem was under Islamic rule again. The notion that the Christians reached a state of contentment with their Islamic captors is sheer nonsense. Many Christians were butchered under the Islamic invasions and many Christian women and children were sold into slavery. Event the Byzantines in 1027 saw the necessity to intervene, but like much of what the Eastern Orthodox do, their effect lasted less than a generation. Islam threatened North Africa, Visigothic Spain, and the eastern possessions of the Byzantium. The Crusades may have gained their “noble” character under the guise of liberating the Christian holy sites, but the main purpose was to fight the invading Muslims who converted Jews and Christians by the sword, or slew them.

It was the Roman Catholic Church, under Pope Urban II who raised the Crusaders from among the Franks, Normans, Saxons, Gauls, Romans, etc., to regain the Holy land and liberate the Byzantine Christians.

It was Byzantine Emperor Alexius who had begged Rome for help. The Byzantine army was no match for the Seljuk Turks. But the Seljuks had been beaten by the Normans when they were evicted from southern Italy.

While the western crusaders fought the Muslim, the Byzantines sat back making no other contribution other than making quick claims to property that was liberated by the western crusaders! While great monastic orders (the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitallers, etc.) arose to defend the holy land and Byzantium, the Byzantines, perpetually in need of Rome, but never trusting her, became an ineffective footnote to the history of that time.

What memorable pattern emerged out of the Eastern Orthodox Church over the next several centuries?

St. Sophia Basilica converted to Küçük Ayasofya camii mosque.

Monastery of the Pantocrator consisting of the Church of Christ Pantocrator (the Almighty ) and the Church of Panagia Eleousa (the Merciful) converted to **Mollazeyrek camii mosque. **

The Church of Saint Saviour Pantepopte(All-seeing Saviour), converted to Eski Imaret Camii mosque.

The Theotokos Pammacaristos Church(BlissfulVirginChurch), converted to Fethiye camii mosque.

St Theodosia Church converted to** Gül camii mosque.**

St Theodoroi Church converted to Vefa Kilise Camii mosque.

The Church of Theotokos Kyriostissa converted to Kalenderhane camii mosque, etc, etc, etc.

I am sorry to break this to you, Fr. Ambrose, but it is the east that owes much to the west, not the other way around. If it were not for the west, there would be no Christianity at all in the east.

Again, this is just the beginning of what I had intended to offer to you, but it would be a waste of time. I have nothing against you personally, but I do get frustrated having to lay out history to Orthodox and Protestants who have revised it into fantasy.

Thal59