H
Hesychios
Guest
And the Orthodox church is the catholic church after the split.
The Orthodox Catholics (which is how we regard ourselves) is the Varsity team of Catholicism.
- Status
The Orthodox Catholics (which is how we regard ourselves) is the Varsity team of Catholicism.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
“Catholic” and “orthodox” have meanings outside of the title of the Churches being discussed. Those titles came from the secular meanings of the words. “Catholic” means universal. “Orthodox” means doctrinally correct. The Catholic Church came to be called The Catholic Church precisely because she is universal and is the repository of correct Christian doctrine. The Orthodox Church did not exist until after the 11th (or 13th) Century split. The Orthodox SAY it did, but you will not find any reference to an “Orthodox Church” capitol “O” in early Church history. Consequently, all Christians were Catholics until the split.Right. In that era, it’s absolutely a throw-away word. There were no Christians at all not considered “catholic” or “orthodox”, at least not yet, and until the 11th/9th/13th/15th century, depending on who you ask, there were no non-Nicean Christians not considered both catholic and orthodox.
The split had as much or more to do with language, culture and pride as it did with doctrine. That aside, there is a common sense element to this. The absence of an “Orthodox Church” for many centuries after the Apostles is one element. ANother is the facts of the Nestorian heresy. Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople when he taught his heresy. I.e., he was a Catholic bishop. When he tried to separate the two natures of Christ, he was opposed primarily by Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Both appealed to Pope Celestine for adjudication. The council had already been called, but Cyril would no budge from Alexandria until he heard from the Pope. The Pope ignored Nesorius and wrote to Cyril authorizing him to speak in the Pope’s name and to tell Nestorius to either disown his heresy or be anathematized. It is clear, a that time, the primacy of the pope was not in dispute.
On the matter on infallibility, it’s not about obeying every word the pope says. The doctrine of infallibility is stated in the negative – that the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit acting through the pope and the Magesterium… The Orthodox have no guarantee they are protected from error. They say their councils are infallible, but they haven’t held one for centuries. If you can believe the Lord would leave His Church with no guarantee she is teaching the truth, then you can listen to Orthodox claims.
Finally, Mt. 16:19 either means what it says, or we can toss the entire Bible.
Peace. I hope you resolve this matter. I will pay for you and your family.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Nice try, but I think the Catholic Church was, still is and will be for all time, The Catholic Church. You can’t just pop up ten or twelve centuries after the Resurrection and declare yourselves the varsity team. Not when the varsity has been on the field from Day One.And the Orthodox church is the catholic church after the split.
The Orthodox Catholics (which is how we regard ourselves) is the Varsity team of Catholicism.
S
steve_b
Guest
There ARE [O]rthodox who are in union with the pope. These are Catholics. Those who are NOT are not Catholic, and one might say as an extension, not fully [o]rthodox either.
Why else would Irenaeus state, all churches everywhere must agree with Rome? Those who don’t, what did he say?
H
Hesychios
Guest
There are no Orthodox in communion with Rome.
S
steve_b
Guest
EO in union with the pope are Catholics. EO not in union with the pope are NOT Catholics. It’s not okay to blurr terms.And the Orthodox church is the catholic church after the split.
The Orthodox Catholics (which is how we regard ourselves) is the Varsity team of Catholicism.
M
Martin_Davis
Guest
As a convert to Catholicism - my route to the Roman Catholic Church came from an Evangelical direction, then THROUGH the Eastern Orthodox Church (OCA)
IMHO - the division between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is more about social and/or ethnic custom than it is a matter of deep division over doctrines.
The Russian Orthodox Church specifically, seems to be much more divisive toward the west than the Greek, Antiochian, or other branches of Orthodoxy. The OCA parish that I belonged to had a large population of Russian members that started attending because their children couldn’t follow the liturgy in Russian - and our parish used English. The Russian parishes seemed reluctant to even use English in America - let alone investigate the divisions over doctrine that appeared to be minimal!!!
When I first became Orthodox, I did so because I had prejudices against Catholicism that stemmed from my Evangelical background. When I began to investigate the teachings of the Catholic church directly from the Catechism - I found them to be extremely close to the Orthodox. For example, there is a division over the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary - Orthodox claim that this is a false teaching, a teaching that attributes divinity to Mary. However, when you read Orthodox prayers and various verses used as Kontakions - there is constant exaltation of Mary as “Most Pure,” as the Theotokos, the mother of God. They acknowledge everywhere that she is to be called the most pure, the immaculate mother - yet they don’t FORMALLY have a doctrine about it. To me, it is merely splitting hairs. If the Virgin Mary is “Most Pure” - is this not proclaiming her to be “without sin” ?
Other issues, including the “filoque” - which relates to the addition of the words “from the Father and The Son” - in the Nicene Creed, with regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit. This again seems to be merely a matter of idiom. The Orthodox charge that the filoque imposes a hierarchy to the nature of God - but Catholic teaching affirms the equality and unity of the triune nature of God. The Trinity is affirmed by both the Orthodox and Catholic teachings.
I embraced Catholicism because it embraced all that I loved about the theology of the original ONE church - and delivered in a more positive way than the Orthodox. The Orthodox Liturgy is beautiful but long and somber - despite the proclamations of joy - most Russian Orthodox seem to be reluctant to participate in receiving the Eucharist. The Catholic Mass is my experience is much more celebratory in its reverence. The Orthodox Liturgy, while beautiful emphasizes the distance between man and God and often lasts for many hours which, quite frankly, is impractical and physically draining - I leave Mass refreshed - I used to leave the Divine Liturgy feeling exhausted!!!
I don’t know if this will help with resolving the issues of an inter-faith marriage - but I hope it goes a little in the direction of encouragement to not give up - the end of the schism won’t come through theology - but through the loving embrace of christians who see the unity behind and beyond the petty divisions.
IMHO - the division between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is more about social and/or ethnic custom than it is a matter of deep division over doctrines.
The Russian Orthodox Church specifically, seems to be much more divisive toward the west than the Greek, Antiochian, or other branches of Orthodoxy. The OCA parish that I belonged to had a large population of Russian members that started attending because their children couldn’t follow the liturgy in Russian - and our parish used English. The Russian parishes seemed reluctant to even use English in America - let alone investigate the divisions over doctrine that appeared to be minimal!!!
When I first became Orthodox, I did so because I had prejudices against Catholicism that stemmed from my Evangelical background. When I began to investigate the teachings of the Catholic church directly from the Catechism - I found them to be extremely close to the Orthodox. For example, there is a division over the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary - Orthodox claim that this is a false teaching, a teaching that attributes divinity to Mary. However, when you read Orthodox prayers and various verses used as Kontakions - there is constant exaltation of Mary as “Most Pure,” as the Theotokos, the mother of God. They acknowledge everywhere that she is to be called the most pure, the immaculate mother - yet they don’t FORMALLY have a doctrine about it. To me, it is merely splitting hairs. If the Virgin Mary is “Most Pure” - is this not proclaiming her to be “without sin” ?
Other issues, including the “filoque” - which relates to the addition of the words “from the Father and The Son” - in the Nicene Creed, with regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit. This again seems to be merely a matter of idiom. The Orthodox charge that the filoque imposes a hierarchy to the nature of God - but Catholic teaching affirms the equality and unity of the triune nature of God. The Trinity is affirmed by both the Orthodox and Catholic teachings.
I embraced Catholicism because it embraced all that I loved about the theology of the original ONE church - and delivered in a more positive way than the Orthodox. The Orthodox Liturgy is beautiful but long and somber - despite the proclamations of joy - most Russian Orthodox seem to be reluctant to participate in receiving the Eucharist. The Catholic Mass is my experience is much more celebratory in its reverence. The Orthodox Liturgy, while beautiful emphasizes the distance between man and God and often lasts for many hours which, quite frankly, is impractical and physically draining - I leave Mass refreshed - I used to leave the Divine Liturgy feeling exhausted!!!
I don’t know if this will help with resolving the issues of an inter-faith marriage - but I hope it goes a little in the direction of encouragement to not give up - the end of the schism won’t come through theology - but through the loving embrace of christians who see the unity behind and beyond the petty divisions.
H
Hesychios
Guest
There are no EO in union with the Pope.
Although there are Roman Catholics who wish they could be Eastern Orthodox, two different things.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
That’s right. Their proper name is Orthodox Catholics. However, in that sense, Orthodox doesn’t man orthodox.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
They ‘popped up’ as The Orthodox Church(es).
The phrase “the various Orthodox Churches” is appropriate for this discussion. The Catholic Church is one in doctrine under the Bishop of Rome. The Orthodox are, as you said, various. The Church’s view has nothing to do with it. The Orthodox have valid ordinations, valid sacraments an are in Apostolic Succession. That doesn’t negate their coming late to the game or the fact they separated from the Catholic Church.
The phrase “the various Orthodox Churches” is appropriate for this discussion. The Catholic Church is one in doctrine under the Bishop of Rome. The Orthodox are, as you said, various. The Church’s view has nothing to do with it. The Orthodox have valid ordinations, valid sacraments an are in Apostolic Succession. That doesn’t negate their coming late to the game or the fact they separated from the Catholic Church.
H
Hesychios
Guest
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
Gosh, by Contarini’s and your post, Hesychios, I see that I put my hand in a hornet’s nest, by even mentioning the name of St. Josaphat.Comparing bishop saint Josaphat to Jesus?
Evidently it is not detailed enough, Josaphat had a fallen nature, Jesus did not. Your posts have been very even-handed and I respect that, but I must say I would not be responding to your post except that you are comparing this man to Jesus.
Bishop Josaphat is remembered as a very violent man, so much so that the Polish/Lithuanian authorities commented on his excesses. In his youth he reported his monastic superior for Orthodox sympathies (and eventually took the job for himself when it was offered to him). Later, in his zeal as a bishop he and his Polish soldiers hunted down the Orthodox with their pikes and swords. He turned them out of their temples, and later when they erected tents in remote places he hunted them down there too. This was just like the Irish situation, but instead of the oppressors being English Protestants turning out Catholics it was Polish Catholics turning out Orthodox.
His canonization by a Pope (not by his own Eastern Catholic church, which does not have the right to canonize it’s own people any longer) was during the ‘cold war’ period of church history when Orthodox were regarded as enemies to be vanquished and even Eastern Catholics were regarded with mistrust as potential schismatics. And it had the opposite effect, instead of strengthening the faith of the local people by canonizing one of their own, it enraged them.
His legacy today? His old diocese of Polotzky today is entirely Orthodox, the people repudiated the Unia as soon as the power of the Polish government dissipated. He is regarded as a national saint among the Polish people, who have many parishes named after him (probably because of the sanitized version of hagiography they have been told), but his own people in Ukraine and Belarus continue to remember him as a butcher. Canonizing him must seem to them like canonizing the priest who tortured Peter the Aleut.
I don’t approve of murder, and I cannot justify the man’s death, it was most unfortunate. But most of us live in a time and place where most disputes of this nature can be handled by law courts (even evictions from houses of worship), most constitutions guarantee religious liberty and police are fairly even handed in their dealings with the public. It is not an age where bishops would personally lead gangs of armed men to evict priests and parishioners, then hunt them down when they worship in tents in the woods.
It is very hard to place ourselves in the setting and understand how such an unfortunate thing could happen. One thing is certain though, it was not the Orthodox church who killed him, and it was not an Orthodox government working with Orthodox priests and bishops which did the deed, it was some anonymous peasant who might have actually finished out his days as a Catholic, since the Orthodox church was suppressed to achieve exactly that purpose.
But my initial purpose was much simpler, it was prompted by posts of The Iambic Pen and JimCBrooklyn, saying that stories and theological considerations by Protestant to Catholic, and Protestant to Orthodox converts have limited value. That observation made me remark that converts who moved from Orthodoxy to Catholicism probably address the issues in this debate much better, because they are typically more familiar with both religions (Orthodox and Catholic), and they are less likely to bring in some Protestant bias. In fact, first I wanted to mention James Likoudis, a contemporary theologian and convert to Catholicism who was born and raised Greek Orthodox, as a good source for adressing the specifically Orthodox-Catholic theological issues. Below are some links to James Likuodis’ work:
credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm
christendom-awake.org/pages/orthodox/likoudis/likoudis.htm
But then, as I started thinking about St. Josaphat Kuncevyc, who was also born and raised EO until he converted as a teenager, and whose body was miraculously preserved by … (I guess you will believe …by God - if you are a Catholic, and …by Satan - if you are an Eastern Orthodox
), after being mutilated, thrown into a river, and being carried by the river for days until it was finally recovered and buried, after my thoughts turned to his miraculous story, and how God (at least according to my beliefs 
) preserved his still, up-to-today incorrupt body as a witness to all of us here in the 21st century, after crowning him with the glorious crown of martyrdom almost 400 years ago, after all these thoughts I mentioned St. Josaphat’s name in this context. That is, in the context of Orthodox to Catholic converts, and with the underlying theme of a direct supernatural intervention from Heaven (of course only if you are Catholic, and believe that the source of this miracle was Heaven 
), endorsing what this convert to Catholicism did in his life and by his martyrdom for the sake of loyalty to St. Peter and his successor the Pope.Anyway, I learned my lesson!
It is not possible to mention the name of St. Josaphat and get away with it, so easily!Prompted by your post, I did some more research on St. Josaphat, and will share in my next post what I found. Things regarding the historical record, whether there’s any substantiated evidence that he was truly a violent butcher, that he shed other people’s blood, or whether that’s all unsubstantiated calumny/slander.
J
josie_L
Guest
Look to Steve B’s post # 106 concerning Ireneaus’s reprimand, moreover, St. Paul rebuked St. Peter without affecting his position as head of the (visible) Church.
p.s. Can you please provide quotes from the fathers which you think contradict or repudiate the primacy as understood by the CC?
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
I always enjoy your failure to post a substantive reply. Isn’t it true if you had a valid argument you’d post it?
I am really starting to enjoy this discussion. You have a great sense of humor!
Keep laughing so we can laugh together.
J
josie_L
Guest
I found this which might interest you:
Here are other articles: freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1924580/posts newadvent.org/cathen/08503b.htm
D
dvdjs
Guest
As Fr Taft says: “Orthodoxy need
But I have to say that I am delighted that Hesychios does not approve of murder (although he does make excuses for it). Most Orthodox polemicists won’t even go that far.
Of course, as usual, we get a polemical, one-sided history filled with errors.
- It was an Orthodox mob acting in the commission of what would now be called a hate crime. The Orthodox bishop was not convicted as a co-conspirator, but his role led to a court censure. He repented of his activities and converted to Catholic church. Indeed it is conceded in most histories - even by Orthodox writers - that the martyrdom of Saint Josaphat has an invigorating effect on the union. At least at that time there was some repentance within the Orthodox church. They knew about their own culpability and were not in denial.
- Orthodox historians tend to quote the same document by one P/L authoritiy criticizing the tactics of Saint Josaphat. (Hesychios talks of more; please document.) Orthodox historians always fail to note that the letter might have been misinformed: St. Josaphat responded with letter countering the charges.
- Contemporary eye-witness testimony was used to document the sanctity of this saint during his canonization process. Much of the Orthodox polemicism against St. Josaphat was from later times. Pikes and swords against people in tents? Show me some documentation. And let’s be clear: he is remembered as a violent man not by history, just by some Orthodox.
- Yes, his region is entirely Orthodox at this time. That shift inevitably follows Russian conquest . Whether czar or commissar, the conquerors liquidate the Greek Catolic churches. Even now, is there real freedom to erect Greek Catholic parishes in Belarus even now?
- There is almost zero evidence to support the story of Peter the Aleut. Indeed contemporaneous sources strongly support the idea that the story cannot be as related by the OCA. So wonderful that the OCA has a right to glorify whomever they want; too bad that as a tiny church it apparently doesn’t have the resources to discern fact from fiction - however pious.
catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=71
orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=216.0;wap2
catholic.by/port/en/holy/
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/vatican_russia.aspx
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1924580/posts
books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=josaphat+kuntsevich&source=bl&ots=PXX0K0meHW&sig=0jv1zeT0JP920liEREKCIYhDRkA&hl=en&ei=thtBTMDaCIWDngeomJmaDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDEQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=josaphat%20kuntsevich&f=false
books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=josaphat+kuntsevich&source=bl&ots=PXX0K0meHW&sig=0jv1zeT0JP920liEREKCIYhDRkA&hl=en&ei=thtBTMDaCIWDngeomJmaDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDEQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=josaphat%20kuntsevich&f=false
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Ridiculous. The Russian Orthodox Church during Soviet times joined the World Council of Churches with the Kremlin’s approval to preach the Soviet peace line on an international stage open to anti-Americanism. You think they would have done this without the Kremlin’s instruction? You should know this.
And the man approached to do that as the Russian Orthodox Church rep to the World Council was one young K.G.B. codename Mikhailov according to the Times Online. This “Mikhailov” is the current Moscow Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church! (Even ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia has complained bitterly about all these old Soviet apparatchiks still running the Russian Orthodox Church in the homeland and never recanting their Soviet past or even accounting for it, Russian Orthodox themselves).
And how has “Holy Orthodoxy” been charitable to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics who were liquidated in 1946 at Stalin’s orders with the assistance of the at-the-time Russian Orthodox Church and forced to become Russian Orthodox at gunpoint. Apparently, the current Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow still sees that K.G.B. pseudo-council which sent my Catholic Church’s hierarchy to the gulags as still correct.
During the Soviet Union, the Cardinal of our Ukrainian Catholic Church in the free West even wrote an open letter to the Russian Patriarch for mutual forgiveness, even though our church was in the underground in Ukraine. Did “Holy Orthodoxy” ever respond in your words in “cordial and very charitable” fashion to this act of Christian humility from a man whose church was suffering? Nothing. nada. zilch. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union. Wow.Even today apparently the Pope wishes to visit the millions of faithful Catholics in Ukraine, but the Russian Orthodox Patriarch apparently is objecting because of the very existence of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Should the Pope visit Ukraine like this, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch would apparently nullify any possible meeting with the Pope. What charity. This is called blackmail.
And I do find charity among many truly Christian Russian Orthodox. Father Gleb Yakunin for one. While the current Moscow Patriarch was living the high-life Soviet style because of his collaboration with the Soviet regime, this poor Russian Orthodox priest was sitting in the Gulag for insisting that the Russian Orthodox Church not serve the Communist Party. When the Soviet Union collapsed, did Kirill ever apologize to this innocent religious Russian Orthodox man for his efforts at keeping Christ’s message pure. No. What’s more, Gleb Yakunin got excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church for writing of the Church’s suffering under communism and those in the K.G.B… This is grounds for excommunication!? Since then he has joined the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church. I always admired Yakunin, and believed he stood for a real orthodox church, not one subservient to Caesar but Jesus Christ. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleb_Yakunin
And Kirill gets to travel to Ukraine to further a political russification campaign in a sovereign country, while our Pope gets blackmailed into not traveling to Ukraine until us pesky Ukrainian Catholics can be dealt with by the Russian Orthodox. Yes, Hesychios, in your words, “very charitable and cordial indeed”. Can you please point me Hesychios to any Russian Orthodox Document condemning or explaining the mass killings of Ukrainian Catholics and forcible coercion into Russian Orthodoxy in 1946. Any Christian outreach on an official level from Moscow to my Ukrainian Catholic Church? I have never found one speck of paper on this subject from the Russian Orthodox, while our hierarchs all the time insist on meeting with their Orthodox counterparts as Christian brothers. Upon receiving no response from the Russian Patriarch for a Christian outreach (at least could have responded), our Cardinal always said don’t worry, we have done the Christian thing and what Christ would have wanted. My Cardinal was right.
C
Contarini
Guest
I think that’s an unnecessary sneer, not justified as far as I can see, although Orthodox polemic is indeed often nasty and unfair (Catholic apologetic is often smug and self-serving).
But I have to say that I am delighted that Hesychios does not approve of murder (although he does make excuses for it). Most Orthodox polemicists won’t even go that far.
No, it wouldn’t. Killing someone acting as an agent of those in power can never be reasonably classified as a “hate crime.” That doesn’t make it OK–just that there are too many other motivations at work for “hate crime” to be the relevant category.
I’d like to hear more of this. Of course, since all parties were living under Catholic rule, the element of coercion cannot be ruled out. Given who had the power in the situation, I have to give the Orthodox side of the story the benefit of the doubt, because it’s the one more likely to have been suppressed. That does not mean that I believe it uncritically.
True. This is where the “benefit of the doubt” issue comes in. Generally, when people under the rule of an intolerant regime trying to persuade them to conform make charges of persecution, and the agent of the regime insists that he didn’t do anything bad, and the evidence isn’t conclusive either way, I’m going to give tentative credence to the group who *didn’t *have the backing of the government at the time.
For instance (just to show you that I’m not resolutely pro-Orthodox), when my Romanian Protestant friends complain about being persecuted, and the Orthodox say that really there is no persecution except that sometimes those pious peasants get understandably annoyed with the smarmy Baptists for trying to make them Westerners, I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to the Baptists!
This isn’t an ironclad rule–almost never is anyone totally without power or possessed of absolute power, and the ability to complain and win sympathy is one way in which the relatively powerless gain power. So of course such complaints may be false and are certain to be highly biased. And I take the point that in this case much may be due to later Russian propaganda, as you say below. Of course the main thing to look for is solid evidence. But sometimes we have to make judgment calls.
Again, this is to be expected, given which side had the power at the time of Josaphat’s death, and which side had the power in that area by, say, the 19th century!
There is no abstract thing called “history.” There are historians and historical sources, and they all have bias. In this particular case I don’t believe there were any sources that were not biased one way or the other. (Even if we had, say, Protestant observers, they’d certainly have an anti-Catholic bias.)
I’ve always found the story hard to believe, myself, and I tend to agree with you (based on the little research I’ve done) that the documentation is weak. I believe the alternate story is that he was murdered for reasons of commercial rivalry and the Catholic Church was not involved at all.
I find these cases difficult, not just because they fall into the general pattern of a story where each side claims to be the victim and each side can be legitimately suspected of lying or exaggerating. They are particularly difficult for me because my pious instincts would lead me to believe in the sanctity of anyone commonly venerated by either the Catholic or the Orthodox Churches. But my historian’s instincts tell me that stories about saints are particularly likely to be subject to exaggeration and distortion.
I am particularly skeptical about your claims that because there were reports of miracles surrounding him, therefore Josaphat must have been holy and can’t have done the things he is alleged to have done.
Edwin
D
dvdjs
Guest
But “as far as you can tell” is not persuasive. Fr. Robert Taft has the level of experience that makes his opinion that the criticism is justified and necessary worth noting.
In the case at hand, Hesychios is writing about a subject that he knows is very controversia; he knows that there are widely differing accounts. He does not present the full story and weigh the evidence, he just presents the most polemical side as though authoritative, and blows off everything else. Sweet. This is a pattern. He has written these kool0aid histories many times in the history of the Crusades, the Unions, and the post-WWII church activities in Eastern Europe. He and other EOs who write on the latter subject do so with all of the mania of holocaust deniers. And that issue - which is of living memory, has strong contemporary reverberations, and is an area in which Fr. Taft has been involved as a scholar - may be at the root of Fr. Taft’s “sneer”.
The fact that “Catholic apologetic is often smug and self-serving” is neither here nor there. This isn’t a tit-for-tat playground; one cannot justify bias and distortion or any other missing of the mark by saying that others do it.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Yes, I have to agree with this; this killing by an Orthodox mob, encited by their bishop, was not simply aimed against Catholics but was part of the overall tension,
Read more in the google book that I linked to. Also the book discussed in mthe byzcath thread that I linked to. I agree that it is a challenge to sift through conflicting details, and that one has to wary of sources. But you will notice, for example that the famous letter to St. Josaphat comes from Catholic records; what kind of contrary evidence do you find in accounts of the other side?
I think you are wrong about power and the benefit of the doubt. More often than not, in that time, those in power felt inherently justified anything - as you say they think that they are not doing anything bad. Hence their accounts would be written freely without an impulse to cover up. The latter impulse is a contemporary product of democractic checks and balances and a free press, On the other hand, those working against the power structure need inflammatory rhetoric to activate sympathizers. But I understand your affinity for the underdog.
Interestingly, a number of accounts credit Jews with intervening to stop the violence, and with giving eye-witness accounts. I agree that facts are hard to come by and bias is hard to eliminate. Is it then too much to ask, that posters don’t present their potentially limited and biased histories as fact, with no qualifications, particularly when they are so blatantly disrespectful of the Catholic church?
I don’t think I made such claims.
- Status