Pope apologizes for sack of Constantinople

[montanaman]

telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/30/wpope30.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/30/ixworld.html

I’m somewhat uncomfortable with this. I love JPII, though, so I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously this is the result of a great love for both Church and humanity. However, I wonder–how much good will this really do? In my experience, the second you offer your “enemies” a hand, they bite off your arm.

Is this just the naivete of a kindly old man? Or do you think there’s a larger issue here?

 

[tmak]

telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/30/wpope30.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/30/ixworld.html

I’m somewhat uncomfortable with this. I love JPII, though, so I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously this is the result of a great love for both Church and humanity. However, I wonder–how much good will this really do? In my experience, the second you offer your “enemies” a hand, they bite off your arm.

Is this just the naivete of a kindly old man? Or do you think there’s a larger issue here?

It seems to me that the apology was long overdue. The Fourth Crusade certainly was not commission to sack Constantinople!

An yes, I think there is a larger issue here; the Reconciliation with the Orthodox Church.

Tom

 

[Southernrich]

tmak:

IAn yes, I think there is a larger issue here; the Reconciliation with the Orthodox Church.

Which Innocent III also dearly wanted, but which became a dead issue thanks to those Crusaders.

 

[EENS]

What it comes down to is the Pope apologizes for things that were not wrong just to work on this new ecumenism. If the purpose of ecumenism is to get people to join the Church, it has failed miserably. Go look to see how many people were converting before this false ecumenism started (before Vat II), and look at the figures now. It clearly does not work, and it is ridiculous to even consider it.

Apologizing for the Crusaders, the Inquisition, etc., etc. cannot be accepted. These things were not wrong. Those who went on the Crusaders were granted a plenary indulgence (so long as they fulfilled the other means). How could it be wrong, then, to go on such a Crusade? The Inquisition rooted out heretics. How is that wrong? As St. Thomas Aquinas would say, if those kill the physical body receive capital punishment, all the more should those who kill the soul (heretics) also receive such a punishment.

God bless.

 

[Southernrich]

EENS:

What it comes down to is the Pope apologizes for things that were not wrong just to work on this new ecumenism.

The sack of Constantinople was not part of the Crusade, it was a diversion for some plunderers.

Apologizing for the Crusaders, the Inquisition, etc., etc. cannot be accepted.

Your criticism of the Pope borders on being disrespectful IMO.

How could it be wrong, then, to go on such a Crusade?

Going on a Crusade was not wrong. What you did while on crusade could be wrong.

As St. Thomas Aquinas would say, if those kill the physical body receive capital punishment, all the more should those who kill the soul (heretics) also receive such a punishment.

Not everything Thomas said or believed was correct. Sainthood doesn’t mean being infallible.

 

[EENS]

Southernrich:

Which Innocent III also dearly wanted, but which became a dead issue thanks to those Crusaders.

Actually…

Second Council of Lyons (AD 1274): “It effected a temporary reunion of the Greek Church with Rome. The word filioque was added to the symbol of Constantinople and means were sought for recovering Palestine from the Turks. It also laid down the rules for papal elections.”
(newadvent.org/almanac/14388a.htm)

"

It has been customary to describe the Crusades as eight in number:

• the first, 1095-1101;
• the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47;
• the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188-92;
• the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204;
• the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;
• the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239);
• the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52;
• the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270."

Looks to me like the Crusades did have a strong hand in deciding the schism–they resolved it! The last Crusade (commonly defined–they actually lasted into the 18th century) by St. Louis was merely 4 years before this council. Clearly the action from the end of the eleventh century up until 1270 had a lot to do with the outcome of the Council of Lyons.

However, just like schismatics to do, they went back on their word and went back into schism, which was also seen again after the Council of Florence. There was no problem with the Crusade that did this; rather, the plotting schismatics are to blame.

God bless.

 

[tmak]

EENS:

What it comes down to is the Pope apologizes for things that were not wrong just to work on this new ecumenism.

Apologizing for the Crusaders, the Inquisition, etc., etc. cannot be accepted. These things were not wrong. Those who went on the Crusaders were granted a plenary indulgence (so long as they fulfilled the other means). How could it be wrong, then, to go on such a Crusade?

God bless.

I disagree in part! The sacking of Constantinople for its riches was clearly wrong.

Secondly, I do not believe Pope apologizes for things that were not wrong just to work on this new ecumenism.

Tom

 

[EENS]

Southernrich:

Not everything [St.] Thomas said or believed was correct. Sainthood doesn’t mean being infallible.

So the current Pope’s private opinion is valued over a Doctor of the Church, who explained better than any other person in history the teaching of the Church?

God bless.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

EENS:

So the current Pope’s private opinion is valued over a Doctor of the Church, who explained better than any other person in history the teaching of the Church?

God bless.

EENS, where was your praise of Thomas when we discussed his views on invincible ignorance? He’s a Doctor of the Church even when we disagree with him, no?

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

In any case, EENS, the point (made by others) remains: the sacking of Constantinople was not a goal of the Crusades set forth by any of the popes who called them; to point out that it was a bad thing and for JPII to apologize for it is a separate issue from the Crusades per se.

 

[Southernrich]

EENS:

So the current Pope’s private opinion is valued over a Doctor of the Church, who explained better than any other person in history the teaching of the Church?

The Pope is the Pope. Aquinas was a theologian, albeit a great one. Yes, what a Pope says is to be presumed more valuable.

 

[EENS]

Southernrich:

Your criticism of the Pope borders on being disrespectful IMO.

Anyone who says anything at all in disagreement with the current Pope is automatically disrespectful. People will readily admit that Alexander VI had however many kids, but they reject any notion that even one thing the current Pope does can be wrong. That makes no sense. I don’t subscribe to the “101 heresies;” however, much of what is pointed out there (among others, the absolutely unacceptable kissing of the Koran) is very much valid. If the Pope has done those things, we should not accept that they are good. Rather, we must show that we do not support such actions: kissing the Koran, praying with heretics, the idea that the State cannot forbid non-Catholic religions, these “dialouges” that lead to the faithful seeing heretics as able to be saved, the “faith” of heretics praises God(??), supporting the UN, respecting Mohammadism and other false religions, etc., etc. If the Pope has done these things, it is hard to argue there is nothing wrong with it. We should be firm in stating what is and what is not acceptable as Catholics. These things are not acceptable. Of course, he was not teaching infallibly when he performed any of these acts or stated any of these things. Just because he is the Pope doesn’t mean he is right about everything. God bless.

 

[Southernrich]

EENS:

Actually…

Second Council of Lyons (AD 1274): "It effected a temporary reunion of the Greek Church with Rome.

Innocent III considered the Sack of Constantinople to be irreparable damage to reunion.

 

[EENS]

Southernrich:

The Pope is the Pope. Aquinas was a theologian, albeit a great one. Yes, what a Pope says is to be presumed more valuable.

That makes no sense at all. He is far from a Doctor, not even canonized (of course). The Pope is certainly NOT to be accepted more readily than a Doctor of the Church. The Church names one a Doctor because he has shown the Faith and explained it well. What he has written is a basis for the doctrine of the Church, a foundation. Certainly when what this Pope says differs completely not only from one Doctor but from them all and the Tradition of the Church, what he says is readily rejected (in this case, about the death penalty). God bless.

 

[EENS]

Southernrich:

Innocent III considered the Sack of Constantinople to be irreparable damage to reunion.

Is that when they became “invincibly ignorant?”

 

[Southernrich]

EENS:

Anyone who says anything at all in disagreement with the current Pope is automatically disrespectful.

In matters of the faith and the Church, yes.

People will readily admit that Alexander VI had however many kids, but they reject any notion that even one thing the current Pope does can be wrong.

Alexander committed sins of the flesh. Are you implying that this Pope is any sort of grave sinner?

I don’t subscribe to the “101 heresies;” however,

Ah, yes. There’s that “however” or “but.”

If the Pope has done these things, it is hard to argue there is nothing wrong with it. We should be firm in stating what is and what is not acceptable as Catholics. These things are not acceptable.

You are wrong. Sorry, but I’ll follow the Pope. You can follow whatever schismatic guru you like.

Of course, he was not teaching infallibly when he performed any of these acts or stated any of these things.

A cop-out. Hardly anything is formally and infallibly declared.

Just because he is the Pope doesn’t mean he is right about everything.

And who made you the Pope’s Judge?

 

[a_pilgrim]

montanaman:

In my experience, the second you offer your “enemies” a hand, they bite off your arm.

montanaman,

I clearly understand the intent of your post, and I respect your right to your opinion and your request for the opinions of others. That is, after all, why we assemble here at this forum. I do believe, however, that no good can come to our Church’s efforts at reunification with our Orthodox brethern who are not currently in communion with Rome if we use terms like “enemies” with which to refer to them.

I appreciate your understanding.

a pilgrim

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think that the apology will help.

However we must not forget that Patriach is not an Eastern Pope, and never will carry the kind of authority we might think, or wish he had.

Efforts to restore communion need to take this into account. Bartholamew himself cannot restore communion between the churches, he knows that and his Synod knows that.

We can hope for warmer relations over time, but it will require the consent of an overwhelming majority of Eastern Christians to reduce the effects of the separation. They will not follow Bart into a union, and Bart isn’t pretending to attempt a union.

But it is nice to see how well they are getting along.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[Southernrich]

a pilgrim:

I do believe, however, that no good can come to our Church’s efforts at reunification with our Orthodox brethern who are not currently in communion with Rome if we use terms like “enemies” with which to refer to them.

Especially when we consider their Sacraments, including the Eucharist, valid!

 

[Catholic2003]

EENS:

What it comes down to is the Pope apologizes for things that were not wrong just to work on this new ecumenism.

First of all, the Pope apologized for past deeds that were actually gravely wrong. To say otherwise would be to accuse the Pope of deception.

Secondly, although ecumenism is certainly a part of the reason for these apologies, I think that another reason is to help properly form the consciences of any misguided Catholics who think that torture is an acceptable practice to be used in support of spreading the Gospel.