Rome's authority over Orthodox; Validity of Orthodox sacraments

[inkaneer]

But it was done (by RC crusaders) to their Orthodox Churches and even worse: According to Nicetas Choniates (ca. 1155-1215/16):
. . . How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups, --precursors of Anti-Christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church [note: Hagia Sophia in Constantinople] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with gold, which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship, and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away as booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of the temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing on the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, so that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.

Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister of the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself, have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?

Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one who opposed them at all or hindered their demands.

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, the groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, the separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, bow great the distress!

The reference you cite is the sacking of Constantiople by the crusaders in 1204 AD. Tell me something, what does Nicetas Choniates say about the events of 1182? Anything? As Warren Carroll a noted historian and Catholic said, "“Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople … rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in … 1182.” No one will argue that the crusaders did some nefarious deeds as did the Orthodox. But there is a difference. A big difference. The Orthodox did their evil doing on command from above. The above being the Patriarch of Constantinople. The crusaders did their evil doing against orders from the pope. The pope even excommunicated the leaders when he learned of it.

But what you write is so typical of the Eastern Church. It all about ‘poor me, poor me. poor me.’ But ask the question why did the crusaders do this which was expressly contrary to the direct orders of the pope. To answer that question you should read about the “massacre of the Latins” in 1182. The Orthodox wiped out the Latin population of Constantinople which numbered about 60,000. They sold into slavery about 8,000. These were sold to the Islamic Turks. How is that for being christians? In addition the massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered. Nice guys, those Orthodox aren’t they? Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were plundered, Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the Pope’s representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog. Now then, tell me about the atrocities of 1204. Seems to me the old adage of ‘what goes around, comes around’ seems appropo.

Now if you want evidence of the difference between the Orthodox and the Catholics all you need do is look at recent history. In 2001 and 2004 Pope John Paul made statements that were accepted by the Orthodox as apologies for the fourth crusade. Patriarch Bartholomew I formally accepting it. Unlike the Orthodox, the pope had no need to apologize as the crusaders were in violation of their expressed orders but he did so on behalf of all Catholics. But there has been no apology by the Orthodox for the 1182 massacre. That is so like them and their "poor me, poor me, poor me’ attitude.

 

[louis91766]

But when the West needed the East to come to its aid, the East refused. .

Did the West come to the aid of the East in 1453?

 

[louis91766]

The reference you cite is the sacking of Constantiople by the crusaders in 1204 AD. Tell me something, what does Nicetas Choniates say about the events of 1182? Anything? As Warren Carroll a noted historian and Catholic said, "“Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople … rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in … 1182.” No one will argue that the crusaders did some nefarious deeds as did the Orthodox. But there is a difference. A big difference. The Orthodox did their evil doing on command from above. The above being the Patriarch of Constantinople. The crusaders did their evil doing against orders from the pope. The pope even excommunicated the leaders when he learned of it.

But what you write is so typical of the Eastern Church. It all about ‘poor me, poor me. poor me.’ But ask the question why did the crusaders do this which was expressly contrary to the direct orders of the pope. To answer that question you should read about the “massacre of the Latins” in 1182. The Orthodox wiped out the Latin population of Constantinople which numbered about 60,000. They sold into slavery about 8,000. These were sold to the Islamic Turks. How is that for being christians? In addition the massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered. Nice guys, those Orthodox aren’t they? Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were plundered, Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the Pope’s representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog. Now then, tell me about the atrocities of 1204. Seems to me the old adage of ‘what goes around, comes around’ seems appropo.

Now if you want evidence of the difference between the Orthodox and the Catholics all you need do is look at recent history. In 2001 and 2004 Pope John Paul made statements that were accepted by the Orthodox as apologies for the fourth crusade. Patriarch Bartholomew I formally accepting it. Unlike the Orthodox, the pope had no need to apologize as the crusaders were in violation of their expressed orders but he did so on behalf of all Catholics. But there has been no apology by the Orthodox for the 1182 massacre. That is so like them and their "poor me, poor me, poor me’ attitude.

You are evading the question.
The question you asked was this: " I wonder what the Orthodox would have done if that happened to their churches?" This has happened to the Orthodox Churches.

 

[louis91766]

The reference you cite is the sacking of Constantiople by the crusaders in 1204 AD. Tell me something, what does Nicetas Choniates say about the events of 1182? Anything? As Warren Carroll a noted historian and Catholic said, "“Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople … rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in … 1182.” No one will argue that the crusaders did some nefarious deeds as did the Orthodox. But there is a difference. A big difference. The Orthodox did their evil doing on command from above. The above being the Patriarch of Constantinople. The crusaders did their evil doing against orders from the pope. The pope even excommunicated the leaders when he learned of it.

But what you write is so typical of the Eastern Church. It all about ‘poor me, poor me. poor me.’ But ask the question why did the crusaders do this which was expressly contrary to the direct orders of the pope. To answer that question you should read about the “massacre of the Latins” in 1182. The Orthodox wiped out the Latin population of Constantinople which numbered about 60,000. They sold into slavery about 8,000. These were sold to the Islamic Turks. How is that for being christians? In addition the massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered. Nice guys, those Orthodox aren’t they? Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were plundered, Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the Pope’s representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog. Now then, tell me about the atrocities of 1204. Seems to me the old adage of ‘what goes around, comes around’ seems appropo.

Now if you want evidence of the difference between the Orthodox and the Catholics all you need do is look at recent history. In 2001 and 2004 Pope John Paul made statements that were accepted by the Orthodox as apologies for the fourth crusade. Patriarch Bartholomew I formally accepting it. Unlike the Orthodox, the pope had no need to apologize as the crusaders were in violation of their expressed orders but he did so on behalf of all Catholics. But there has been no apology by the Orthodox for the 1182 massacre. That is so like them and their "poor me, poor me, poor me’ attitude.

The Venetians were causing turmoil in Constantinople as they supported Serb uprisings and waged war against the Genoans. Further, they wanted a monopoly and stranglehold on the maritime business. They would not listen to any compromises with the Greeks.

 

[inkaneer]

Did the West come to the aid of the East in 1453?

As a matter of fact the pope did propose such a crusade but support was lacking. Couple of factors entered into that among which were the repudiation of the Council of Florence by the Orthodox which was viewed in the West as a double cross as well as the fact that Europe was still in the process of recovering from the Plague of the 14th century which devastated a large portion of the continent. Other reasons were present as well but those were the main ones. Quite simply no one was willing to mount such a costly campaign despite the popes request. In a way, the Council of Florence, or the repudiation of it, was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

 

[inkaneer]

The Venetians were causing turmoil in Constantinople as they supported Serb uprisings and waged war against the Genoans. Further, they wanted a monopoly and stranglehold on the maritime business. They would not listen to any compromises with the Greeks.

So you slaughter them? You desecrated their churches and profaned their tabernacles, tortured their clerics and sold them into slavery to the pagan Turks; then you cry, ‘poor me, poor me, poor me’ after 1204. How so very Orthodox of you.

 

[Vico]

Did the West come to the aid of the East in 1453?

January 1453 Rome was in a revolt so could not, at that time, do anything for Constantinople. The Venetians had the galleys that were needed, and in February 1453 the Venetian Senate voted to send two transports with 400 men each, with 15 galleys to follow, once equipped. It got mired in details of who would command the floatilla. Pope Nicholas has already bought at his own expense, arms and food, and dispatched it to Constantinople in three Genoeses ships, about end of March. The Sultan arrived outside the gates of Constantinople with his army, April 5. In April, Rome expressed intention to send 5 galleys to the East. There were more delays, over issues of Rome’s unpaid debts to the Venetians and lack of food for the journey, so when the ships finally left Venice, it was two weeks after being besieged.

See pages 82-87, The fall of Constantinople, 1453 by Steven Runciman

 

[louis91766]

As a matter of fact the pope did propose such a crusade but support was lacking. Couple of factors entered into that among which were the repudiation of the Council of Florence by the Orthodox which was viewed in the West as a double cross as well as the fact that Europe was still in the process of recovering from the Plague of the 14th century which devastated a large portion of the continent. Other reasons were present as well but those were the main ones. Quite simply no one was willing to mount such a costly campaign despite the popes request. In a way, the Council of Florence, or the repudiation of it, was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

In other words, no, the west did not come to the aid of the East in 1453.

 

[louis91766]

So you slaughter them? You desecrated their churches and profaned their tabernacles, tortured their clerics and sold them into slavery to the pagan Turks; then you cry, ‘poor me, poor me, poor me’ after 1204. How so very Orthodox of you.

So this gave the Latin crusaders the right to rape and murder nuns who had given up their lives for Christ?

 

[Bluegoat]

It would also not be true.

Pax and God Bless.

Well, yes it is true. It’s simply an historical fact, and one which quoting Scripture can’t change: the papacy did not have those powers in the first millennium of the Church. You can argue that the development of the office was justified, but not that the papacy operated that way.

 

[inkaneer]

In other words, no, the west did not come to the aid of the East in 1453.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the reason that we didn’t save their butts in 1453 was because it was God’s will that they be chastised by the pagans for rejecting the unity of the Body of Christ that Jesus prayed for. So maybe you ought to blame God instead? In the interim can I ask you to produce the evidentiary documentation that those early councils approved by the Orthodox were confirmed by a vote by the Orthodox and the decisions of their bishops was not binding until this vote was taken. Can you do that?

Can you show me where in scripture or Apostolic Tradition this requirement is stated. I will await your answer.

 

[Bluegoat]

I would say that it is a radical break from the Latin Mass which was said from the time of the Council of Trent right up to Vatican II. The NO really is not all that much different from the Protestant liturgy as said in the Anglican Protestant Church. Go to a Protestant liturgy at an Anglican or Episcopal Church and you will see what I mean.

Ahhem.

The modern version of the Anglican Eucharist service, and the Lutherans as well, was changed under the influence of the Roman OF. Rome wasn’t copying the Protestants, but vice versa. A more traditional Anglican liturgy, which it is not hard to find, is rather more traditional than the OF.

 

[Vico]

In other words, no, the west did not come to the aid of the East in 1453.

They did, but it was insufficient. See the historical post.

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, that is one aspect of our teaching. All bishops are successors of St. Peter in the sense that they are holders of the keys and (should be) rocks of the faith. St. Cyprian :

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers”

I don’t agree with Pat. Athenagoras, but the Roman see was founded by both Sts. Peter and Paul, so the holder of that see can claim succession. In the same way, Antioch can also claim St. Peter, and Jerusalem St. James, etc.

But Cyprian does not say that every bishop is descended from St. Peter. The bishops were the successors of the eleven apostles starting with Matthias. Every bishop can trace his line of succession back to one of the apostles. Those dioceses of Jerusalem and Antioch along with Rome list their first bishop as Peter. Alexandria lists Mark who was elevated to bishop by Peter. These diocese became the original Patriarchs of the Church. The bishop of Constantinople was made a Patriarch for obvious political reasons. It is much the same today. The diocese of Washington D.C is an archdiocese and its archbishop is a cardinal. Yet there are other dioceses in the U.S. that are far larger and don’t have an archbishop let alone a cardinal. In reality the title of Patriarch was just a title. It was not an office of the church. The offices in the church remain as they always have been that of bishop, priest and deacon. Apostle is not an office. The apostles were bishops.

 

[louis91766]

So you slaughter them? You desecrated their churches and profaned their tabernacles, tortured their clerics and sold them into slavery to the pagan Turks; then you cry, ‘poor me, poor me, poor me’ after 1204. How so very Orthodox of you.

But wasn’t Andronikos I Komnenos first tortured and then executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers ?

 

[louis91766]

Ahhem.

The modern version of the Anglican Eucharist service, and the Lutherans as well, was changed under the influence of the Roman OF. Rome wasn’t copying the Protestants, but vice versa. A more traditional Anglican liturgy, which it is not hard to find, is rather more traditional than the OF.

Have you attended a Metal Mass? It seems like a radical departure from the Tridentine Mass to me. And yes, I went to Church and was surprised by a Metal Mass, which was even more radical than what you see here.
youtube.com/watch?v=Q5VFC_TDkYM&feature=player_embedded

 

[Cavaradossi]

Let me sum it up for you. Everytime the Eastern Church got its butt in a a bind they called upon the West to rescue them and the West did. You can start with the church at Corinth in the first century. The East acknowledged the universal bishopric of the Pope only when it benefitted the East to do so. But when the West needed the East to come to its aid, the East refused. The East has never gotten over the fact that although the capital of the empire moved to Greece the Church did not. I touched on that in my first post. I will also point out to you that it was in the East that the greatest heresies arose and one of them was propagated by none other than the bishop of Constantinople, a guy by the name of Nestorius. You may know about him.

The schism between East and West has nothing to do with theology. It has everything to do with geopolitics. The East and West agreed on the theological issues at the Council of Florence. That was later repudiated by the East. Why? Your bishops were united with the pope and their counterpart western bishops. It was bound. There is no provision in scripture or anywhere in the Tradition of the Church for a vote by anyone to confirm the bishops decision. Who runs your church, the bishops or some unscriptural third party? Where does the authority lie? There was no such requirement at the Council of Jerusalem. None of the early councils which the Orthodox accept had any provision for anyone to confirm the results that the bishops arrived at. Why does the Council of Florence have such a requirement?

You say I have a Western bias. Maybe there is bias but its an Eastern bias on your part.

Lol, no I don’t say you have a Western bias, because even your own Church doesn’t teach your warped version of history. Your bias is your own.

With Nestorius, you neglect to mention that it was also in the East at the Council of Ephesus that his heresy was condemned and he was deposed. It is strange that you hold such a negative opinion of the East yet you accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils, all of which were held in the East, as binding doctrinal statements. What you neglect to mention about Florence is that there were less than 30 Eastern bishops at Florence, and that the Patriarch of Constantinople died during the council. When the emperor and his unionist minions returned to the East, there were plenty of real bishops who rebuked them. If anything, the fall of Constantinople was God punishing the Orthodox for selling out their faith at Florence.

 

[jam070406]

If anything, the fall of Constantinople was God punishing the Orthodox for selling out their faith at Florence.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church is a different Faith? And God is angry when people convert to it?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you saying that the Catholic Church is a different Faith? And God is angry when people convert to it?

Nah, I’m just making a joke to point out how ridiculous all of this speculative, ‘God allowed Constantinople to fall in order to punish the wicked Easterners for X’ talk is, hence the eye-rolling emoticon. I think that it is a rather unwise venture to try and speculate whether something is just a natural consequence of history or some sort of punishment from God.

As Christ points out in the sermon on the mount: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:44-45) Christ points out primarily that we should love our enemies, but he also points out in the last clause that God does not withhold the sun from the evil or bring drought to the unjust. Therefore, I at least, find the idea of the fall of Constantinople being sent by God to be completely inconsequential. If it truly was sent by God, then we cannot know God’s motivation. By the same line of logic that Inkaneer is using, the early Christians must’ve been very unjust to deserve their horrible deaths at the hands of the Romans. We have to understand that misfortune visits the just and unjust alike, so we cannot and should not cast judgment upon those who are stricken with misfortune (or really cast judgment upon anybody). Again I have to respond to this silliness by reiterating: God’s kingdom is not of this world.

 

[louis91766]

Judging from the position of inkaneer and from the position of many Orthodox on other forums, I don;t see too much of a chance of reconciliation between East and West in the near future. Of course there is always hope of a reunion. Perhaps a couple thousand years from now?