The Sack of Constantinople -- 800 years later

[Ridgerunner]

There is also the issue of whether, in separating itself from Rome, the Orthodox Church was entitled to retain any of the “stuff” at all.

Of course, the Orthodox claim that Rome is actually the “schismatic” one, so I guess they would have a claim to everything in the West that was built or acquired prior to the schism. Since the Eastern Orthodox claim the Pope has no jurisdiction outside the City of Rome itself, it has a basis to claim every Catholic Church building or article ever acquired outside that city.

Judging from some of the posts I have seen on here, many Eastern Orthodox are extremely hostile toward the Catholic Church simply for existing, and I doubt there will ever be anything the Catholic Church can do to change that with people of that turn of mind.

 

[3Sanctus]

I’ve got the “Backpack of Constantinople™”, although my wife thinks the “Bruxton Bag of Constantinople™” is much more impressive!

Of course, neither of our Constantinopolitan souvenirs are anywhere NEAR the antiquity of your 800 year old Sack™, though ours are probably in better shape.

:shamrock2:

This is a great answer to this whole problem! I love it!

Unfortunately, this train of thought might leed to the disunity of peas and carrots…hehe.

In Hope and Laughter,
Stephen

 

[mardukm]

Do you have any sources for these?

1. Here’s an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica under the article “Crusades”:
   “The republic [of Venice] acquired considerable trading privileges within the Byzantine Empire, and the growing number of Venetian merchants had long incurred the hostiliy of the Greeks. In 1171, Manuel Comnenus had ordered the arrest of Venetians, and 11 years later an aroused citizenry massacred a large number of Latins in Constantinople and insulted a papal legate.”

I have read other accounts which indicate that the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time was directly responsible for inciting the Greeks to massacre the Latins.

1. The persecution of the Oriental Orthodox under the Byzantine yolk is a matter of history.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The most recent transferral of relics to the See of Constantinople was done in November 2004, involving those of St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Theologian.

The documents covering the transferral:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2004/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20041127_consegna-reliquie_en.html

This is wonderful news. However, it goes back to one of my questions earlier. Will the return of the property heal the animosity the EO have against Catholics? It seems that the property is really a small part of the animosity.

In any case, I think there are a lot of EO who are not against the Catholic Church, and I’ve met them personally, and online. So there’s hope. It’s just that the anti-Catholics are often more boisterous.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Addai]

Do you have any sources for these?

The first one came from James Likoudis book "The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodox

(subtitle)

Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church

The book is really good if your looking to bone up on your apologetics in general. Especially against one sided historical claims. Which is one of his familiar themes (EO telling only the parts of history that make them look good and support their claims and usually omitting ones that support Catholicism side).

Now finding the exact page number and exact quote may take time… But I’ll keep an eye out and hopefully will post tonight (my shift should be real slow tonight)

1. As for the treatment of Oriental Orthodox read this thread if you dare (its pretty heated)

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,6581.0.html
2)

 

[Addai]

1. Here’s an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica under the article “Crusades”:
   “The republic [of Venice] acquired considerable trading privileges within the Byzantine Empire, and the growing number of Venetian merchants had long incurred the hostiliy of the Greeks. In 1171, Manuel Comnenus had ordered the arrest of Venetians, and 11 years later an aroused citizenry massacred a large number of Latins in Constantinople and insulted a papal legate.”

I have read other accounts which indicate that the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time was directly responsible for inciting the Greeks to massacre the Latins.

1. The persecution of the Oriental Orthodox under the Byzantine yolk is a matter of history.

Blessings,
Marduk

That interesting I thought Likoudis said something to the affect that the Patriarch was directly petitioned with multiple letters to act or speak up on the matter but seemed to deliberately ignore the situation (most likely out of anti Latin animosity). But like I said I have to read up on it more later…

 

[Halos1n2Horns]

One may want to check into the reform of the catholic church, , , It tells ya about constantinople . Also The confession of the council of constantinople was the first time the nicene creed (not sure of spelling) was proceeded in the church’s history. So constantinople and the council wasn’t as bad as what alot of religious leaders made him out to be. Later on pope pious IX made the apostles creed in documentation and entering it into the vatican 1 as the official creed, Vatican 11 changed a few words for us to better understand . Hope this helps. Halos
This was done in the 3rd century. up to the 15th for council of constantinople.

 

[Formosus]

From my understanding, the Latins initially occupied the city by invitation, and it was the animosity shown to them by the Greek populace just because they were Latin - even before there was any notion of a sack - that made the sack more violent. I’m not condoning anyone’s unChristian behavior during the event, and I’m not defending unChristian behavior at all, but I think we have to put things in proper perspective. These were two groups of people acting in an unChristian manner towards each other, and one side just happened to have more “guns.”

Blessings,
Marduk

That is not accurate. The Latin armies were invited, sort of. They were invading on the premise of reinstalling a pretender to the throne and the sack was violent from the beginning not because of animosity after being let in. Churches, monasteries, convents, people’s homes, no where was left untouched by the franks in their invasion.

I think one reason why they hold it against Rome is because while the Pope did oppose such an action when he heard of it, but soon after the fact he was quick to recognize the legitimacy of the “Latin Empire” and of the venetian holdings. Creating a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. The Latins stole countless relics and artifacts from the city, including the crown of thorns that is now in a French museum.

As for the riots that killed many venetian merchants before hand. The Venetians were hardly innocent in sparking these riots which were caused by exceedingly unfair trade practices of the Venetians.

 

[mardukm]

That is not accurate. The Latin armies were invited, sort of. They were invading on the premise of reinstalling a pretender to the throne and the sack was violent from the beginning not because of animosity after being let in.

So the Greeks did not have any animosity towards the Latins even before the occupation?

Churches, monasteries, convents, people’s homes, no where was left untouched by the franks in their invasion.

Did this happen before the actual sack? I am trying to understand what you are saying here. It seems you are saying that from the moment the Latin armies set foot on Constantinople, the sacking began. My understanding is that the sacking only began several weeks after the occupation because the pretender to the throne did not give (or could not provide) the promised compensation.

I think one reason why they hold it against Rome is because while the Pope did oppose such an action when he heard of it, but soon after the fact he was quick to recognize the legitimacy of the “Latin Empire” and of the venetian holdings. Creating a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople.

I’ve read that the treaty specifically called for the people to elect their Patriarch, but that the elected Patriarch after some weeks left because of tensions involving the Latin occupation. After the Patriarch abandoned his See, the Latin occupiers petitioned the Pope to install a new bishop to provide for the needs of the Faithful. I think it might have been orchestrated by the secular Latin forces themselves, and most likely gave skewed reports to the Pope that the Patriarch abandoned his See, whereas the truth of the matter was probably that the Latins drove him out. The Pope was not at fault at all.

The Latins stole countless relics and artifacts from the city, including the crown of thorns that is now in a French museum.

That’s between the French and whichever Orthodox wants to reclaim it, not between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, nor between the Pope and the Orthodox.

As for the riots that killed many venetian merchants before hand. The Venetians were hardly innocent in sparking these riots which were caused by exceedingly unfair trade practices of the Venetians.

Like I said, Christians acting in a very un-Christian manner against other Christians - it’s just that one side had more “guns” than the other.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I’ve read that the treaty specifically called for the people to elect their Patriarch, but that the elected Patriarch after some weeks left because of tensions involving the Latin occupation. After the Patriarch abandoned his See, the Latin occupiers petitioned the Pope to install a new bishop to provide for the needs of the Faithful. I think it might have been orchestrated by the secular Latin forces themselves, and most likely gave skewed reports to the Pope that the Patriarch abandoned his See, whereas the truth of the matter was probably that the Latins drove him out. The Pope was not at fault at all.

I just wanted to add that I’m not certain what actually happened. I’m just saying that it’s possible that the Latins forced the Patriarch out. But it could also be possible that the Patriarch simply could not stand the thought of serving Latin subjects and left of his own accord. The fact remains that there were no rival claimants to the See, and the Pope installed a new Patriarch only after the existing one left his post (by abandonment or forced exile, who knows?)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Halos1n2Horns]

Constantinople was founded c. 658 B.C. by a Greek colony from Megara; the site was then occupied by the Thracian village of Lygos. The chief of the Megarian expedition was Byzas, after whom the city was naturally called Byzantion (Lat. Byzantium). Despite its perfect situation, the colony did not prosper at first; it suffered much during the Medic wars, chiefly from the satraps of Darius and Xerxes. Later on, its control was disputed by Lacedæmonians and Athenians; for two years (341-339 B.C.) it held out against Philip of Macedon. It succeeded in maintaining its independence even against victorious Rome, was granted the title and rights of an allied city, and its ambassadors were accorded at Rome the same honours as those given to allied kings; it enjoyed, moreover, all transit duties on the Bosporus. Cicero defended it in the Roman Senate, and put an end to the exactions of Piso. Later on, the Roman emperors entrusted the government of the city to prætors, at once civil and military magistrates, who maintained, however, the earlier democratic forms of government. For a while Vespasian placed it under the Governor of Mæsia. The city continued prosperous to the reign of Septimius Severus, when it sided with his rival, Pescennius Niger. After a siege of three years (193-196) Severus razed to the ground its walls and public monuments, and made it subject to Perinthus or Heraclea in Thrace. But he soon forgave this resistance, restored its former privileges, built there the baths of Zeuxippus, and began the hippodrome. It was devastated again by the soldiers of Gallienus in 262, but was rebuilt almost at once. In the long war between Constantine and Licinius (314-323) it embraced the fortunes of the latter, but, after his defeat at Chrysopolis (Scutari), submitted to the victor.

i used the catholic encyclopedia this is the link and this will tell ya anything you all would love to know about constantinople. I also have a book on constantinople.

Halos hope this helps

 

[Ridgerunner]

So the Greeks did not have any animosity towards the Latins even before the occupation?

My understanding is that the sacking only began several weeks after the occupation because the pretender to the throne did not give (or could not provide) the promised compensation.

Some dispute the following, but this is the best I have been able to determine from reading histories of the events.

Isaac Angelus was the Emperor of Byzantium. He was deposed and blinded by a relative, who seized the throne. Isaac’s son went to the west for aid in restoring the throne. The Franks were then organizing a Crusade. Isaac’s son promised passage to the Holy Land, supplies and 10,000 Greek troops to aid in the cursade. The Franks, who didn’t have the money for transportation by sea to the Holy Land, took the deal.

In the massacre of Italians in Constantinople, prior to that, the Byzantines either partially or completely blinded a Venetian named Enrico Dandolo. Dandolo later became the ruler of Venice, the major sea power of the time. Dandolo was instrumental in getting the Franks to take the deal, but first diverted the crusaders to capture a town in what is now Croatia for Venice. The Pope had promised excommunication to the Franks for attacking any Christians, and did so. Why anyone trusted anyone in the deal is almost beyond understanding, but particularly the Greeks’ trust of Dandolo was inexplicable.

Dandolos’ Venetians took the Franks, not to the Holy Land but to Constantinople, where the Franks deposed the usurper and put Isaac Angelus back on the throne. Expecting their supplies, funds and further transport, the Franks waited outside the walls of Constantinople. When the Greeks learned the terms of the deal, they again deposed Isaac, put another man on the throne and attacked the Franks who, at the time, were nearing starvation. There were some 8,000 Frankish soldiers and the Venetian navy against a city of perhaps a million, and the Greeks thought driving the Franks away would be easy. They badly underestimated the Frankish knights, who were something like the Delta Force of their time. Instead of being slaughtered, the Franks took the city and, in lieu of the promised funds, looted the place instead. Ignoring their mission to the Holy Land, some of the Franks returned home, but a portion of the Frankish army invested Constantinople and kept it for a number of years until driven out again by the Greeks.

Later, of course, Constantinople was ultimately conquered by an army of 200,000 Turks. There was probably no possibility of prevailing, even if the Franks had aided the Greeks in the defense of Constantinople. In any event, they didn’t.

There was plenty of blame to go around in the whole thing, and nobody played a good part in it. The Pope, however, did not order the Frankish attack on Constantinople, but condemned it.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Why are the Orthodox still so angry about the unfortunate sacking of Constantinople? It wasn’t even authorized or planned by Rome and was in fact condemned by the Pope. Why do they refuse to forgive the Catholic Church? It doesn’t seem very Christian of them.

It is a useful and expedient polemic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Will the return of the property heal the animosity the EO have against Catholics? It seems that the property is really a small part of the animosity.

That is my impression as well. Some of the EO blame the Catholic Church for the loss of Constantinople, the Norman conquest of Orthodox areas in southern Italy, the conflict between partisans in Jugoslavia in World War II, Catholic priests in Russia, Catholic reunion with the Eastern Churches. It goes on and on.

But the biggest thing, is has seemed to me, is the Catholic Church’s claim to be universal. Eastern Orthodoxy is territorial in a way the Catholic Church is not. So, for example, the EO feel the Catholic Church may have a rightful claim to jurisdiction in and around Rome, but has no legitimate business being anywhere else, and certainly not in places like Russia, Ukraine, Alaska, northern California, the Middle East, parts of Italy, the Balkans, or any other place ever ruled by Orthodox rulers.

On the other hand, it does not accept the right of the Catholic Church to be in western Europe or the Americas. As I understand it, that’s because they feel the Catholic Church is fundamentally illegitimate and should not be able to spread outside Rome and the immediate environment of Rome without the consent of a council of all the churches of both the east and the west.

But that kind of dispute is not exclusively with the Catholic Church. In Ukraine, for example, the EO who accept the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople are not accepted as being legitimately there by those who accept the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow. The Oriental Orthodox, who have their own patriarchs, largely in the Middle East, and the Eastern Orthodox also have doctinal and territorial disputes.

It’s not immediately comprehensible by a westerner, though I expect the Vatican understands it. It’s a very knotty situation. Far and away most EO accept the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow, and that patriarchy is perhaps the most territorial of all.

It may be noted that while the Catholic Church accepts the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments, the EO do not accept the validity of Catholic orders or sacraments. To at least some EO, the only way there can be reunion is for the Catholic Church to abandon its “pretensions” and become Orthodox. Then, and only then, (and assuming the Pope would be rebaptized and re-ordained…there is some argument about that… and elected Pope by the people of Rome) could the Pope be recognized as the “first among equals”, but without authority outside Rome and its immediate environs. Basically, the Catholic Church would have to dissolve itself.

Like a lot of Catholics, I once thought there was a likelihood of reunion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. After reading what the EO say about it, I would say there is a much greater likelihood of reunion with the protestant churches than there is with the Orthdox Churches. In that, I think most of the Moscow-oriented EO would agree. Possibly the EO that are aligned with Constantinople are not quite that adamant. But there is also division within the EO that are within the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. There was a near war recently between the Greek Orthodox monks of a place called Mount Athos; an island off the Greek coast, and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople because the latter invited the Pope to Constantinople and celebrated Mass together. Basically, the bishops are the final authority for Orthodox Christians unless the bishops are deemed to be in violation of the ecumenical councils they deem legitimate…all of them before the schism. They accept some of the councils the Oriental Orthodox do not. But for most EO, the doctrinal authority of the monks of Mt. Athos is held to be superior to that of the bishops, due to the greater dedication of the monks to scholarship and their reputation for piety. For a Catholic, it’s complicated to near incomprehensibility.

 

[Halos1n2Horns]

We look at history centuries ago and wonder why they didn’t get along. Then we look at where we are today and still wonder why we don’t get along. Everyone suffered tremendous in those centuries , and were still loosing the battle. I love the history of the church no matter who is involed because its who we are catholic’s etc religions and all i can do is pray that one day all religions will come to be at peace with one another.

love to read your replies ridgerunner it helps me better understand the history, even if i have only read it over and over and took classes on it , u always miss something ( as in me not you).

Thanks Halos

peace i leave with you my friend in the love of christ

 

[mardukm]

But for most EO, the doctrinal authority of the monks of Mt. Athos is held to be superior to that of the bishops, due to the greater dedication of the monks to scholarship and their reputation for piety. For a Catholic, it’s complicated to near incomprehensibility.

The incomprehensibility is not just with Catholics, but with the OO as well. As you might know, Mt. Athos is just as condemning of the Oriental Orthodox as they are of Catholics. Monasticism is highly cherished in my own Coptic Orthodox Tradition (though it is admittedly and sadly practically non-existent in the Coptic Catholic Tradition) - nevertheless, we recognize that it is the bishops, not monks, who are the inheritors of the teaching authority of Christ (certainly, bishops are monks but not all monks are bishops). The monks of Mt. Athos are to be praised for their holiness, but they should not be directing the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

I don’t agree with the Roman Catholic authorities such as the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist who declared that the Greek Orthodox are worse than Jews and that they are traitors and murderers. And I don’t agree with the way that the Catholics placed whores on the altars of the Church and trampled over the most Sacred Body and Blood of Our Divine Lord in these Churches? These Roman Catholic soldiers were drinking the Divine Blood of Our Loird and throwing it all about on the dirty ground and beating and raping nuns who had consecrated themselves to Our Lord?
According to Speros Vryonis, Byzantium and Europe, p.152:
“The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church’s holy vessels.”

Take a look at the article at Catholic Fordham University, Dana C. Munro, "The Fourth Crusade ", fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html#sack

" Then it was announced to all the host that all the Venetian and every one else should go and hear the sermons on Sunday morning; [Apr 11, 1204] and they did so. Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist [Halberstadt] master Jean Faicette [De Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders], and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks."…
" 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 [Hagia Sophia] 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 go , 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 booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of t temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.

1. Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister 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?
   etc., etc., etc.

 

[Shin]

Holding a grudge is unChristian. Letting the sun set on your anger, forbidden. Holding a grudge for centuries? …

Totally diabolical.

Historically the Orthodox resisted reunion with Rome because of a devilish lot of anti-Latin propaganda, so that even when their leaders wished to reunite and did – it was impossible because of the populous’s trained hatred and misconceptions, much like how Protestants can be raised on the idea of ‘The Whore of Babylon’, and etc.

The Orthodox mentality is a separatist mentality, it’s very easy to use that kind of atmosphere the wrong way the minute you declare something wrong, that is not in fact wrong, you can be stuck in the error –

Alexy’s behavior typifies this. And so…

Protestantism got its real start because secular rulers wanted independence from Rome… Orthodoxy started for just the same reasons, the desire for independence, and the nationalism combined with separatism. That’s how it got started after all… Not over the filoque or other spiritual matters used as excuses, but over who had control… so you see the root of the sin still persists… Desire for power over the people.

 

[marlo]

What you have written really make sense
its seems even a new ecumenical council would bring the Orthodox bishop in agreement with Catholic bishops in doctrinal matters, yet the Orthodox people will not accept it

also, do you think the Russian OC, would not want reunion with the Rome because they want the prophesy of being the 3rd Rome to come true?

Holding a grudge is unChristian. Letting the sun set on your anger, forbidden. Holding a grudge for centuries? …

Totally diabolical.

Historically the Orthodox resisted reunion with Rome because of a devilish lot of anti-Latin propaganda, so that even when their leaders wished to reunite and did – it was impossible because of the populous’s trained hatred and misconceptions, much like how Protestants can be raised on the idea of ‘The Whore of Babylon’, and etc.

The Orthodox mentality is a separatist mentality, it’s very easy to use that kind of atmosphere the wrong way the minute you declare something wrong, that is not in fact wrong, you can be stuck in the error –

Alexy’s behavior typifies this. And so…

Protestantism got its real start because secular rulers wanted independence from Rome… Orthodoxy started for just the same reasons, the desire for independence, and the nationalism combined with separatism. That’s how it got started after all… Not over the filoque or other spiritual matters used as excuses, but over who had control… so you see the root of the sin still persists… Desire for power over the people.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t agree with the Roman Catholic authorities such as the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist who declared that the Greek Orthodox are worse than Jews and that they are traitors and murderers.

No one here denies the sacking occured or that it was evil. As usual, you contribute nothing to the discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk