The Turks Saved Protestantism

[Catherine_S]

**Better Turk, **than Roman!

Do you think so?
Bragadino made a mistake like you are now !!
The Battle That Saved The Christain West:
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0703fea2.asp

On August 4, 1571, Bragadino, with a small entourage including several young pages, met with Mustafa and his advisors in the Turkish general’s tent. Mustafa lecherously demanded Bragadino’s page, Antonio Quirini, as a hostage for the fourteen galleys. When Bragadino calmly refused, he and his men were pushed out of the tent by Mustafa’s guards. Bragadino was bound and forced to watch as his attendants were hacked to pieces. The pages were led off in chains. The Turks thrice thrust the Venetian governor’s neck on the executioner’s block and thrice lifted it off. Instead of his head, they cut off his nose and ears. To prevent his bleeding to death, they cauterized the wounds with hot irons.

The Venetian soldiers of the garrison, unaware that Mustafa had broken the terms of the surrender, began their march down to the galleys, expecting passage to Crete. Once aboard, the Venetians were set upon by Turkish soldiers, who stripped them of their clothes and chained them to the oars. From their benches they witnessed some of the horrifying ordeal to which the Turks now subjected Bragadino.

First the Turks fitted the governor with a harness and bridle and led him around the Turkish camp on his hands and knees. *** panniers filled with dung were slung across his back. Each time he passed Lala Mustafa’s tent he was forced to kiss the ground. Then he was strung up in chains, hoisted over a galley spar, and left to hang for a time. Finally, the courageous governor was dragged into the city square and lashed to the pillory, where the Turks flayed him alive. Witnesses said they heard him whispering a Latin prayer. He died “when the executioners knife reached the height of his navel.” The diabolical orgy did not end there.** Mustafa had the governor’s skin stuffed, hoisted it up the mast of his galley, and joined the Ottoman fleet headed west.**
**. **

 

[Montalban]

The Pope encouraged his flock to commit a mortal sin by breaking one of the Ten Commandments? To commit murder, let alone armed revolt against the government? Wow. With a Pope like that, you don’t need the adversary…

It was deemed that Elizabeth was a heretic/schismatic. Therefore you don’t have to hold fast to an oath of loyalty against someone such as that.

 

[Montalban]

Do you think so?

Absolutely.

When the Turks were beating down the doors of Constantinople the only way we could get help from the West was by becomming Catholic

Better Turk than Roman.

We were defeated and oppressed and millions may have been lost over the centuries to Islam.

But we’ve still retained our faith.

Had we gone with the West we may have retained our political independence, but lost our faith.

I think that was a fair trade to make; keeping our faith.

Better Turk than Roman, indeed

 

[SyCarl]

It was deemed that Elizabeth was a heretic/schismatic. Therefore you don’t have to hold fast to an oath of loyalty against someone such as that.

It would seem to run counter to Peter’s admonishment though.

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
(1 Peter 2:13-17 NASB)

When Peter was writing any kings he would be refering to would have been pagans. Could the treatment accorded to Elizabeth be justified in face of this?

 

[Montalban]

It would seem to run counter to Peter’s admonishment though.

That’s for another debate - one between Catholics, perhaps. But it is a fact that the Pope did call on Catholics to over-throw her, the result was that if you were a loyal (to the Tudors) Catholic living in England you were instantly seen as being a traitor, simply by virtue of being Catholic. Thus…

…England’s wars with Catholic powers such as France and Spain, culminating in the attempted invasion by the Spanish Armada in 1588, and Pope Pius V’s 1570 bull, Regnans in Excelsis, declaring that Elizabeth was not a rightful queen and should be deposed, unleashed a nationalistic feeling which bolstered Protestantism and made every Catholic a suspected traitor. The Rising of the North inspired much worse persecution of Catholics; every Catholic was liable to be put to death for treason.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Great_Britain#The_Tudor_Era

When Peter was writing any kings he would be refering to would have been pagans. Could the treatment accorded to Elizabeth be justified in face of this?

We must resist evil, too. So if you deemed Elizabeth to be evil, then I guess you could.

 

[rr1213]

It was deemed that Elizabeth was a heretic/schismatic. Therefore you don’t have to hold fast to an oath of loyalty against someone such as that.

Nonsense. Scripture tells us to obey our government. Note that Scripture told us that when the government was a pagan Roman government…so the admonishment does not depend on whether the government is subject to the Pope. Moreover, when Jesus was on the earth he told his followers that His kingdom was not an earthly kingdom. If the Pope instructed Catholics in England to rebel against and kill Queen Elizabeth then the Pope instructed his subjects to break the Ten Commandments and to disobey Scripture.

 

[rr1213]

That’s for another debate - one between Catholics, perhaps. But it is a fact that the Pope did call on Catholics to over-throw her, the result was that if you were a loyal (to the Tudors) Catholic living in England you were instantly seen as being a traitor, simply by virtue of being Catholic.

And rightly so under the circumstances.

 

[Baraq]

Ahimsa:
Save? lol pleeeezzz

Those of us in the Reformed Church know that our faith existed since the beginning of time. However, it was the printing press(and the skill to read) that allowed so many to understand it properly.

 

[Brian_C]

I thought we were discussing history, not legend.

 

[ChadS]

Save? lol pleeeezzz

Those of us in the Reformed Church know that our faith existed since the beginning of time. However, it was the printing press(and the skill to read) that allowed so many to understand it properly.

There’s so much wrong with this statement that choosing a beginning point is nigh on impossible.

ChadS

 

[Montalban]

Nonsense. Scripture tells us to obey our government.

It’s not a nonsense. I agree that Scripture says this, but this didn’t stop the Pope urging Elizabeth’s Catholic subjects from rising up

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That’s pulling it a bit long, though I guess Eastern Orthodox like to think it. The eastern emperor, Isaac Angelus massacred thousands of Italians, mostly Venetians, and blinded Enrico Dandolo. Not a good move. Dandolo later became the ruler of Venice. When the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade tried to set out for the Holy Land, they didn’t have the transport or the money to pay for it. Isaac, himself, had, in the meantime, been deposed and blinded by a Greek usurper of his throne. Isaac’s son, Alexius, made a deal with Dandolo (very bad move) whereby Dandolo’s Venice would transport the Crusaders, first, to recover a Venetian city that had been recently seized by Hungary, then to Constantinope to put Isaac back on the throne. The Pope forbade the Crusaders’ attacking any Christians, including the Eastern Christians, under pain of excommunication. Alexius also promised to pay the Crusaders’ provision support and also 10,000 Greek soldiers to help with the crusade. Ignoring the Pope’s injunction, the Crusaders, largely French and German, recovered the city for Venice and put Isaac back on the throne in Constantinople. When the Greeks found out what Alexius had promised to pay Dandolo’s Venetians and the cost of provisioning the “Franks”, they balked, closed the gates of the city and refused to honor Alexius’ promises, leaving the Franks to starve or leave as best they could. (The worst move of all). Though massively outnumbered by the able bodied citizens of Constantinople, the Franks were trained warriors and took the city, exacting what they felt were reparations. Dandolo, of course, repaid himself. In the “sack of the city” many terrible things happened. Some 2,000 Greeks died. That was a lot fewer than the Italians previously massacred by the Greeks, but still, it was a terrible thing, and two wrongs don’t make a right. Ultimately, Constantinople recovered most of its strength; certainly enough to fight as allies of the Turks against otehr Eastern Christians at times, which they did. Ultimately, as Turkish strength grew and Greek strength waned over time for reasons having nothing to do with the Crusades, the Turks pushed the feeble Eastern Empire over.

“Better Turk than Roman”= “Better Islamic than Catholic”. Since being “Turk” did turn most E.O.s to Muslims, they should have wished otherwise.

Most EO to Muslim?

Most EO then, as now, were in Russia. St. Alexander Nevsky chose the muslim tartar over the Latin Poles, and the Church was the better for it.

I’m not sure if kidnapping children, concubinage, etc. counts as conversion.

Better Turk than Roman, Better Islamic than Latin. In either case, Orthodox is being ruled out.

 

[Montalban]

Most EO to Muslim?

Most EO then, as now, were in Russia. St. Alexander Nevsky chose the muslim tartar over the Latin Poles, and the Church was the better for it.

I’m not sure if kidnapping children, concubinage, etc. counts as conversion.

Better Turk than Roman, Better Islamic than Latin. In either case, Orthodox is being ruled out.

By accepting great hardship, Orthodoxy survived. Under the rule of our ‘brother’ Catholics there were forced conversions too (see after the Latin kingdom was established at Constantinople in 1204).

 

[rr1213]

It’s not a nonsense. I agree that Scripture says this, but this didn’t stop the Pope urging Elizabeth’s Catholic subjects from rising up

Right. And the Pope was wrong to do so. This is what happens when a pastor exercises temporal power rather than spiritual power. Power corrupts.

 

[Montalban]

Right. And the Pope was wrong to do so. This is what happens when a pastor exercises temporal power rather than spiritual power. Power corrupts.

Then you have no objection.

I stated what *did *happen. You’re arguing about what you think is *supposed *to happen, which is a different matter - but you also called my post a nonsense, which is wrong of you given you’re not arguing against what *did *happen

 

[rr1213]

Then you have no objection.

I stated what *did *happen. You’re arguing about what you think is *supposed *to happen, which is a different matter - but you also called my post a nonsense, which is wrong of you given you’re not arguing against what *did *happen

I understood your post as advocating what SHOULD happen, which is why I responded as I did. If you were not so advocating but simply stating the historical record, then I owe you an apology.

 

[Montalban]

I understood your post as advocating what SHOULD happen, which is why I responded as I did. If you were not so advocating but simply stating the historical record, then I owe you an apology.

Thanks. It’s just that you started a reply to me with ‘nonsense’

 

[Ridgerunner]

Most EO then, as now, were in Russia.

I’m not sure if kidnapping children, concubinage, etc. counts as conversion.

Better Turk than Roman, Better Islamic than Latin.

I’m sorry, but you have the history confused. Islamic conquest of what was then the most populous part of the Byzantine world, preceded by 300 years the conversion of Russia to Orthodoxy. Parenthetically, neither did any Russian armies defend the Eastern Empire during the 800 years it took Islam to slowly devour the whole of it.

Some Islamic rulers kidnapped Christian children and raised them to be Islamic. No question about it. In fact, the Greeks enjoyed a brisk and lucrative trade in providing Slavic and Georgian children to the Mamelukes for that purpose. Later, of course, the Ottomans adopted the practice as a sort of “tax” on Christian subjects. (Cheaper than buying them.) But the reality is that most Middle Eastern and Anatolian Christians (pretty much a clean sweep) converted to Islam because of the increasing penalties imposed on those who failed to convert, and the enhanced status granted to those who did. It’s a grim chapter in religious history, and not a favorable commentary on Islam. One would think it would dissuade one from saying such things as “Better Turk than Roman”. That did not turn out very well on those occasions when it was tried.

I’m not trying to engage you in a recitation of ancient grievances which the East may have against the West or the West against the East. I just want to point out that nobody has a monopoly on mistakes or shameful deeds, and that slogans like “Better Islamic than Latin” add nothing to anyone’s understanding of anything. And while it might provide a really fun insult to hurl at Catholics, it isn’t wise to do it because, if nothing else, slogans like that may redound to the harm of your own people if they come to believe it.

Right now, the Christian world is being attacked by Islam, in many ways and in many places. Even your own Vladimir Putin acknowledges that the West is fighting Russia’s own battle in Iraq. (No, the Iraq war issue is not topical.) Russian intelligence cooperates with American intelligence regarding Islamic threats. Your own Romania and Bulgaria have soldiers in Iraq. Orthodox are in no way oppressed by Latins. The Pope risked death to meet with the Patriarch of Constantinople; to challenge Islamic intolerance that oppresses the Orthodox, and to be supportive of your Patriarch. To say “Better Islamic than Latin” is an insult to your own people. I doubt very much that Bulgarian soldiers in Iraq think more highly of Islam than they do of the West.

 

[Brian_C]

[sign]amen![/sign]

 

[Montalban]

One would think it would dissuade one from saying such things as “Better Turk than Roman”. That did not turn out very well on those occasions when it was tried.

But under the Turks, our Orthodox faith (though massively oppressed) continued to survive.

A pre-condition of help *from *Rome (in 1452) was conversion to Catholicism - thus we’d have lost our faith.

Better Turk than Roman, indeed, for we have maintained the true teachings of Christ.

Neither Arab, Turk, Mongol, nor Communist has been able to sweep it away.