The Turks Saved Protestantism

[Ridgerunner]

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.

If you consider 65,000 remaining Orthodox in Turkey out of a population of 65 million “survival”, then I guess you’re right. Orthodoxy under Islam only survived in any numbers in the Balkans, which were the last Turkish conquests and were always in rebellion. Russia, where most E.O. are today, was never under the Turks. The Mongols actually supported the Orthodox church.

The West aided Constantinople on a number of occasions without making reunion a quid pro quo. Toward the end of the Byzantine Empire, however, two Greek emperors approached the West, promising reunification if the West would aid the Greeks militarily. Substantial concessions were negotiated on the part of both sides. But the Greeks reneged on both occasions, and the Latins cooled toward both the possibility of reunification and giving military aid.

“…for we have retained the true teachings of Christ.” Actually, for most Orthodox after Islamic conquest, what were retained were the teachings of Mohammed.

Again, it depends on what is meant by “sweep it away”. Religion is not a numbers game. But the instrumentalities you named, in their turns, reduced Orthodoxy to a small remnant of its former self, even in Russia. Maybe that is acceptable to you. To me, it would not be, and certainly not for the sake of a slogan.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sorry, I certainly didn’t mean to imply the Reformers were free of pride, greed or whatever-merely that the initial rumblings of the Reformation were seized upon by many proud and greedy men who amplified the effects exponentially. Yes, Henry’s motives were self-serving. However, most scholars agree even Henry could not contemplate English life without the Church and that he did not intend to send English Christianity spiraling off the way it did.

As far as V2 was concerned, there were faults on both sides. Why don’t we leave matters there ? It’s not as though anyone now living can change the past - let’s bother with the present instead,because that is something that we can, maybe, do something to influence.​

FWIW, there is probably a case to be made for the thesis that the Romans saved Christianity from being snuffed out. Even if that may be so, it is irrelevant to the theological issues: if every Protestant in the universe were a thorough villain, that would not harm Protestantism itself; it would affect its external credibility by making it look very bad, but it would do the thing itself, as a form of Christianity, no harm at all. The CC has a horrible history in many ways - that doesn’t affect the thing itself; if a few pogroms, massacres, & other scandals don’t destroy its claim to be Christian, it is hard to see what can. How is Protestantism any different - or any other Christian body for that matter ?

 

[Montalban]

If you consider 65,000 remaining Orthodox in Turkey out of a population of 65 million “survival”, then I guess you’re right.

And under Rome it would have been zero. Rome wanted Orthodox to convert to Catholicism. It was a great price to pay,but we have kept our religion

Orthodoxy under Islam only survived in any numbers in the Balkans, which were the last Turkish conquests and were always in rebellion.

I’m Antiochian Orthodox. A church based in Syria.

Russia, where most E.O. are today, was never under the Turks. The Mongols actually supported the Orthodox church.

Russia was under the Mongols. The “Golden Horde”
The Mongols by that time were Moslem. And the Turks had the Crimea at one point, and souther Ukraine.

The West aided Constantinople on a number of occasions without making reunion a quid pro quo.

Like in 1204?

Toward the end of the Byzantine Empire, however, two Greek emperors approached the West, promising reunification if the West would aid the Greeks militarily. Substantial concessions were negotiated on the part of both sides. But the Greeks reneged on both occasions, and the Latins cooled toward both the possibility of reunification and giving military aid.

Indeed, because the conditions were submission to the RCC.

Again, it depends on what is meant by “sweep it away”. Religion is not a numbers game. But the instrumentalities you named, in their turns, reduced Orthodoxy to a small remnant of its former self, even in Russia. Maybe that is acceptable to you. To me, it would not be, and certainly not for the sake of a slogan.

It’s not a mere slogan. You simply miss the point of the two options
a) Under Turkey: Massive loss of church members
b) Under Rome: TOTAL loss of church members

Not a good choice to be faced with, but in the long term “Better Turk than Roman”

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Not that I haven’t heard this before but I’m left speechless. So be it. It’s the principle reason I’m Eastern Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.

CDL

 

[Brian_C]

As far as V2 was concerned, there were faults on both sides. Why don’t we leave matters there ? It’s not as though anyone now living can change the past - let’s bother with the present instead,because that is something that we can, maybe, do something to influence.​

Of course there were faults on both sides. I won’t argue the Church was in a less-than-stellar state of affairs at the time of the Reformation. Forgive me if I implied that. I’m merely pointing out that greed and the rise of nationalism played a MAJOR part in the Reformation.

 

[Brian_C]

And under Rome it would have been zero. Rome wanted Orthodox to convert to Catholicism. It was a great price to pay,but we have kept our religion

Rome didn’t want to convert anyone to anything. Rome wanted reunification, a nugget that the Byzantines dangled in front of the Pope every time they needed the West’s assistance.

Like in 1204?

You mean 33 years after Mazikert? When the Byzantine Empire was desperate for the West’s help to retake Anatolia? That loss was the little trigger to the whole affair, wasn’t it?

b) Under Rome: TOTAL loss of church members

How would Church members have been lost again???

 

[Ridgerunner]

Russia was under the Mongols. The Golden Horde"

The Mongols by that time were Moslem. And the Turks had the Crimea at one point, and souther Ukraine.

Initially, the Mongol conquerers of Russia were varied in religion, but mainly pagan. The “Golden Horde” was a later division of the Mongol conquests, a semi-independant Tatar “state”, and was largely Muslim by then. But regardless, the Mongols did not persecute the Orthodox Church. Rather, they supported it and worked in collaboration with it, as did the Tatars.

The Crimea was not part of Russia at the time of Turkish incursion, being Tatar itself. (“Crim Tatars”, thus “Crimea”) The southern Ukraine was not part of Russia either, and was ruled by Tatars as well. Both the Turks and the Russians took territory from the Tatar khans. Certainly, though, some formerly Tatar territories were taken by the Russians, retaken by the Turks, retaken by the Russians, and so forth. Ultimately, of course, both the Crimea and Southern Ukraine were conquered by the Russians, and Orthodoxy was officially imposed on both.

 

[Montalban]

Rome didn’t want to convert anyone to anything. Rome wanted reunification, a nugget that the Byzantines dangled in front of the Pope every time they needed the West’s assistance.

reuinification *is *conversion - we won’t accept the Pope as leader and that’s the only way Catholics would have ‘reunification’.

You mean 33 years after Mazikert?

No. 1204 is not 33 years after Manzikert
Manzikert was 1071.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert
Add 33 to that.

When the Byzantine Empire was desperate for the West’s help to retake Anatolia? That loss was the little trigger to the whole affair, wasn’t it?

I don’t know what you’re talking about here, yet, because you’ve got the battle wrong, and certainly the date wrong.

How would Church members have been lost again???

By becoming Catholic. Maybe in your world changing religion is not changing religion.

 

[Montalban]

Initially, the Mongol conquerers of Russia were varied in religion, but mainly pagan.
The “Golden Horde” was a later division of the Mongol conquests, a semi-independant Tatar “state”, and was largely Muslim by then. But regardless, the Mongols did not persecute the Orthodox Church. Rather, they supported it and worked in collaboration with it, as did the Tatars.

And there you have the reasons for my argument as opposed to Roman help which would have been the loss of our church.

The Crimea was not part of Russia at the time of Turkish incursion, being Tatar itself. (“Crim Tatars”, thus “Crimea”) The southern Ukraine was not part of Russia either, and was ruled by Tatars as well.

I always thought the name came from the Cimmerians. Regardless, the Orthodox Church had made inroads into that area - due to the Greeks having trade with them, so the church was there.

Both the Turks and the Russians took territory from the Tatar khans. Certainly, though, some formerly Tatar territories were taken by the Russians, retaken by the Turks, retaken by the Russians, and so forth. Ultimately, of course, both the Crimea and Southern Ukraine were conquered by the Russians, and Orthodoxy was officially imposed on both.

Orthodoxy already existed in that area. Ever since the Romans converted to it. It was a Greek nation with Panticapaeum as its capital.

Orthodox monasteries continued to function, with strong links with the monasteries on Mount Athos in northern Greece.
blacksea-crimea.com/history1.html

 

[Montalban]

Not that I haven’t heard this before but I’m left speechless. So be it. It’s the principle reason I’m Eastern Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.

CDL

I’m glad you are too!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I’m glad you are too!

You are quite the evangelist.

CDL

 

[Montalban]

You are quite the evangelist.

CDL

I play to my audience. And your throw-away line/rebuttal about you being glad certainly won millions over to your argument!

If you want to discuss the facts, I’m here till Monday.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And there you have the reasons for my argument as opposed to Roman help which would have been the loss of our church.

Othodoxy already existed in that area. Ever since the Romans converted to it. It was a Greek nation with Panticapaeum as its capital.

Orthodox monasteries continued to function, with strong links with the monasteries on Mount Athos in northern Greece.
blacksea-crimea.com/history1.html

Do not forget that the promise of reunification in exchange for military aid, at the end, was proposed by the Greek emperors, not the West, and was disingenuous anyway, which the West realized.

My only point about life under Islamic forces was that Orthodoxy did not fare well under the Turks. That has nothing to do with the Mongols or the Tatars, both of which were pagan initially. Orthodox support of Mongol and Tatar rule has no relevance to how Orthodoxy fared under the Turks. Turkish rule was disasterous for Orthodoxy.

 

[Brian_C]

reuinification *is *conversion - we won’t accept the Pope as leader and that’s the only way Catholics would have ‘reunification’.

Nope, sorry, it’s not. Conversion implies going to a state of being that the Eastern Curch was never in before. I most certainly was in communion with Rome at one point. That’s not “conversion.”

No. 1204 is not 33 years after Manzikert
Manzikert was 1071.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert
Add 33 to that.

You’re correct on the number of years but my point was the same. Western “interference” in the eastern empire got a real jumpstart from the East needing help in retaking Asia Minor didn’t it? Too bad the eastern bishops didn’t speak up and stop this whole Crusade thingy by saying “Wait, they’ve still got their faith!”

I don’t know what you’re talking about here, yet, because you’ve got the battle wrong, and certainly the date wrong.

You most certainly do. The Eastern Empire was desperate for help from the west after Manzikert. They’d lost their tax base and their military recruiting base. You really think anything the West did after that was of more harm to Eastern Christianity?

By becoming Catholic. Maybe in your world changing religion is not changing religion.

Yawn.

 

[Montalban]

Do not forget that the promise of reunification in exchange for military aid, at the end, was proposed by the Greek emperors, not the West, and was disingenuous anyway, which the West realized.

I’ve already written about this earlier to another poster.

It is true that a delegation went to the West and agreed to certain terms. On returning home they were jeered because the terms were the complete loss of Orthodoxy - by accepting the leadership/headship of the Pope*

My only point about life under Islamic forces was that Orthodoxy did not fare well under the Turks.

I totally agree. However, as pointed out for all that hardship we still kept our church alive.

Look at the Albanians, under Skanderbeg they fought off the Turks, then were promised help by the Pope. They invaded lands held by the Turks, finding they’d bitten off more they could chew - especially when the aid didn’t come**, the Turks over-ran their lands and all the Albanians became Moslems.

That has nothing to do with the Mongols or the Tatars, both of which were pagan initially. Orthodox support of Mongol and Tatar rule has no relevance to how Orthodoxy fared under the Turks. Turkish rule was disasterous for Orthodoxy.

Turkish rule was a disaster. Roman rule would have been worse.

*We can not accept a Pope because for us the way the church is is a reflection of the Body of Christ. To change the way the church is structured would be to change how Christ is viewed.

**-Wiki says that the Popes did try to help.

 

[Montalban]

Nope, sorry, it’s not. Conversion implies going to a state of being that the Eastern Curch was never in before. I most certainly was in communion with Rome at one point. That’s not “conversion.”

If you’re not Catholic, and you’re made to be Catholic, that’s conversion. That’s why when they talk about the Croats in WWII making Serbs get re-baptised they deal in terms of ‘forced conversions’.

You’re correct on the number of years but my point was the same. Western “interference” in the eastern empire got a real jumpstart from the East needing help in retaking Asia Minor didn’t it? Too bad the eastern bishops didn’t speak up and stop this whole Crusade thingy by saying “Wait, they’ve still got their faith!”

When we accepted the Crusades Emperors asked that the Crusaders do their reconquest so under Byzantine auspices. There would, therefore be help, but no loss of Eastern faith - in theory. Unfortunately when the Latins got to Jerusalem they created Latin bishoprics there.

You most certainly do. The Eastern Empire was desperate for help from the west after Manzikert.

No doubt.
Interestingly Michael VII called for help from Pope Gregory VII. But the Crusade didn’t happen until there was a Pope urging it; there’d been westerners fighting Moslems in Spain for much longer already.

The problem was the Roman Emperor thought he’d be getting mercenaries fighting for him. Instead they were fighting for the Pope. Godfrey of Bouillon set up his Latin Kingdom under Papal authority.

So already there were attempts at replacing Eastern Roman authority with western Latin authority there - in areas that had, as you point out, been ‘tax-bases’ for the east!

They’d lost their tax base and their military recruiting base. You really think anything the West did after that was of more harm to Eastern Christianity?

Yes, see 1204 That was both harmful, and after the first Crusade

yawn

It’s the conversion without converting, right?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I play to my audience. And your throw-away line/rebuttal about you being glad certainly won millions over to your argument!

If you want to discuss the facts, I’m here till Monday.

You don’t consider us part of the Christian faith. That’s your perogative. I will still consider you part of the Christian faith. I’m not interested in anything else.

CDL

 

[Montalban]

You don’t consider us part of the Christian faith. That’s your perogative. I will still consider you part of the Christian faith. I’m not interested in anything else.

CDL

Where did I say you aren’t Christian? ROFL

 

[Brian_C]

I’m well aware of the sack of Constantinople. But we all know the backstory and anyway, to say it was worse than the loss of Asia Minor is to say the loss of the entire 50 states would not be as bad as a riot in the District of Columbia. USA example, of course…

The Eastern Church was/is schismatic. We didn’t separate on the basis of theology or liturgy. Merely on the basis of the idea of papal supremacy, which Eastern emperors no longer found convenient. Theological differences were then “created” to support the schism. That’s not to say their weren’t differences on certain issues prior to the split. Merely, they’d never before stood in the way of unity.

If you’re not Catholic, and you’re made to be Catholic, that’s conversion. That’s why when they talk about the Croats in WWII making Serbs get re-baptised they deal in terms of ‘forced conversions’.

When we accepted the Crusades Emperors asked that the Crusaders do their reconquest so under Byzantine auspices. There would, therefore be help, but no loss of Eastern faith - in theory. Unfortunately when the Latins got to Jerusalem they created Latin bishoprics there.

No doubt.
Interestingly Michael VII called for help from Pope Gregory VII. But the Crusade didn’t happen until there was a Pope urging it; there’d been westerners fighting Moslems in Spain for much longer already.

The problem was the Roman Emperor thought he’d be getting mercenaries fighting for him. Instead they were fighting for the Pope. Godfrey of Bouillon set up his Latin Kingdom under Papal authority.

So already there were attempts at replacing Eastern Roman authority with western Latin authority there - in areas that had, as you point out, been ‘tax-bases’ for the east!

Yes, see 1204 That was both harmful, and after the first Crusade

It’s the conversion without converting, right?

 

[tacitus]

better roman then in schism! im sorry i couldnt help myself----
i dont get your statement. you would rather be a muslem then a christian? you must admit catholics are christians. and besides im pretty sure the crusaders were invited by the byzantines and secondly i believe they the crusaders were attackd first. not to mention much resentment in the south of italy to byzantine rule. i know you would prefer not to hear nor look into these minor details but check it out.
oh montbaten i see you have an irish ticker. are you an orthodox lad by any chance? in that case
tiocfaidh ar la!