The Turks Saved Protestantism

[Montalban]

that is not what happened and you know it.

It’s called an analogy

and besides you became slaves to islam. rome would of never treated you like that. its easy to say it would of with no hard evedince compared to all that we know how christians orhtodox and roman catholic and eastern right are treated under islam. to still think life under islamic rule is better is bullever yours

Yes, the hard evidence is shown by Roman Catholic relations with Eastern Catholics.

They have an ‘independent’ clergy (not really, 'cause they’re still under the Pope) and they adhere to Catholic doctrines.

They are in a word “Catholic” not “Orthodox”

When the Portugese reached the Malabar coast of India they simply declared the local Christians to be Catholic and then destroyed centuries of tradition

 

[Montalban]

how about Pope joh Paul the II’s work in bringing the evel emprie down.

And despite the fall of communism there’s catholics still want to ‘dedicate’ Russia (or ‘convert’ it)

dows not that at least say letsmove on. the roman catholic church did much to stop that horrible monster.

Well done. Credit where credit is due.

what did the orhtodox due.

It caused a split between the Russian Orthodox in, and out of Russia. There is no doubt that many Orthodox worked for and with the Communists.

i am asking because i dont know. also i have ahard time with so much anamosity comming from orthodox. you are right i dont know what it is lie to be orthodox but alot of this seems to be a smoke screen. it cant surely all be about 1204.

It’s not, that’s why I mentioned other events.
e.g
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustaše#Connections_with_the_Catholic_Church

is it because orthodoxy is splinteresd into a thousand peices and rome still stands and is growing stronger?

ROFL where’d you make that up?

there must be room for reprochment. is it not a waste to have so much vehemence towards us.
ever yours

Again you seem to think ‘factual dialogue’ is vehemence

And millions of Orthodox were killed by Islam…
serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm
But the church lives on

 

[Milliardo]

Because Orthodoxy would have ceased to be in those areas!

Perhaps Orthodoxy as we know it now, but certainly not cease in the same way that Islam just ran over much of the Orthodox Church and made many of its numbers into Muslims; certainly Orthodoxy ceased or almost ceased in many of those parts.

Which would you prefer (and you only have these two choices)…?
You have $100

Person A says “I’m going to take all your money”

Person B says “I’m going to take $90”

One is total loss. One is nearly total loss.

I would take on person B–B being the Catholic Church, not Islam. Islam took Orthodoxy away; like I said, Orthodoxy would probably be different now if it took Rome in, but certainly it would not have disappeared or nearly disappeared the way it did under Islam. It would still be Orthodoxy, even if it might be a different Orthodoxy. Look at it this way–Islam is not Christian, and will never be Christian. The Catholic Church, as the Orthodox Church likes to see it, came from it; so would the Orthodox rather have Islam than have a Church that came from it take over it? I think that is Ridgerunner’s thought, and mine as well. And as pointed out, the maxim became self-fulfilling: many Orthodox became Muslims. They ceased to be Orthodox, or even Christian of any form.

Customs is not what separates us.

It is one factor; or rather, the difference between Eastern and Western Christianity is much about custom, custom being the entire body that comprises belief and tradition.

One of the reasons we have this aversion is from comments such as yours and Ridgerunners where you totally don’t get what it is to be Orthodox.

I actually get what it is to be Orthodox; to have the pains of being betrayed, however right or wrong that feeling of betrayal might be. However, that is not enough to have such an aversion in light of turning one’s self over to Islam. As Ridgerunner again noted, Orthodoxy paid a very high price with that maxim, to the point that almost all of its populace turned towards Islam.

Great numbers, not total!

Yes, and great numbers that almost swept the Eastern Church clean. As I have said, coming under Rome would have saved Orthodoxy–since Islam nearly destroyed it, and Rome fought against Islam, then what is the logical conclusion then? I would think that in this situation Rome would have saved, rather than destroyed, Orthodoxy. But in a sense, you would also be right in saying it would have destroyed Orthodoxy, but that is not in the scope of this discussion.

 

[Brian_C]

ROFL where’d you make that up?

Not that I want to continue sparring, because we’ve let the “charity” level plunge in this thread (and I am partly to blame) but what is he making up? That Orthodoxy is splintered or that Rome is growing?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

If the Church had not split the Church in its entirity would have been somewhat different from what it is. I’m happy for Montalban’s imagination but I don’t think it’s very realistic in the long run. Thank God the Lord is patient with all of us.

CDL

 

[Ridgerunner]

A history of east-west relations doesn’t read well.

During the crusades the west established satellite states on eastern lands - culminating in the attack and conquest of Constantinople in 1204 - which lead to many Orthodox Martyrs being made.

We appealed for help from the west in the mid 1400’s but could only acquire this at the expense of our faith.

This goes all the way to the present where you’ve had Marian visions urging the ‘dedication’ (read ‘conversion’) of Russia to Catholicism. To Catholic priests being part of forced conversions of Orthodox during WWII

During the crusades the West also reconquered lands previously lost to the Empire and returned them to the Empire; lands far greater in extent than the tiny crusader states which were, in any event, taken from the Seljuk turks, not the Greeks. The Greeks hadn’t controlled Palestine for hundreds of years.

Prior to the conquest of Constantinople in 1204, the Greeks murdered thousands of Italians and blinded Enrico Dandolo. Dandolo later became the Doge of Venice and was behind the conquest. He tricked Alexius and Isaac Angelus, who sought his help, as well as the Franks. In any event, if Alexius had paid what he promised for the Venetian transport and sustenance of the Franks, and not left the Franks to starve outside Constantinople, it still would not have happened. If the 2000 Greeks who were killed in 1204 were martyrs, then so were the many more Italians who were killed by the Greeks before that.

Regarding the 1400s, you forget that it was the GREEKS who proposed reunification in exchange for military aid, not the Latins. The Latins agreed the first time. The Greeks reneged. The Greeks proposed it again. The Latins didn’t believe them. That’s how it was. The Latins did not go to the Greeks with the deal you talk about. It was a Greek proposal.

And so what if Catholics prayed to convert atheists in the Soviet Union? Would you have preferred that they pray for a nuclear holocaust? There are a lot of people in Russia right now who don’t believe in anything and the vast majority don’t go to any church at all. Would you prefer that they become Muslims? The Muslims are busy converting them. Perhaps you prefer it.

Let’s don’t start that business about the Ustache in WWII. Hitler decorated one of your saints for his anti-semitism and there were Orthodox SS units. (Yes, I know you have counter-arguments, but my point is that the “who did what to whom in the Balkans” argument can go on forever and is not definitive.) And Serbs massacred Croats, including fairly recently. Are you not ashamed of Krajina, or are you proud of it? That whole mess in the Balkans was, and is, a source of shame for both churches, and neither church has any business trying to make a religion out of it or any other historical complaint.

 

[Montalban]

If the Church had not split the Church in its entirity would have been somewhat different from what it is. I’m happy for Montalban’s imagination but I don’t think it’s very realistic in the long run. Thank God the Lord is patient with all of us.

CDL

You’ve personlised every post you’ve made here. Try and discuss the topic, not what you imagine anout my imagination

 

[Ridgerunner]

You’ve personlised every post you’ve made here. Try and discuss the topic, not what you imagine anout my imagination

I agree, everybody has departed far from the topic, including me.

 

[Montalban]

During the crusades the West also reconquered lands previously lost to the Empire and returned them to the Empire; lands far greater in extent than the tiny crusader states which were, in any event, taken from the Seljuk turks, not the Greeks. The Greeks hadn’t controlled Palestine for hundreds of years.

So there’s a time limit for restoring lands? They’d sworn to the Emperor that they’d restore to him the lands that were once part of the empire. They didn’t do this.

Prior to the conquest of Constantinople in 1204, the Greeks murdered thousands of Italians and blinded Enrico Dandolo.

It is not known for certain when and how Dandolo became blind. The story passed around after the Fourth Crusade (and accepted by some historians) was that he had been blinded by the Byzantines during his 1171 embassy. This has been clearly shown as untrue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Dandolo#Blindness

Dandolo later became the Doge of Venice and was behind the conquest. He tricked Alexius and Isaac Angelus, who sought his help, as well as the Franks. In any event, if Alexius had paid what he promised for the Venetian transport and sustenance of the Franks, and not left the Franks to starve outside Constantinople, it still would not have happened. If the 2000 Greeks who were killed in 1204 were martyrs, then so were the many more Italians who were killed by the Greeks before that.

I’ve only your word that these things happened. And it seems your wrong re: blindness.

Regarding the 1400s, you forget that it was the GREEKS who proposed reunification in exchange for military aid, not the Latins.

I don’t deny this. There were desparate elements within the government who did seek aid from the Pope - they knew that the only way they’d get help would be from offering surrender.

The Latins agreed the first time. The Greeks reneged. The Greeks proposed it again. The Latins didn’t believe them. That’s how it was. The Latins did not go to the Greeks with the deal you talk about. It was a Greek proposal.

Great. I don’t know how this helps you, but it seems that you think it does. Ultimately there would be no help without submission. Regardless who went to whom. I’m still waiting for your evidence about the Roman Emperors whom you claim travelled west.

And so what if Catholics prayed to convert atheists in the Soviet Union?

No! You missed the point. Catholics are still praying for the conversion of Russia, more than a decade after Communism fell.
“Sister Lucia gave assurance that she would be united in prayer with the people of Russia on October 11, 1998 when the first Shrine to Our Lady of Fatima in Russia would be dedicated in St. Petersburg.”
fatimafamily.org/dedication.html

Let’s don’t start that business about the Ustache in WWII.

Why not - it’s part of hostility from the west towards Orthodoxy

Hitler decorated one of your saints for his anti-semitism and there were Orthodox SS units.

Any evidence? You might be correct, I don’t know.

(Yes, I know you have counter-arguments, but my point is that the “who did what to whom in the Balkans” argument can go on forever and is not definitive.) And Serbs massacred Croats, including fairly recently. Are you not ashamed of Krajina, or are you proud of it?

I don’t know what Krajina is. You guys are very one-eyed here. I’ve recognised faults done by Orthodox here. You can’t stand any criticisms. Your reactions show this. Even when the Pope himself has apologised for the 1204 crusade you guys think it’s justified.

 

[Montalban]

Not that I want to continue sparring, because we’ve let the “charity” level plunge in this thread (and I am partly to blame) but what is he making up? ** That Orthodoxy is splintered **or that Rome is growing?

 

[Montalban]

I did the first crusade in history at Uni…

The Crusaders all swore an oath of loyatly to the Emperor Alexius Comnena, to restore to him the lands that had once been part of the empire.

This fact is given in primary [1] and secondary souces [2].

The Empire had accepted western mercenaries for centuries. There were even imperial guards units (such as the Varangian Guards) in the palace. The Byzantines had long since used the westerner as a mercenary, making use of the wild spirit that lead persons such as Harold Hardradi[3] to fight far away from his frozen homeland.

When the ‘crusaders’ arrived following Alexius’ appeal to help they were seen as more mercenaries, although on a larger scale.

However these mercenaries came and swore allegience to the Emperor, as previous groups had, but they were also under the leadership of the Pope.
The Pope saw himself as the authority behind the crusade,[4] and thus appointed the leader of the expedition in the person of Ademar of Le Puy, as ‘vicar apostolic.[5]/[6] Thus already the Crusaders were double-dealing with the Empire.

A war or re-conquest in Spain was already running with papal approval),[7] Turning the war in the east to a “Papal” war was not too great a leap for the Pope to make. And there was already in place a system by which to trasmit the Pope’s wishes. Pilgrimages had taken place already over the preceding centuries, and a series of rest stops had been established, notably run by religious persons especially those run by the Cluniacs.[8] Urban was able to use the Cluniacs establishments as bases in which to preach the crusade.[9] Urban used the structure of the Church to voice his message.[10]/[11]
“It was part of Urban’s distinctive achievement so to associate ideas about the holy

“It was part of Urban’s distinctive achievement so to associate ideas about the holy war with ideas about pilgrimage that the unprecedented spectacle of an armed Crusade to the Holy Land might take shape.”[12]

There were incentives for partaking in the crusade,[13] such as the granting of indulgences.[14]

“The preaching of the first crusade was by no means finished when the promise of a spiritual reward was made.”[15]

Endnotes
[1] Comnena, A., (1960) “The Alexiad of Anna Comnena”, (Penguin Classics; London), p325.
[2] Mayer, H. E., (1988), “The Crusades” (2nd Ed.), (Oxford University Press; Oxford), p45.
[3] King Harald’s Saga. Penguin (London, 1966), p48ff.
[4] Riley-Smith, L & J. The Crusades: idea and reality, 1095-1274. (London, 1981), p15.
[5] Fulcher of Chartes The Chronicle in Peters, E. (Ed.) The First Crusade. (Philadelphia, 1971), p31.
[6] Urban Letter of Instruction to the Crusaders in Peters, E. (Ed.) The First Crusade. (Philadelphia, 1971), p16.
[7] Billings, M. The Cross and the Crescent. BBC Books (London, 1987), p19.
[8] Barber, M. The Two Cities. Routledge (London, 1992), p32.
[9] Cowdrey, H. E. J. The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform. Clarendon (Oxford, 1970), p185.
[10] Riley-Smith, L & J. The Crusades: idea and reality, 1095-1274. (London, 1981), p31.
[11] Baldric of Dol. The Council at Clermont in Peters, E. (Ed.) The First Crusade. (Philadelphia, 1971), p10.
[12] Cowdrey, H. E. J. The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform. Clarendon (Oxford, 1970), p185.
[13] Finucane, R. C. Soldiers of the Faith. J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. (London, 1983), p37.
[14] Riley-Smith, L & J. The Crusades: idea and reality, 1095-1274. (London, 1981), p27.
[15] Mayer, H. E. The Crusades, 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press (Oxford, 1988), p38.

 

[Montalban]

Comnena seems to think that Peter the Hermit[1] had a great influence in the origins of the crusades. However it was Urban who had the power.

“The Cluniacs…supported Urban by impressing upon all Christians the religious duty of seeking peace at home, in order that the resources of the West might the better be marshalled for the warfare of Christendom against the enemies of God.”[2]

“The crusades grew out of the papal reform movement, for they provided the papacy with a means to put its ideas about the regeneration and purification of society into practice.”[3]

This is also evident in Fulcher’s account,—[4] where Urban is said to appeal to an ending of wasteful private wars, and to turn aggression against the ‘infidel’. The crusade was…

“...to become the most explicit expression of papal claims to Christian leadership.”[5]

Conclusion
Thus the Crusades were not the ‘mercenary support’ the Emperor was expecting. Although they gave all signs of swearing allegience to him they were in fact an effort of the Pope to extend his power east. This is evident in the fact foreign kingdoms were set up - culminating in the Latin Kingdom based in Constantinople.

Endnotes
[1] Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. Penguin (London, 1960), p309.
[2] Cowdrey, H. E. J. The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform. Clarendon (Oxford, 1970), p184.
[3] Barber, M. The Two Cities. Routledge (London, 1992), p119.
[4] Fulcher of Chartes The Chronicle in Peters, E. (Ed.) The First Crusade. (Philadelphia, 1971), p31.
[5] Barber, M. The Two Cities. Routledge (London, 1992), p95.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

You’ve personlised every post you’ve made here. Try and discuss the topic, not what you imagine anout my imagination

Mountbaten,

I will demure. What you’ve expressed is not worthy of response.

CDL

 

[Brian_C]

I figured that’s what you meant, M. While 1000 pieces might be an exaggeration, I’ve seen it put forth many times by Orthodox theologians that one main fault in the West’s reunification overtures is that there IS no united Orthodoxy and that the premise itself is a Western way of thinking.

I knew you had the makings of someone who took a medieval history class of some sort. Lol, forgive my shortsightedness in not taking a grad seminar on schismatic Greeks. I chose a much more provincial thesis topic in hopes of making a career of it and succeeded. I leave my knowledge of that period in Church history to Belloc. But not to worry, another grad degree specifically in Church History is in the works in my spare time. May take a while though…

 

[Montalban]

Ultimately the Crusader movement was undermined by the Popes themselves.

One of the incentives for going all the way to the Holy Land was the rewards/merits one could earn, spiritually.

In 1209 Innocent III launched the Albigensian Crusade against the dualist sects of southern France.

Suddenly instead of having to treck all the way to the Holy Land and fight for several years the pope now offered the same meritous rewards for a trip to southern France for 40 days.

Which would you choose? Many chose the trip to beautiful, warm Languedoc region - good wine there!

Pope Martin IV declared a crusade against Aragon in 1284 and 1285. So the fourth Crusade was not the only one that went against other Christian peoples.

Also, out of interest the Western Schism also meant a planned cruseade by Pope Boniface IX didn’t happen (1394).

 

[Montalban]

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.

XVII. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

Pope Gregory VII *The Dictatus papae *(1075) quoted in Miller, M. C., (2005), “Power and the Holy in the Age of the Investiture Conflict: A Brief History with Documents”, (Bedford; New York), pp81-83.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So there’s a time limit for restoring lands? They’d sworn to the Emperor that they’d restore to him the lands that were once part of the empire. They didn’t do this.

It is not known for certain when and how Dandolo became blind. The story passed around after the Fourth Crusade (and accepted by some historians) was that he had been blinded by the Byzantines during his 1171 embassy. This has been clearly shown as untrue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Dandolo#Blindness

Great. I don’t know how this helps you, but it seems that you think it does. Ultimately there would be no help without submission. Regardless who went to whom. I’m still waiting for your evidence about the Roman Emperors whom you claim travelled west.

No! You missed the point. Catholics are still praying for the conversion of Russia, more than a decade after Communism fell.
“Sister Lucia gave assurance that she would be united in prayer with the people of Russia on October 11, 1998 when the first Shrine to Our Lady of Fatima in Russia would be dedicated in St. Petersburg.”
fatimafamily.org/dedication.html

Why not - it’s part of hostility from the west towards Orthodoxy

Any evidence? You might be correct, I don’t know.

I don’t know what Krajina is. You guys are very one-eyed here. I’ve recognised faults done by Orthodox here. You can’t stand any criticisms. Your reactions show this. Even when the Pope himself has apologised for the 1204 crusade you guys think it’s justified.

According to Edward Gibbon, the Byzantine emperor did not assert his claim to those portions of Palestine that formed the Crusader States. He did, however, assert claim to other areas retaken from the Turks by the Crusaders, which were turned over to him. It might be mentioned in passing that the emperor withdrew promised support once he gained his own objectives.

My sources for the blinding of Dandolo are Durant and Gibbon. No doubt others have different stories, just as there are different stories about every historical event including 911. But that’s not the real point anyway, and I only brought that up in support of the real point, which is that the sacking of Constantinople in 1024 was about money, poor judgment and human treachery, not about religion, and historians agree with that. The Pope excommunicated the perpetrators, you know.

Regarding the emperors, that again would be Edward Gibbon “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.

I realize the Eastern Orthodox don’t like it that the Catholic Church is active in Russia. But the E.O Church is active in the West. You all even proselytize on this Catholic web site. The great majority of Russians are unchurched anyway, so it’s hard for a Catholic to see that as much of a cause for affront.

We can’t stand any criticisms? Montalban, if it weren’t for the E.O.s who come in here with all your historical grievances, Catholics on here wouldn’t even have the occasion to look them up. Did I ever say no Catholics ever did anything wrong to any Orthodox? Did I say 1024 was justified? No, I didn’t. In looking up your complaints against the Catholic Church, one generally finds that the complaints are really about things that happened because of secular motivations of secular rulers, and that there was a great deal more mutuality in the double-dealing and treachery than you fellows often make out.

But the REAL point is that rehashing of ancient historical grievances serves no purpose other than to keep ill will alive long past its proper shelf life.

 

[ChadS]

But the REAL point is that rehashing of ancient historical grievances serves no purpose other than to keep ill will alive long past its proper shelf life.

Ridgerunner,

I’ve been reading this thread for quite a while and I’d have to agree. I can’t see exactly what the point his of bringing up events that are 800 to a 1,000 years old. History is replete with examples of horrible decisions, injustice and animosity – yet if we are to move forward those events need to be put in their proper context, understood and learned from. They shouldn’t serve as fodder for discussions beyond the academic a thousand years later let alone as a reason for ill will that much later.

ChadS

 

[Montalban]

According to Edward Gibbon, the Byzantine emperor did not assert his claim to those portions of Palestine that formed the Crusader States.

Gibbon also blames Christainty for the fall of the Roman Empire.

I’ve shown primary and secondary sources for the oath of allegience.

My sources for the blinding of Dandolo are Durant and Gibbon.

Gibbon is viewed more literature now than history because he wrote some centuries ago, and much has been discovered about the past since him.

We can’t stand any criticisms? Montalban, if it weren’t for the E.O.s who come in here with all your historical grievances, Catholics on here wouldn’t even have the occasion to look them up. Did I ever say no Catholics ever did anything wrong to any Orthodox? Did I say 1024 was justified?

You mean 1204!

But the REAL point is that rehashing of ancient historical grievances serves no purpose other than to keep ill will alive long past its proper shelf life.

Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it.

 

[Montalban]

Ridgerunner,

I’ve been reading this thread for quite a while and I’d have to agree. I can’t see exactly what the point his of bringing up events that are 800 to a 1,000 years old. History is replete with examples of horrible decisions, injustice and animosity – yet if we are to move forward those events need to be put in their proper context, understood and learned from. They shouldn’t serve as fodder for discussions beyond the academic a thousand years later let alone as a reason for ill will that much later.

ChadS

You and he both misrepresent what has been written. I didn’t just meantion the events of 1204, but events from WWII, and also the 1990s.

try again.