B
bobzills
Guest
The report on the fourth crusade was from an archive at Fordham university. I thought that Fordham university was a Catholic college?
Why did the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church Split from one another?
- Status
E
elts1956
Guest
Well Chellow, I would say you are right. There are always two sides of the story. Bobzills is just giving the side we never hear about. As I read his post, I blamed the individuals who made up the Fourth Crusade for the atrocities committed by the Catholic side, not the Church. But let’s think for a moment. I don’t know if you believe as I do, that no country has the right to invade another on the “pretext” of freeing that country from subjegation. Just as I believe this, neither do I believe any Church has the right to invade another’s faith on the pretext that any killing, robbing and looting is being done in the name of God.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear elts1956,
Blessings,
Marduk
That can’t be true. the ANTI-Catholic slant is ALL you hear about everywhere in the secular media when the issue comes up.
The Fourth Crusade had good ideals. Don;t blame the individuals who started the Fourth Crusade. It was a Greek claimant/usurper to the throne of Constantinople who enticed the Crusaders to travel to Constantinople, even after the Pope specifically ordered the Crusaders NOT to go to Constantinople.
The Crusaders were not there to invade the country in the first place. The sacking of Constantinople was an afterthought. It was not the original intention of the Crusaders, and there as no pretext in the matter. Don’t let the secular media and the anti-Catholic engine brainwash you into believing such lies. What the Crusaders did was an abomination, but don’t be swayed by historical lies in the process.
What Church are you talking about that supported killing, robbing, and looting? What Church are you talking about that supported this IN THE NAME OF GOD? Do you seriously believe these Crusaders were looting in the name of God? Why don’t you read up on the topic aside from what the secular media tells you?
Blessings,
Marduk
B
bobzills
Guest
Didn’t the Catholic Church accept much of the loot that was stolen from the Orthodox Churches? For example, St. Mark’s of Venice which is adorned inside and out with Byzantine spoils. Visible in the exterior, west facade, you will see columns, capitals, and sculptures taken from Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade, including the four gilded horses above the main portal. Inside you will see things such as a white alabaster, gold, silver and enamel, 6-lobed pate which holds an enameled bust of Christ with a metal rim adorned with cabochon jewels - located now in the Treausry of St. Mark’s Church but was part of the booty taken from the Orthodox during the Fourth Crusade?
E
elts1956
Guest
I agree with you bobzills. If the Roman clergy had felt bad enough about what had happened, they would have told the Crusaders to take the gold and artifacts back to Constantinople.
It seems many people misunderstand when something is said about the members of a church doing a wrong act. The CHURCH is infallible only in doctrine, morals and faith. Members of the Church are fallible.
E
elts1956
Guest
All of you who have misunderstood what I posted please reread.
"As I read his post, I blamed the individuals who made up the Fourth Crusade for the atrocities committed by the Catholic side, NOT the Church.
Instead of saying this: “Just as I believe this, neither do I believe any Church has the right to invade another’s faith on the pretext that any killing, robbing and looting is being done in the name of God”, I should have said, “neither do I believe any MEMBERS of any Chruch etc”. Sorry about that.
And I am not taken in by the secular press. I just like to hear both sides of a story. Listening and believing only one side of a story is to minimize our understanding of human nature".
B
bobzills
Guest
The differences are sometimes subtle and part of the diffierence is that there is a different way of thinking in the East than in the West. But to simplify things drastically, I can list a few points of difference between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Churches:
papal infallibility
Pope as head of the Church
filioque
purgatory
baptism by sprinkling
leavened versus unleavened bread
use of statues by the RCC
denial of the need for the epiclesis
different saints
date of Easter
sign of the cross
Orthodox mindset or phronema
M
mardukm
Guest
A
Aramis
Guest
Each of them can trace back to an Apostle. The vast majority can not trace back to Peter, but to another of the Apostles.
Likewise, the lineage of the Roman Church is vastly composed of descent from Peter or Paul.
Further, since the normal practice is 2 or more bishops to ordain and consecrate a new bishop, the lineage weaves, and most will have several apostles in their episcopal lineage.
Further, the sees themselves are much more easily traced, and provides a second form of Apostolic Descent.
C
Chellow
Guest
I understand now how your post was so anti-Catholic. If I read the accounts of those Crusading misfits, I too would have posted that to. May I recommend you read something else this is a good link.
answers.com/topic/fourth-crusade-2
catholictelevision.org/podcast/s2e12.mp3
C
Chellow
Guest
Although the last place those Crusading misfits should have looted was a Church in order to get paid for the work they done for the Byzantium Prince. They did have some permission of the Byzantium emperor.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes, but we Catholics disagree amongst ourselves about a lot of things. (For what it’s worth, I consider an article from Fordham University to have more weight than comments made on an internet discussion forum.)
C
Chellow
Guest
But that article is not the view of the Church those article contains letters and writing from the crusaders them self’s, that where or may have been excommunicated for their acts.
P
Pravoslavac
Guest
Pravoslavac;4059500:
In what way did Peter transfer his Petrine gift? Through the laying of hands? Every bishop when getting ordained gets ordained in that manner. Did Peter say, “I’m the head of the church of Christ and I’m putting you in charge now?” Why did he do that in Rome and not Antioch? He ordained bishops there?
The seat of Peter is strictly an RCC creation. We believe that Peter had a primacy among the other apostles but there was no supremacy over the other apostles. That’s the basis of what the other 4 ancient Patriarchates view it as in the past and have throughout the years.
No one has yet told me or shown me why is it that the seat of Peter wound up Rome? Is it because he died there? One person said it was because that’s where Peter and Paul built the foundation of the church. Was the church not built anywhere else? Did it not exist anywhere else? Were the works of the other Apostles as they went forward not significant?
P
Pravoslavac
Guest
Patriarch - head of a church body (Patriarch of Serbia, Patriarch of Russia, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, etc)
Metropolitans and Archbishops are pretty much the same. The slavic churches refer to their Archbishops as Metropolitans.
Why does the RCC have numerous Cardinals in different areas?
E
elts1956
Guest
Nothing to forgive mardukm. Isn’t there a saying that the roads to “that place” are paved with good intentions? My intentions are always good, sometimes they just don’t translate from my brain too well.Please forgive me for misreading your intentions.
Blessings,
Marduk
T
TLara
Guest
St. Irenaeus
Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
Originally Posted by Pravoslavac
First among equals…in the hierarchy of the original taxis of Patriarchates, Rome was given the first position (not as a means of authority) followed by Constantinople, etc. The early church did not believe any one bishop was above another bishop. They were all equals.
for those who think Constantinople is one of the early SEE’s established by the Apostles you are clearly mistaken. Constantinople as a Christian area was not founded as until the early 3rd century and was founded when the emperor moved there and made it the place from which the empire would govern from.
Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
- Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere
Originally Posted by Pravoslavac
First among equals…in the hierarchy of the original taxis of Patriarchates, Rome was given the first position (not as a means of authority) followed by Constantinople, etc. The early church did not believe any one bishop was above another bishop. They were all equals.
for those who think Constantinople is one of the early SEE’s established by the Apostles you are clearly mistaken. Constantinople as a Christian area was not founded as until the early 3rd century and was founded when the emperor moved there and made it the place from which the empire would govern from.
P
Pravoslavac
Guest
You are correct that it was not part of the earliest church cannons, however you must agree that it one of the ancient Patriarchates according to the original taxis.
A
Aramis
Guest
Cardinal is simply “Papal Elector”; it carries no official weight outside of the conclave at present.
Cardinal used to mean “Of the Archdiocese of Rome”, and so a Priest sent by Rome was a cardinal… but it’s been many centuries since that use faded. Every cardinal does have a titular see or office in the Archdiocese of Rome; most also have some duty on one or more of the councils or dicasteries… most, but not all.
Note also: All Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are made cardinals at the first opportunity; Major Archbishops have next priority.
A
adstrinity
Guest
But, what about the Seat of Peter being akin to the post-Resurrection Seat of Moses?
And what are these other 4 Patriarchates the Eastern Church Members keep talking about?
- Status