next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182
#1
for those not familiar with our separated schismatic brethren, a common tactic to justify themselves against "papism" is to demonstrate it's evils is by telling the horror of 1204 (the Fourth Crusade, for the unfamiliar: a bunch of Venetians on their way to the Holy Land made a change of plans in route and instead sacked Constantinople, to the Pope Innocent III's horror, and the entire Greek nation holds a nasty grudge to this day, especially the religious ones), even though 1182 is by no means an excuse for the excesses of the Fourth Crusade, next time one of their apologists brings up 1204 we should remind them of what happened in 1182 lest they believe themselves to be innocent of injustice.

Quote:Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support. Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins, and after entering the city's Latin quarter a raging mob began attacking the inhabitants. Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea. The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered. Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were plundered. Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog. (poor dog -tobri) Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked. Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
Reply
#2
(12-02-2011, 06:31 PM)Tobri Wrote: for those not familiar with our separated schismatic brethren, a common tactic to justify themselves against "papism" is to demonstrate it's evils is by telling the horror of 1204 (the Fourth Crusade, for the unfamiliar: a bunch of Venetians on their way to the Holy Land made a change of plans in route and instead sacked Constantinople, to the Pope Innocent III's horror, and the entire Greek nation holds a nasty grudge to this day, especially the religious ones), even though 1182 is by no means an excuse for the excesses of the Fourth Crusade, next time one of their apologists brings up 1204 we should remind them of what happened in 1182 lest they believe themselves to be innocent of injustice.

Quote:Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support. Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins, and after entering the city's Latin quarter a raging mob began attacking the inhabitants. Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea. The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered. Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were plundered. Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog. (poor dog -tobri) Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked. Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

Those losers have a grudge against everyone: Madedonians, Turks, Latins, Bulgarians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Martians, etc.
Reply
#3
They are both horrors, no doubt about it.

However, if the Byzantine Empire didn't fall, there would be no Orthodox church. The last emperor of Constantinople was Catholic, and the patriarch he appointed was trying to unify the Church again. But Constantinople was lost to the Ottomans, who appointed an anti-Roman patriarch.
Reply
#4
(12-03-2011, 06:55 AM)Adelbrecht Wrote: They are both horrors, no doubt about it.

However, if the Byzantine Empire didn't fall, there would be no Orthodox church. The last emperor of Constantinople was Catholic, and the patriarch he appointed was trying to unify the Church again. But Constantinople was lost to the Ottomans, who appointed an anti-Roman patriarch.

Rome offered help to the citizens of Constantinople, and their reply was, "Better the Sultan's Turban than the Pope's Tiara!"

They got their wish, and then some.
Reply
#5
(12-02-2011, 06:31 PM)Tobri Wrote: our separated schismatic brethren

good phrase!
Reply
#6
On another thread, I explain a recent exchange I'm currently engaged in on a blog that I frequent. 

It seems I need to know some specific history about the Eastern Orthodox, for citation purposes. 

1. I need to know how the split happened, and
2. I need to know any/all doctrinal differences. 

I know a few, but I like to be specific in a discussion like this, and I find I don't have any good sources. 

Recommendations?
Reply
#7
(02-02-2012, 06:18 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: 2. I need to know any/all doctrinal differences. 

I know a few, but I like to be specific in a discussion like this, and I find I don't have any good sources. 

Recommendations?

There aren't any real doctrinal differences.

Any supposed differences would be the Orthodox refusing to understand what is meant in the West. For example, under the theological thinking of the Eastern Church (Catholic), the term "original sin" does not really fit, although the real concept does, it is something which would not be formulated in the same way.

The objection to the filioque is more political than theological. Although some are anti-Latin, many understand what is meant in the Latin, but disagree with how it was inserted.

I would recommend studying Eastern Catholic doctrinal works to understand what is properly Eastern Catholic, and then find any differences with the Orthodox from there. Comparing Western theological and doctrinal formulations directly with the Eastern can require a bit of study of the language and philosophical thinking behind it.
Reply
#8
(02-02-2012, 09:41 AM)su Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 06:18 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: 2. I need to know any/all doctrinal differences. 

I know a few, but I like to be specific in a discussion like this, and I find I don't have any good sources. 

Recommendations?

There aren't any real doctrinal differences.

Any supposed differences would be the Orthodox refusing to understand what is meant in the West. For example, under the theological thinking of the Eastern Church (Catholic), the term "original sin" does not really fit, although the real concept does, it is something which would not be formulated in the same way.

The objection to the filioque is more political than theological. Although some are anti-Latin, many understand what is meant in the Latin, but disagree with how it was inserted.

I would recommend studying Eastern Catholic doctrinal works to understand what is properly Eastern Catholic, and then find any differences with the Orthodox from there. Comparing Western theological and doctrinal formulations directly with the Eastern can require a bit of study of the language and philosophical thinking behind it.

I agree with su ... the theological "differences" are exaggerated and are not really differences.  Probably the most serious difference is the Orthodox attitude that the true Church can exist apart from Communion with the Pope of Rome and that the Orthodox Churches are the true ones even though the Pope is Benedict XVI.

But original sin is a good example ... they don't discuss it the same way we do in the West, but read the Akathist hymn and the beautiful prayers extollign Our Lady for undoing Adam's Curse ... what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?

I personally would go to a Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox Church in a heartbeat if Communion were re-established, despite any perceived doctrinal "differences."
Reply
#9
Ironically the main differences were reconciled both at II Lyons and Florence, in 1274 and 1439 respectively. Both times, all the Orthodox episcopal representatives present celebrated Mass with the Pope/Catholic bishops, with filioque added to the Creed. Both times, a dissident or dissident intent on retaining the state of schism went back to Constantinople and stirred up a furor amidst the proud Greeks. Both times, the enemies of unity were canonized by the schismatics. >sad They have no ground to stand on - they wanted the schism to remain.
Reply
#10
(02-02-2012, 03:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 09:41 AM)su Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 06:18 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: 2. I need to know any/all doctrinal differences. 

I know a few, but I like to be specific in a discussion like this, and I find I don't have any good sources. 

Recommendations?

There aren't any real doctrinal differences.

Any supposed differences would be the Orthodox refusing to understand what is meant in the West. For example, under the theological thinking of the Eastern Church (Catholic), the term "original sin" does not really fit, although the real concept does, it is something which would not be formulated in the same way.

The objection to the filioque is more political than theological. Although some are anti-Latin, many understand what is meant in the Latin, but disagree with how it was inserted.

I would recommend studying Eastern Catholic doctrinal works to understand what is properly Eastern Catholic, and then find any differences with the Orthodox from there. Comparing Western theological and doctrinal formulations directly with the Eastern can require a bit of study of the language and philosophical thinking behind it.

I agree with su ... the theological "differences" are exaggerated and are not really differences.  Probably the most serious difference is the Orthodox attitude that the true Church can exist apart from Communion with the Pope of Rome and that the Orthodox Churches are the true ones even though the Pope is Benedict XVI.

But original sin is a good example ... they don't discuss it the same way we do in the West, but read the Akathist hymn and the beautiful prayers extollign Our Lady for undoing Adam's Curse ... what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?

I personally would go to a Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox Church in a heartbeat if Communion were re-established, despite any perceived doctrinal "differences."

This is not true I am afraid.

There are several serious differences:
i)The filioque
ii)Original Sin
iii)The papacy and papal power
iv)the ecumenical councils
v)the exact nature of purgatory
vi)indulgences
vii) the nature of the beatific vision, as at least some appear to believe the beatific vision is in some way diminished or non existent until judgement day

Until these issues are sorted there can be no 'communion', they must reject their errors and rejoin the true Church.

St Thomas Aquinas, in 'Against the errors of the greeks' has much to say about several of these issues, it can be read here http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)