OC division or unity with the RCC?

[prodromos]

They were in Constantinople and they protested Latins and burned their churches while killing them in a religious purge in 1182 AD.

Interesting period that. The mob violence that occurred was overflow from a backlash against the various Latin mafia groups that had a stranglehold on trade in the area. The Venetians, Pisans etc were often at war with each other and occupied different quarters in Constantinople. Unfortunately, when the backlash occurred, the mobs did not discern the criminals but attacked anything Latin. This wasn't a religious protest.

Prior to that they protested the papal legates by disrespecting them and refusing a meeting which led to one of the legates excommunicating the patriarch of Constantinople, that was around 1054 AD.

Patriarch Michael refused to see the legates because the seals on the letters from the pope had been tampered with. Not a protest, more a diplomatic foxes paw on Cardinal Humbert's part.

 

[GingerBeer]

Interesting period that. The mob violence that occurred was overflow from a backlash against the various Latin mafia

I doubt that any thing like the Mafia exicted in 1182 AD; but it is true that the Latins (mainly people from city states in the Italian peninsula) had a dominant position on trade with their city states and apparently banking too, That does not make them into a criminal organisation like the Mafia is today. They were merchants not a criminal "family". And the mobs were allegedly Orthodox Christians.

groups that had a stranglehold on trade in the area. The Venetians, Pisans etc were often at war with each other and occupied different quarters in Constantinople. Unfortunately, when the backlash occurred, the mobs did not discern the criminals but attacked anything Latin. This wasn't a religious protest.

It was a protest (massacre is a more accurate description) aimed at a group that was religiously different and their churches were burned as part of the protest so it was aimed at a religiously distinct group. Today we'd call it "ethnic cleansing" like what was seen in the 1990s conflict between Serbian (Orthodox) and Croatian (Catholic) as well as Serbian (Orthodox) and Bosnian (Muslim) Slavic people. You might say it isn't religiously motivated but it affected only people of a different religion from those who were riotously protesting against the other communities that differed from the Orthodox in religion and languages.

Patriarch Michael refused to see the legates because the seals on the letters from the pope had been tampered with. Not a protest, more a diplomatic foxes paw on Cardinal Humbert's part.

That's right blame the "other" and justify "our side". It is the usual way to paper over the blood of history. By the way, why is it not a protest to refuse to see the legates because of alleged tampering with the papal seals on the paperwork?

 

[prodromos]

maybe some in the East, and maybe the Patriarch of Constantinople. But thank God for Rome becasue She squashed some of the most egregious heresies originating in the East....just saying.

You're just saying nonsense.
All of those heresies were defeated in the East by champions raised up by God in the East through councils held in the East

 

[prodromos]

I doubt that any thing like the Mafia exicted in 1182 AD; but it is true that the Latins (mainly people from city states in the Italian peninsula) had a dominant position on trade with their city states and apparently banking too, That does not make them into a criminal organisation like the Mafia is today. They were merchants not a criminal "family".

They actually were a lot like mafia mobs. The Almafians, Pisans and Venetians are recorded as attacking each other's quarters in Constantinople multiple times. It was a real eye opener when I started digging deeper into the background of the Latin massacre.

 

[prodromos]

And the mobs were allegedly Orthodox Christians.

At that time there was only the Chalcedonian Church or the non-Chalcedonian Church (or the Nestorians). In Constantinople there was only represented the Chalcedonian Church, so it cannot be understood as an Orthodox vs. Catholic conflict.
The conflict was born out of hatred for the Venetians, Almafians and Pisans (there is a fourth which I can't remember) which by association became all things Latin.
The losses suffered by the Venetians set the stage for the intrigues leading up to the sack of Constantinople by the 4th Crusaders, the Doge of Venice being a key player.

 

[GingerBeer]

At that time there was only the Chalcedonian Church or the non-Chalcedonian Church (or the Nestorians). In Constantinople there was only represented the Chalcedonian Church, so it cannot be understood as an Orthodox vs. Catholic conflict.
The conflict was born out of hatred for the Venetians, Almafians and Pisans (there is a fourth which I can't remember) which by association became all things Latin.
The losses suffered by the Venetians set the stage for the intrigues leading up to the sack of Constantinople by the 4th Crusaders, the Doge of Venice being a key player.

The sac of Constantinople was revenge and war and trade all mixed as well as some religious hatred. Catholics and Orthodox were already more than 150 years into mutual anathemas.

 

[GingerBeer]

They actually were a lot like mafia mobs. The Almafians, Pisans and Venetians are recorded as attacking each other's quarters in Constantinople multiple times. It was a real eye opener when I started digging deeper into the background of the Latin massacre.

It wasn't a Latin massacre it was a massacre of the Latins. But aside from that there'd already been mutual anathemas for around 130 years so no living memory stretch back as far as the time when there was once Chalcedonian church. So for practical purposes it was Orthodox against Catholic. Greek speaking against Latin speaking. And it was not merely a trade dispute it was bigotry around differences in language, religion/liturgy, and trade.

 

[prodromos]

The sac of Constantinople was revenge and war and trade all mixed as well as some religious hatred. Catholics and Orthodox were already more than 150 years into mutual anathemas.

Yes, I apologise, I got my dates mixed up. It was after the great schism, but from everything I've read I see little evidence for the claim of religious hatred being a motivation.

 

[prodromos]

The fourth group were the Genoese.

 

[Albion]

One could say that Rome was the first Protestants

Orthodox Eastern Christians like to say that, yes. However, and as a statement of fact, it sounds a lot better to the ear than it actually is.

 

[Albion]

So, I provided evidence that Rome did have authority, despite you claim to the contrary, see below.

No, you didn't. You must think that somehow you did, but you didn't. That being the case, there isn't much that can be added at this point.

 

[Albion]

duplicate post/computer problem

 

[Albion]

duplicate post/computer problem.

 

[GingerBeer]

Yes, I apologise, I got my dates mixed up. It was after the great schism, but from everything I've read I see little evidence for the claim of religious hatred being a motivation.

There's remnants of religious hatred today between Orthodox and Catholic which goes part way to explaining the Serbian and Croatian war and its bitterness. All the ethnic cleansing (a slight euphemism for genocide) was to make sure only Serbs and only Croats occupied Serb and Croat territory. The division of Bosnia into Serb and Muslim parts was the same thing. Hatreds that go back centuries and still live on today. There's some of it present in Russia and Poland today, not a lot but some.

 

[Albion]

There's remnants of religious hatred today between Orthodox and Catholic which goes part way to explaining the Serbian and Croatian war and its bitterness. All the ethnic cleansing (a slight euphemism for genocide) was to make sure only Serbs and only Croats occupied Serb and Croat territory. The division of Bosnia into Serb and Muslim parts was the same thing. Hatreds that go back centuries and still live on today. There's some of it present in Russia and Poland today, not a lot but some.

You're right. "Uniate" Catholic churches and jurisdictions in Eastern Europe are seen by the Orthodox as "sheep-stealers." The battle lines and blue language that is thrown back and forth between the two sides goes back quite a ways...but most Westerners have not the slightest familiarity with such things.

 

[GingerBeer]

You're right. "Uniate" Catholic churches and jurisdictions in Eastern Europe are seen by the Orthodox as "sheep-stealers." The battle lines and blue language that is thrown back and forth between the two sides goes back quite a ways...but most Westerners have not the slightest familiarity with such things.

The Orthodox don't have a deep love for one another - witness the current dog fight in Ukraine between Russian oriented Orthodox and the new Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Religions rarely achieve stable constant tolerance between differing branches even if the branches are part of the same ecclesial structure as is the case with Catholicism. Catholics have some rivalries and at times in the past the rivalries were very strident and vicious. Franciscans and Dominicans have had a history of fights but because they are both within the confines of the Catholic Church they do not often come to deadly blows. The Orthodox on the other hand have less restraint because their ecclesial structure is divided by language and ethnicity in many places. Thus old national, ethnic, and linguistic conflicts persist even within the broad umbrella of Orthodoxy. It is interesting; where Protestants have divisions by doctrine and church government Orthodox do it by ethnicity and Patriarchy.

 

[BobRyan]

There's remnants of religious hatred today between Orthodox and Catholic which goes part way to explaining the Serbian and Croatian war and its bitterness.

So then most certainly "not" the same church and proof of split/fracture in 1054 as a fracture in the Catholic church.

But the both share a doctrine on the blend of church-state so that when the church gains power it can dictate what the armies of the state do.

 

[GingerBeer]

So then most certainly "not" the same church

Obviously they are not the same ecclesial structure. Many Orthodox will refuse communion to Catholics and some Catholics would like to refuse it to Orthodox. Both will refuse it to Seventh Day Adventists. But what difference does it make to notice the separation, it's been a fact since around 1054 AD.

and proof of split/fracture in 1054 as a fracture in the Catholic church.

Protestantism was not a split in the Catholic Church as much as it was a split away from it and the same is likely true of Orthodoxy in 1054 AD.

But the both share a doctrine on the blend of church-state so that when the church gains power it can dictate what the armies of the state do.

Nearly all churches accept government money when it is offered and most will try to lobby government to achieve their religious ends. Even radical groups like Jehovah's witnesses lobby government and accept tax exempt status. Seventh Day Adventists do too. So there's no reason to pretend that there's some huge difference between Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant on the matter of civil government-church relations.

 

[Albion]

But the both share a doctrine on the blend of church-state so that when the church gains power it can dictate what the armies of the state do.

But then again, we could take almost any two denominations at random and find some areas of agreement. The RCC and EO do definitely disagree with each other on a number of important doctrines.

Still, I have observed a curious unwillingness on the part of members of both churches to criticize each other when Protestants are listening in. It might be interesting, some time, to explore the reasons for that.

 

[GingerBeer]

The RCC and EO do definitely disagree with each other on a number of important doctrines.

Which doctrines?