Eastern Orthodox and Western Crusaders

[mmmcounts]

I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but the possibility of a reunited East and West- along with the things that are keeping it from happening- is of some interest to me.

I wanted to check on something in order to see whether or not it is an obstacle to unity, and if so, to what degree it is significant to anyone on either side of the issue.

It has to do with the Crusades. I didn't know this until recently, but the Western Crusaders were responsible for some bad stuff in Salonica (aka Thessalonica or Thessaloniki....or Θεσσαλονίκ&#951 in 1185, which included a disregard for the sanctity of Orthodox churches there. And then in 1204, there was the sack of Constantiople, indiscriminate killing of both Muslims and Eastern Christians, and many valuable items were stolen from the Hagia Sophia. This included the Holy Altar of St. Sophia, which was broken into pieces that were largely sold off or eventually destroyed- only little bits of it ever made it back.

That I am aware of this is because of historians who feel that these events figure prominently in the East-West Schism. 1054 is the date most closely associated with the Schism, but according to some historians, 1204 was the year in which the Western Crusaders brought about a dramatic change in the attitude of the Eastern Orthodox laity toward their Latin brethren. Before this point in time- or so they say- most of the problems keeping the East and West apart had to do with various kinds of leaders. But this was the point at which the ordinary Christians of the East began despising the idea of unity with the West.

I believe I am speaking to the ordinary Christians of the laity right now. To what extent is this true? In the mind of an Eastern Orthodox Christian- particularly one who is Greek Orthodox or has close ties to Constantinople for other reasons- how does the Fourth Crusade figure into your point of view on the Schism and the prospect of eventually reuniting? (Or not, of course- there's always that option).

In the mind of any Christian from the East or the West, what kinds of things have been done in order to at least try and get past this obstacle? What has been done to this point, and what, if anything, should be done in the future?

For example, when heinous atrocities of war are perpetrated by nations in a non-religious context, one country will sometimes issue a formal apology to the other. It might happen decades or centuries later, but it can still help relations anyway. Has this happened?

As another example, atrocities of war may also lead to reparations, although this is a little more rare. I certainly haven't heard of any reparations that were made between the East and West, and I think I would have known about it if it had. Is that a completely stupid idea? Some extremely valuable things were taken and/or destroyed from the Hagia Sophia- things that you can definitely put a price tag on. So in a way, it kind of makes sense for the West to pay for or replace what they stole or broke. Can you think of any reasons for why reparations would make absolutely no sense in this situation?

 

[E.C.]

Hi! Orthodox Christian speaking here!

Let me first start by saying that in the eyes of the Orthodox Church reunion between the East and West will only happen when Rome becomes Orthodox, but that's for another discussion in itself.

I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but the possibility of a reunited East and West- along with the things that are keeping it from happening- is of some interest to me.

I wanted to check on something in order to see whether or not it is an obstacle to unity, and if so, to what degree it is significant to anyone on either side of the issue.

It has to do with the Crusades. I didn't know this until recently, but the Western Crusaders were responsible for some bad stuff in Salonica (aka Thessalonica or Thessaloniki....or Θεσσαλονίκ&#951 in 1185, which included a disregard for the sanctity of Orthodox churches there. And then in 1204, there was the sack of Constantiople, indiscriminate killing of both Muslims and Eastern Christians, and many valuable items were stolen from the Hagia Sophia. This included the Holy Altar of St. Sophia, which was broken into pieces that were largely sold off or eventually destroyed- only little bits of it ever made it back.

That I am aware of this is because of historians who feel that these events figure prominently in the East-West Schism. 1054 is the date most closely associated with the Schism, but according to some historians, 1204 was the year in which the Western Crusaders brought about a dramatic change in the attitude of the Eastern Orthodox laity toward their Latin brethren. Before this point in time- or so they say- most of the problems keeping the East and West apart had to do with various kinds of leaders. But this was the point at which the ordinary Christians of the East began despising the idea of unity with the West.

1054 is the year commonly used since that is when Cardinal Humphrey gave the bull of excommunication to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Both the East and West had been drifting away for centuries beforehand, but with Constantinople sacked in 1204 that was when it was obvious that East and West had become two separate Churches.

I believe I am speaking to the ordinary Christians of the laity right now. To what extent is this true? In the mind of an Eastern Orthodox Christian- particularly one who is Greek Orthodox or has close ties to Constantinople for other reasons- how does the Fourth Crusade figure into your point of view on the Schism and the prospect of eventually reuniting? (Or not, of course- there's always that option).

Well, if it wasn't for the Sack of Constantinople than the Byzantine Empire may have had a better chance of putting up a better fight against the Turks.

In my personal opinion the entire Roman Catholic Church, not just the pope, would need to apologize for the atrocities committed and would need to show it and not just say it. Pope John Paul II did a lot by returning some relics to the Ecumenical Patriarch, but there is still a lot to be done.

In the mind of any Christian from the East or the West, what kinds of things have been done in order to at least try and get past this obstacle? What has been done to this point, and what, if anything, should be done in the future?

For example, when heinous atrocities of war are perpetrated by nations in a non-religious context, one country will sometimes issue a formal apology to the other. It might happen decades or centuries later, but it can still help relations anyway. Has this happened?

See above.

As another example, atrocities of war may also lead to reparations, although this is a little more rare. I certainly haven't heard of any reparations that were made between the East and West, and I think I would have known about it if it had. Is that a completely stupid idea? Some extremely valuable things were taken and/or destroyed from the Hagia Sophia- things that you can definitely put a price tag on. So in a way, it kind of makes sense for the West to pay for or replace what they stole or broke. Can you think of any reasons for why reparations would make absolutely no sense in this situation?

Yes, one reason being the precarious position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and his flock within Turkey and their treatment by both Turks and the Turkish government.

I think that a better thing for the West to do would be to refuse Turkish admittance to the European Union until the Turks lighten up on the Christians in their country which would best be done by politically supporting the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Until the Ecumenical Patriarchate is actually treated with the equality that the EU requires, than it would be best to put off reparations for a time.

 

[JohntheTheologian]

I think some fundamental points need to be highlighted.

The sack of Constantinople was brought about by the machiavellian politics of the Venetian Enrico Dandolo, and the duplicity of the Byzantine Emperor.

In a nutshell, the Crusade's original destination had been Egypt. The crusaders, however, failed to raise the funds to pay the Venetian doge (Dandolo) for transport in Venetian ships. To compensate for this, the crusaders helped Dandolo regain the Croatian city of Zara for the Venetian Republic.

Alexius, a pretender to the Byzantine throne, decided to involve the crusaders in court politics, by enlisting Venice and the crusaders in his coup attempt in 1203. Dandolo's army installed him as Emperor, but Alexius regened on his deal, and failed to pay them.

He had two good options. Either pay up, or use imperial troops near the City to massacre the crusaders. Instead, he chose to keep them around as mercenaries, without actually paying them. It's not a good idea to keep hungry, unpaid, foreign and desperate soldiers outside the richest (and largely undefended) city in Europe. It's no wonder they took the city.

Now, I'm not trying to exonerate the crusaders; the sack of Constantinople was a tragedy in the history of Christian Europe. But it's worth noting that

(a) it was motivated by power-politics in south eastern Europe - not by the Pope or the Roman Church.

(b) factions in the Byzantine court were just as culpable for the massacre as were the Western crusaders.

Theologically speaking, I think it's worth the Church considering how man is fallen, and that all are in need of the Grace of God, whether Orthodox or Catholic. No one side is without sin. Catholics should not be begging the forgiveness of the Orthodox, nor vice versa. All parties should be begging mercy of God, for it is his love for mankind which has been offended.

 

[JohntheTheologian]

As another example, atrocities of war may also lead to reparations, although this is a little more rare. I certainly haven't heard of any reparations that were made between the East and West, and I think I would have known about it if it had. Is that a completely stupid idea? Some extremely valuable things were taken and/or destroyed from the Hagia Sophia- things that you can definitely put a price tag on. So in a way, it kind of makes sense for the West to pay for or replace what they stole or broke. Can you think of any reasons for why reparations would make absolutely no sense in this situation?

I think the reason that they would make no sense is that the states which committed these atrocities disappeared centuries ago. It would be like asking modern Iran to pay reparations to the Greeks for losses incurred in the Persian wars...

 

[Macarius]

I think some fundamental points need to be highlighted.

The sack of Constantinople was brought about by the machiavellian politics of the Venetian Enrico Dandolo, and the duplicity of the Byzantine Emperor.

In a nutshell, the Crusade's original destination had been Egypt. The crusaders, however, failed to raise the funds to pay the Venetian doge (Dandolo) for transport in Venetian ships. To compensate for this, the crusaders helped Dandolo regain the Croatian city of Zara for the Venetian Republic.

Alexius, a pretender to the Byzantine throne, decided to involve the crusaders in court politics, by enlisting Venice and the crusaders in his coup attempt in 1203. Dandolo's army installed him as Emperor, but Alexius regened on his deal, and failed to pay them.

He had two good options. Either pay up, or use imperial troops near the City to massacre the crusaders. Instead, he chose to keep them around as mercenaries, without actually paying them. It's not a good idea to keep hungry, unpaid, foreign and desperate soldiers outside the richest (and largely undefended) city in Europe. It's no wonder they took the city.

Now, I'm not trying to exonerate the crusaders; the sack of Constantinople was a tragedy in the history of Christian Europe. But it's worth noting that

(a) it was motivated by power-politics in south eastern Europe - not by the Pope or the Roman Church.

(b) factions in the Byzantine court were just as culpable for the massacre as were the Western crusaders.

Theologically speaking, I think it's worth the Church considering how man is fallen, and that all are in need of the Grace of God, whether Orthodox or Catholic. No one side is without sin. Catholics should not be begging the forgiveness of the Orthodox, nor vice versa. All parties should be begging mercy of God, for it is his love for mankind which has been offended.

I would add that nothing happens apart from God's will. Glory is given to God in His martyrs - even those martyrs at the hands of other Christians.

The papacy did NOT authorize the 1204 sack of Constantinople; but it DID (quite explicitly) express hope that the violent oppression of Orthodoxy in the Byzantine empire would result in a forcible "reconversion" of the area to Roman Catholicism. The 70 year oppressive reign of the Franks / Normans in the area around the Byzantine empire WAS supported and sponsored and blessed by the papacy - and this was consistent with the papacy's general attitude towards religious violence during the imperial papacy (from the mid 11th c. up until the Great Western Schism of the late 1300's).

The papacy has since apologized for it - and there is ZERO sense in Orthodox Christians holding resentments for something that occured 800 years ago. I lament the loss of the Byzantine Empire, but in all honesty - just like Western Rome before it - the city of God ought not to be confused with the temporal and fallen cities of man.

I think it impacted / finalized the schism, but I don't think of it as a barrier to reunification. It finalized the schism for the Greeks the same way the 1st Crusade did for the Syrians & Palestinians: now there were LATIN hierarchs alongside & oppressing EASTERN hierarchs. The Christian "on the ground" as it were had to make a conscious CHOICE to side with one or the other - they had to chose where to take communion. It ceased to be a fight between higher-ups separated by geography and, instead, became something the lay person had to make a choice on.

In that sense, it finalized it.

But the real issues, to us anyway, are papal authority, the filioque, and a few doctrines surrounding salvation (immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, etc).

 

[MamaBug]

I think the reason that they would make no sense is that the states which committed these atrocities disappeared centuries ago. It would be like asking modern Iran to pay reparations to the Greeks for losses incurred in the Persian wars...

Well, yes and no. Many of the states are no longer there - but one of the consequences of the sack was that a huge quantity of Sacred treasures was stripped and carted off to enrich the Latin Church. The Pope may not have condoned the crusade, but likewise he did nothing to stop the 60 years of looting that ensued. Everything that wasn't nailed down, and some that were, were was carted off to enrich the churches, monasteries, abbeys, private chapels, bishop's residences, and so on of Western Europe including: altars, altar screens, tabernacles, antimins, icons, icon frames, processional, pectoral and altar crosses, gold and silver chains, panagias, mitres, croziers, chalices, patens, star covers and spears, Gospels, Epistle books, ladles, church plate, censers, votive lights, relics, candelabra, epitaphia, fans, reliquaries, vestments, banners, manuscripts, miniatures, ivories, carvings, mosaics, thrones, tapestries, furniture and architectural items

Yes, Pope John Paul returned some of the more significant relics, however that was a mere token of the vast number still out there. Some of the items looted are secular - such as the bronze horses formerly at the hippodrome and now on top of St. Mark's in Venice, some would be pointless to return (like basically ALL of St Mark's which was built looted stone by looted stone) and some are in museums or private collections. Many are still in Catholic buildings being worshipped and venerated by Catholic pilgrims and congregations.

I know the EP seems to feel that the return of the relics of St. Gregory and St. John Chrysostom is enough and the side benefit was that they were kept out of the hands of the Muslims, but I see it differently. As long as the Catholic Church holds on to these items then they are both profiting from stolen property (and the rape, murder, and destruction that went with it) and in a sense implying that it is the Latin Church which these items rightfully belong to. That sort of kills the spirit of ecumenical dialogue.

It is easy to look at this and say 'oh, that all happened a long time ago'. The thing is, these items weren't stolen from Constantinople - they were stolen from the living, still existing, Orthodox Church. Unless and until we are one united Church again, the Orthodox Church is where they belong.

Just the opinion of one layman.

 

[Davidnic]

First I want to address the taking of the relics then the current disposition of them. The Pope at the time was outraged at the action and excommunicated those who did it, but then did not follow up in stopping the looting because of the prospect of a unified Church. That is just a plain and uncomfortable historical fact. Innocent did not intend for it to happen, he was upset that it did to the point of excommunicating people but allowed the West to profit from taking those Spiritual treasures both financially and Spiritually.

Now moving forward, argue back and forth that the relics were ultimately safer in the West with the advance of Isalm...yadda yadda..all that is a different and fruitless discussion. The question is what to do now.

Well, my opinion in this would be that we should return the relics.

If we are in dialog, setting aside the massive and important issues that still bar unity, we must look at each other with a degree of respect. To that end we (and by we I mean Catholics) can not look at the removal of relics from Constantinople as actions done against a dead and gone empire but as an action done and still being done against a still living viable Sister Church. To view it in any other way is disrespectful and a theological insult to the Orthodox, as well as theologically incorrect.

The See of Constantinople still exists as a direct and unbroken successor and rightful keeper of those relics. If dialog is to be fruitful and honest then during the course of it we must return the relics.

There has been progress on this. St. Gregory and St. John Chrysostom. St. Peter of Argos, St. Alban and a few others. A search will show a slow but steady stream. But there should be more. I do believe there will be as we move forward.

If we view the Eastern Orthodox as an Ancient and Sister Church in dialog with us (indeed see ourselves as One Church in need of reunification) then the only response should be that we treat the crime of the taking of those relics as one done as if it were today against a living breathing family member and rectify it as best as possible with no thought of gain for it except that it is the right thing to do. We must not view it as something done to a city or empire but something that was done to our Brother.

But we must not confuse the issue...our division does not lie around the relics or actions of the past. Those must be resolved, but the division is one of theology and it is far more severe on many issues than most of the western thought process credit or acknowledge. Nothing is insurmountable with Christ. I believe we will be one. I do not know if I will see it with my eyes or how it will come about. But I believe the Holy Spirit is drawing us to unity. For my part I can only acknowledge the honest and serious differences that must be addressed and give the Bishops on all sides my prayers. And I can love and respect my brothers and sisters one to one and celebrate where we agree while never forgetting the painful facts that divide us.

 

[QuantaCura]

It's a fact that many Crusaders committed very grave sins. However; the first problem I see is with those who ascribe the notion of collective guilt for those particular sins (and unforunately Pope John Paul II's well-intentioned apologies only fed that beast). The second problem I see is the double standard those same individuals hold the Latins to.

Only 22 years before the sack of Constantinople in 1182 thousands of Westerns there were massacred by Byzantine Christians and even more sold into slavery to the Turks. The Pope's representative had his head cut off and dragged through the streets by the tail of a dog. That's in addition to the well-known desecration of Latin temples, altars, tabernacles, and the Blessed Sacrament carried out under Patriarch Cerularius about 100 years earlier. Then in 1188, there was the betrayal by the Emperor Isaac II Angelus who promised safe passage to the Western army led by Barbarossa only to contact Saladin to forge an alliance to destroy them, while the Patriarch, Dositheus, offered unconditional absolution to any Greek who killed Westerners.

So, people like E.C. above who say "In my personal opinion the entire Roman Catholic Church, not just the pope, would need to apologize for the atrocities committed and would need to show it and not just say it" need to be consistent and call for their own Church to do the same, like Bishop Kallistos Ware has done.

Personally, I think both sides should either not hold current populations responsible for sins commtted by other individuals centuries ago, or they should accept the apologies given and forgive, as JohntheTheologian and Macarius have suggested above.

 

[QuantaCura]

If we view the Eastern Orthodox as an Ancient and Sister Church in dialog with us (indeed see ourselves as One Church in need of reunification)

Just a quick FYI, we aren't supposed to view it that way. While it is ok to say particular Churches (dioceses) like the Church of Constantinople, are sister Churches with other particular Churches (even if separated), from a Catholic perspective, it is wrong to say the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Russian Orthodox Church, etc. is a Sister Church or that together we make up one Church in need of reunification. See this note from the CDF in 2000 on the expression "Sister Churches":

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[Kreikkalainen]

I think when this matter is discussed, we tend to focus too much on this single event of the sacking of Constantinople. While it was of course a tragic event of major historical, political and symbolic significance, I think it should not be viewed as an event in isolation... unfortunately, it was simply a symptom of hostile relationships between the two sides, which often manifested in killings, lootings, sackings, forced conversions, I am sure committed by both sides. Whether churches officially sanctioned such actions or not, frankly matters very little - in the historical memory of the common people, it has been registered that "the franks/greeks did that to us in year 1XYZ"...


Examples are endless throughout the centuries, from both sides. Just a few points indicating this very quickly from the back of my head:

- the massacres of latins in Constantinople have been mentioned here already

- there exist officially recognised martyrs in the Orthodox Church that were killed for their refusal to abandon their Church for the Church of the Latins

- the population of Cyprus is known to have celebrated the conquest of their island by the Ottomans, because they would now be free to return to the church of their fathers, which they were forced to abandon under the venetians (16th century?), yes that's the same cypriots who now have 40% of their island under the descendants of the ottomans

- cardinal Stepinac in the 1940s is quoted to have written that "the schism" (the Orthodox Church) is "worse than protestantism", the same cardinal has been beatified by the Pope

- I am fully prepared to accept any story about bad conduct of russian orthodox people when Poland was under Russia

- I won't even think about going into the yugoslav wars of the 1990s, with endless attrocities from both sides, in the name of their faith (which is of course a ridiculous concept that neither church endorses)


I think what we really need instead of reparations & apologies is a few generations of peaceful coexistance. Then we can move from there. At the level of common people, there's just too many centuries of distrust on our backs at the moment...

 

[MamaBug]

Only 22 years before the sack of Constantinople in 1182 thousands of Westerns there were massacred by Byzantine Christians ...

Just because people of one religion hurt those of another doesn't make it the fault of the respective churches. This was one incident in a long pattern of Greek vs. Italian, Italian vs. Italian, German vs. Byzantine, Venetian vs. everybody else violence. To follow your line of thought, we'd have to make the Catholic Church guilty of the murder of Joan of Arc because English Catholics put her to death (as part of the long pattern of English vs. French violence).

Most of the Orthodox posters have been fair in asserting that the original sacking was not a church-sanctioned act and that the Pope excommunicated those responsible. What we are addressing, however, is the 60 years AFTER the sack which is what led in many ways to the real final cementing of hostilities on the part of the laity towards the Latin church. The effects of those 60 years still reverberate down to this day. To draw an accurate parallel, you would need to find a case where a major Catholic capitol (or country) was forcibly occupied by an Orthodox one and - with tacit or actual blessing of the Orthodox Church - all relics and Sacred treasures jointly venerated were stripped off and sent East, the administrative structure of the church was replaced with Orthodox officials, the existing Catholic clergy made subordinate to the Orthodox administration, and the populace forcibly reunited to the Orthodox Church.

I don't think even in Poland and the Balkans you could find such a parallel. There is a reason that the Uniate movement tends to be one way. Latinization of Eastern lands was a de facto policy of the Western Church from even before the schism up until the Jesuits of the enlightenment era.

I do not hold the Catholic Church responsible for the actions of states or armies that happened to be Catholic. I do hold it responsible for supporting policies aimed at weakening the Orthodox Churches in areas under Catholic rule (not just Byzantium, but Jerusalem, Ukraine, etc.) and for continued use of it's properties of items stolen from those areas. The Papal office has made an apology for that time period, which many have accepted. All I have been pointing out is that apologizing for an act which caused someone to lose something important to them is all well and good, but if it isn't followed up by RETURNING what was stolen then it is just words.

Since the topic is feelings of the Orthodox laity towards the Catholic Church, bringing up how members of the laity may feel about 1204 is relevent. I am not aware of any Catholic laity who resent Greece because of the political battles between Greece and Italy in the 12th century.

 

[Davidnic]

Just a quick FYI, we aren't supposed to view it that way. While it is ok to say particular Churches (dioceses) like the Church of Constantinople, are sister Churches with other particular Churches (even if separated), from a Catholic perspective, it is wrong to say the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Russian Orthodox Church, etc. is a Sister Church or that together we make up one Church in need of reunification. See this note from the CDF in 2000 on the expression "Sister Churches":

Declaración Dominus Iesus

ah, I see the concern. Thanks, don't know how I missed that.

 

[E.C.]

So, people like E.C. above who say "In my personal opinion the entire Roman Catholic Church, not just the pope, would need to apologize for the atrocities committed and would need to show it and not just say it" need to be consistent and call for their own Church to do the same, like Bishop Kallistos Ware has done.

Agreed, but with a little bit of clarification that, in hindsight, I probably should have mentioned.

It is one thing for the Orthodox Patriarch and Latin Patriarch in, say Boston to meet for coffee, but it is an entirely different matter for the laity. In both Orthodoxy and Catholicism for some, such as the Serbs and Croats, there seems to be a sort of taboo for affiliating with a layperson from the other side or even a mixed-marriage. That sort of mentality of "they're not one of us, therefore they are heretics" within the laity is a huge stumbling block for both sides as both sides are guilty of it. That's getting to what I meant by "the entire Church" since the laity are the Church.

Trust me, both Orthodox and Roman Catholics are guilty of it and both need to get over it if the bishops even want to entertain the idea of talks for reunification.

Hope that helps clarify a little bit.

 

[Mankin]

From what I understand from history, after 1204 the Byzantine Empire never truly recovered. The Byzantine Empire regained quite a bit of territory in Asia Minor after the First Crusade. They might have been able to hold up against the Ottomons in the later centuries had they retained command of Constantinope during the 13th century.

But with the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomons, and most of Russia to the Mongols, only Novgorod and Wallachia managed to survive. Wallachia managed to remain independant thanks to good ole Dracula(Vlad III the Impaler. Although they did become a vassal state later).

 

[christopherdombrowski]

From the perspective of someone who was once part of the "Eastern Orthodox Church", and who still respects my heritage, I will say that I think it is far more important for the Romans to first convert to the doctrine than it is for them to apologize for an act 800 years ago that they really have nothing to do with. Though an apology on behalf of their ancestors would certainly be a very good idea.