• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How much of this is true?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JasonS

Active Member
Feb 8, 2004
50
6
✟200.00
Faith
Catholic
thereselittleflower said:
So . . what it all boils down to is that it had nothing to do with the Crusades . . and everything to do with politics outside the purpose of the Crusades .

But I am curious about something you posted . . you said Alexius offered submission of the Eastern Church . . . but to whom did he make that offer? And where do we find record of it?


Peace in Him!

Precisely. Dandolo the doge of Venice and the king of France saw it as an oportunity to make some money on the side before they go to Egypt. Crusading was an expensive business which left many impoverished when they returned. So the thought of fulflilling their religious vows while making some extra cash must have been irresistible. If anyone wants to read a great history of the crusades I suggest any of Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith's books. He is the leading crusade historian living today.

Here is an excerpt of a letter sent by the Pope expressing his dismay to a clergy member who supported the sacking:

How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, whose swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, are now dripping with Christian blood * they have spared neither age nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics. .

countrymousenc said:
Ahem! My turn to object, and I think it's only fair. This is a very simplistic and somewhat biased account of the Lutheran Reformation. Perhaps you would be willing to post this in the PRE forum and allow the Lutherans to evaluate.

Well I deliberately tried to keep it simple. Thousands of books have been written on these issues so it would be impossible to cover all the angles in a single post. As for Martin Luther I was giving the Catholic view, as well as the Orthodox view I might add. In their attempt at reform I feel that the protestants had thrown out the baby with the bathwater so to speak, getting rid of 5 sacraments and holy tradition. In 1576 the protestants sent a copy of the augsburg confession to Patriarch Jeremiah in order to gain support for their position. Here is an exerpt of the venerable patriarch's response:

You reckon the invocation of the saints, their icons, and their sacred relics as futile. You reject their veneration, taking as a pretext the Hebrew source. Moreover, you also reject confession to one another. In addition, you reject the angelic, monastic life. And about these matters we say that the Holy [Scripture] passages concerning them have not been interpreted by such theologians as you are, for neither Saint Chrysostom nor any other of the blessed and true theologians interpreted as if they were dragged along by a torrent. But, indeed, he [Chrysostom] and the holy man after him, being full of the Holy Spirit who performed supernatural miracles while they were living and after they died, interpreted [the Holy Scriptures] as they did; and they received such traditions, and they handed them down successively and gave them to us as indispensable and pious [sacraments]. Some of these even Old Rome also keeps and acquiesces with us. From whence have you reckoned better than Old and New Rome? Indeed, have you forsaken the interpretations of the true theologians and considered your own as more preferable? From the source of the Hebrew tradition we learn from history that contempt for the holy icons and sacred relics had its origin from the Hebrews. The schisms of the Lutherans there, which are many and various, were indeed caused and spread by some Hebrews, as it has been broached abroad feigning piety. And already, as you see, they have taken root and have opened the way for more evil as day by day they grow worse. Being completely not in communion with them [the Hebrews], we covet and, indeed, unshakably, the sacraments of our Church. We closely adhere to the teachings which have been uttered by the successors of the God-preaching Holy Apostles. We consider their interpretations as more precious than all the gold and gems. Indeed, we invoke the all-holy saints not as saviors and redeemers, God forbid, for only One is the Savior and Redeemer, the Christ; but we who are sinners and in the midst of evils hold them forth as intermediaries who have completed the journey of life in a holy and satisfactory manner and have departed to God, and who richly intercede for us. And of course, we are not committing sin by continually pursuing this aim. For by venerating their holy icons and their relics which cause thousands of healings to those who on occasion approach in faith, we reap extraordinary beneficences from them, and we are illumined in soul and body. We confess also to one another, according to the Holy Scriptures. We revere the monastic and angelic life. We pray that those who lift up these burdens do not turn back at all, if indeed they would choose to be properly prepared for the kingdom of heaven.

Therefore, we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons which are their holy and divine discourses as unsuitable. And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you. Thus, as for you, please release us from these cares. Therefore, going about your own ways, write no longer concerning dogmas; but if you do, write only for friendship's sake. Farewell.

Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople
Issued in the year 1581, June 6
Protonotarios Theodosios
 
Upvote 0

countrymousenc

Dances With Mop
Jan 26, 2004
1,838
19
70
North Carolina, USA
✟2,098.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
JasonS said:
Well I deliberately tried to keep it simple. Thousands of books have been written on these issues so it would be impossible to cover all the angles in a single post. As for Martin Luther I was giving the Catholic view, as well as the Orthodox view I might add. In their attempt at reform I feel that the protestants had thrown out the baby with the bathwater so to speak, getting rid of 5 sacraments and holy tradition. In 1576 the protestants sent a copy of the augsburg confession to Patriarch Jeremiah in order to gain support for their position.

It would be impossible to cover all angles, and I agree that Luther threw out some babies with the bath water. He was overreactive. That doesn't mean that the Catholic account of the Reformation is entirely unbiased. And to speak as though Luther rejected the whole Holy Tradition is also untrue. The focus of Holy Tradition is God's Trinitarian nature and the nature of Christ (His humanity and divinity). Luther rejected none of that. He did reject transubstantiation (modifying the explanation of Real Presence to consubstantiation). I don't personally object to transubstantiation, but it's my understanding that the Eastern Church does not exactly accept it. In terms of truly catholic and apostolic Holy Tradition as defined by the 7 ecumenical councils, Luther 1. offered a different explanation of Real Presence and 2. rejected the veneration of icons. This is unfortunate, but I don't believe it will be ongoing if the Orthodox and Catholics can manage to straighten out the original mess and then educate the rest of us. We're already beginning to become aware of the half of Church history that we previously had no idea of. That's one step in the right direction.

I could point out, also, that in the context of Christianforums, it is not appropriate to get in a snit when someone posts history from the Protestant point of view and then feel perfectly free to post the Reader's Digest version of the Catholic point of view, unilaterally labeling Luther a heretic.
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
45
Southern California
✟34,644.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Actually Luther's explaination was just his opinion. He believed it was wrong to make a definition of the real presence an official dogma. If you read any of the Lutheran texts you will see that consubstantiation is not taught anywhere.

Luther didn't reject tradition, he switched the order of reading scripture through tradition to reading tradition through scripture.

Also, the dialogue between Lutherans and Constantinople was more complex than you make it out to be. It continued for sometime before both sides decided that they could not come to agreement.
 
Upvote 0

JasonS

Active Member
Feb 8, 2004
50
6
✟200.00
Faith
Catholic
countrymousenc said:
I could point out, also, that in the context of Christianforums, it is not appropriate to get in a snit when someone posts history from the Protestant point of view and then feel perfectly free to post the Reader's Digest version of the Catholic point of view, unilaterally labeling Luther a heretic.

Oh I have no problems with different points of view, I'm sorry if that's the way it sounded. I was only giving own opinion concern Luther and of various history professors of mine concerning other history subjects. At the time Martin Luther was indeed considered a heretic by Catholics and at the very least as heterodox by the Orthodox. I suppose it would be unfair to lump Luther with all protestants as Luther had fights with other protestant leaders who wanted to take things further like Jean Calvin or Zwingli. The edict of worms makes no bones about calling Luther a heretic;

Accordingly, in view of . . . the fact that Martin Luther still persists obstinately and perversely in maintaining his heretical opinions, and consequently all pious and God-fearing persons abominate and abhor him as one mad or possessed by a demon, . . . we have declared and made known that the said Martin Luther shall hereafter be held and esteemed by each and all of us as a limb cut off from the Church of God, an obstinate and schismatic and manifest heretic . . . .
 
Upvote 0

countrymousenc

Dances With Mop
Jan 26, 2004
1,838
19
70
North Carolina, USA
✟2,098.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Lotar said:
Actually Luther's explaination was just his opinion. He believed it was wrong to make a definition of the real presence an official dogma. If you read any of the Lutheran texts you will see that consubstantiation is not taught anywhere.

Luther didn't reject tradition, he switched the order of reading scripture through tradition to reading tradition through scripture.

Also, the dialogue between Lutherans and Constantinople was more complex than you make it out to be. It continued for sometime before both sides decided that they could not come to agreement.

Well, there you go; something else I didn't know (about consubstantiation). I have read a brief history of the dialogues between the Lutherans and Constantinople, and what I've read agrees with what Lotar wrote. It was not an immediate rejection.
 
Upvote 0

JasonS

Active Member
Feb 8, 2004
50
6
✟200.00
Faith
Catholic
Lotar said:
Well, the pope was an anti-christ, so what else would we expect from that church.

I'm sorry Lotar, I meant no ill will. I don't mean to disparage any group. I realize now I used some strong words, for that I apologize. I'm used to conversing with other history students who don't mind that sort of talk, I forgot where I was posting. My apologies. :angel:
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟57,855.00
Faith
Catholic
countrymousenc said:
Well, there you go; something else I didn't know (about consubstantiation). I have read a brief history of the dialogues between the Lutherans and Constantinople, and what I've read agrees with what Lotar wrote. It was not an immediate rejection.
That may be, but it is where it ended up . just because it was not an immediate rejection does not mean the EO at any time agreed with Luther - perhaps they entertained hopes . . it takes time to asses another's views . . and we know what that final assessment was . .


Peace in Him!
 
Upvote 0

Suzannah

A sinner
Nov 17, 2003
5,151
319
69
✟23,324.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Always glad to lighten things up with a healthy dose of Irish irreverence.... :D


Really, I do think that since history has played out the way it has, we are all left with this: "Bretheren, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..."

Truly, I have always been filled with fear and trembling when it comes to assessing Christians and Christianity...hence my reluctance to say "The Holy Spirit is here, but not there...."

I truly hope for Christian love and Christian charity....that is the best I can hope for from my Protestant and Catholic brothers and sisters.....In the words of that famous Christian theologian, Tiny Tim:
"God bless us, every one!"
:clap:
 
Upvote 0

RhetorTheo

Melkite
Dec 19, 2003
2,289
94
53
✟2,933.00
Faith
Catholic
I don't know if you'd even know the answer, but I've been told that the Melkite Catholics use the Orthodox calendar for holy days, except for Easter/Pascha which is the same for both the Roman Catholic and Melkite. Does this mean that the Melkites use the old calendar or the new calendar? (I'm assuming it must be the new calendar because otherwise Christmas would be different.)

TIA
 
Upvote 0

ChoirDir

Choir Director
Jan 19, 2004
376
24
71
South Carolina
Visit site
✟23,152.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
RhetorTheo said:
I'm assuming it must be the new calendar because otherwise Christmas would be different
Not necessarily true. Most Orthodox Churches today use the new calendar exceptwhen calculating Pascha. From the beginning of Lent to Ascension all Orthodox use the old calendar.
 
Upvote 0

Aristokles

Regular Member
Jan 19, 2004
161
21
Pittsburgh, PA
✟22,901.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
ChoirDir said:
Not necessarily true. Most Orthodox Churches today use the new calendar exceptwhen calculating Pascha. From the beginning of Lent to Ascension all Orthodox use the old calendar.

ChoirDir,
I am not so certain this is entirely true. Yes, ALL Orthodox Churches (except the Church of Finland which uses the actual Gregorian Calendar in order to maintain status as an "officially" recognized church there) follow the same Paschalion for the celebration of Pascha, but in the terms of the world-wide Orthodox communion I think you will find most (in terms of number of churches and number of faithful) still follow the Julian ("Old") Calendar. It is true that in North America most use the Revised Julian ("New") Calendar with, if my memory is correct, the ROCOR, the Serbian Archdiocese, and some of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox -mine- on the "Old" Calendar. There are still some GOA parishes under the "Old" as well, I understand.
Of course, when it comes to Nativity, it is sometimes difficult for Old calendar churches in the USA to get across that their Dec 25th falls on civil Jan7th. It's Dec 25th on both calendars, just a different day for the 25th! ;)

BTW, the Revised Julian Calendar is technically not the Gregorian although it follows it closely; it in fact is more accurate in its celestial calculations but it will take probably several hundred years for those differences to show up.
Hope this helps and I've not botched my explanation :o

Demetri
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.