Reply With QuotePretty much explains why Catholics are in most Orthodox' **** list.
Christian vs. Christian in the Fourth Crusade
Christian vs. Christian in the Fourth Crusade
The chance to unify the faithful -- and gain a strong ally -- led to the conquest of Christendoms's leading city.
By Jonathan Phillips
...more...In April 1204, the armies of the Fourth Crusade broke into the city of Constantinople and began to loot, pillage, and slaughter their way across the greatest metropolis in the Christian world. Within months Pope Innocent III, the man who had first called for the Crusade, bitterly lamented the spilling of "blood on Christian swords that should have been used on pagans" and described the expedition as "an example of affliction and the works of Hell."
Niketas Choniates, one of the inhabitants of the city, condemned the Crusaders' actions in understandably harsh terms: "In truth, they were exposed as frauds. Seeking to avenge the Holy Spirit they raged openly against Christ and sinned by overturning the Cross with the cross they bore on their backs, not even shuddering to trample on it for the sake of a little gold or silver." To the Crusaders themselves, the capture of Constantinople seemed an astonishing turn of events. One wrote: "We might safely say that no history could ever relate marvels greater than these so far as the fortunes of war are concerned....This was done by the Lord and is a miracle above all miracles in our eyes."
How could a combined land and naval force of perhaps twenty thousand men take a city with an estimated population of 350,000? In reality, the combination of a particularly favorable set of political circumstances, military and maritime skills of the highest order, religious zeal, and sheer good fortune enabled the Crusaders to succeed.
Before we explore the reasons behind this victory, it is crucial to explain why the Fourth Crusade arrived at Constantinople. Just over one hundred years earlier, in November 1095, Pope Urban II had issued a call to the knights of France to liberate the city of Jerusalem from Islam. In return for their efforts, these warriors would be rewarded with the remission of all their sins.
In spite of the intense religiosity of the time knights were, because of their way of life, deeply immersed in sin; the prospect of receiving an unprecedented spiritual reward (thereby avoiding eternal damnation) and being able to continue to fight was hugely alluring. To some men the prospects of land and loot were additional attractions. Urban's appeal received a rapturous response, and around sixty thousand men spent the next three years struggling across Asia Minor toward the Holy Land. They endured terrible hardships -- starvation, enemy attacks, and sickness -- but eventually, on July 15, 1099, they captured Jerusalem, the epicenter of the Christian faith. A Second Crusade in 1145-49 ended ingloriously, with the Christians abandoning their siege of Damascus after four futile days.
Pretty much explains why Catholics are in most Orthodox' **** list.
I think you mean the Catholic church, not simply "Catholics". I don't think I've ever come upon a non-Catholic who cursed me for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.Pretty much explains why Catholics are in most Orthodox' **** list.
Mac, THe excommunications have been lifted decades ago, so it's okay for Catholics and Orthodox to get drunk together again.Originally Posted by mudbunny
I used to be Catholic, but moved to the Orthodoxy after a Catholic padre actually said Marx complemented the Gospel. Nevertheless, most Catholics, lay and Church alike, are still viewed with suspicion in the East, simply because of the Fourth Crusade. Devout Orthodox, especially in Russia, are territorial about Catholic "raids" into Orthodox lands. And even in Greece, a NATO ally, there is much sympathy for Serbs, simply because of Orthodox tradition.
But, hey, well, that's a problem for those who take faith too seriously. Fact is Constantinople was lost not long afterward and Christianity is still a portable religion.
One of the reasons Constantinople fell. Instead of supporting the Byzantines as a buffer between the Ottomans and Europe, they sacked the city. Further weakening the Byzantines and leaving them ripe for the picking. Instead, the buffer became Eastern Europe and we're still dealing with the fallout. I blame the Venetians. And the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church have gotten on better, especially in the last 20 years.
Somewhat ironic that Constantinopole was brought to its knees by a blind old man. And he lived just to be buried there in Hagia Sophia just a year after that shameful crusade, and another disastrous expedition to Bulgaria. Enrico Dandolo was his name.
In 1453, in Konstandinopole, the Greek Patriarch answered this way to the delegates of Rome that offered help against turks "Better the Sultan's turbant (perhaps I am wrong, what is the name of the tipicall turkish and indian cap) than the Pope´s one"!
In 1444 during the battle of Varna, Brankovic the King of Serbia, and uncle of Mehmet II, did not allow Scanderbeg Armies to be united with the Army of Sobiesky and Huniad. The Islamic can never equal the hate of the orthodoxes against Western Civilisation, and especially against their Religion (Catholic&Protestants). Because Orthodoxism is based totally in the intolerance, and as a religious fondamentalism, can not accept the sense of freedom and tolerance that other Christian Religions teach!
Last edited by Robroy; 10-20-2005 at 11:10 AM.
the king of Poland, Jan III Sobieski, deafeted Turks during the battle of Vienna, 1683I guess you were talking about battle of Varna, 1444 when Polish king, Wladyslaw Warnenczyk fought(and lost his life) with Turks...ohhh, and it was Huniady....
If you didnt, sorry...
Pardon I made big confusion of all! I have Sobieski in mind because all the times I am in Warsaw i stay at hotel Campanile at The front of Sobiesky Hotel. You are right.the king of Poland, Jan III Sobieski, deafeted Turks during the battle of Vienna, 1683
no problem, mate...Im a future history teacher,so I have to be right*
*-not all the time of course
Next time I am in Poland, perhaps we have a drink.no problem, mate...Im a future history teacher,so I have to be right*
*-not all the time of course
no problem
I am a little late here but...
You call the supreme role of Pope freedom?? In Orthodox church the desicions are made democratically by the gathering of the hepiskopes (I am not sure if they are called this way in English,sorry). In Catholic church the Pope rules everything.Because Orthodoxism is based totally in the intolerance, and as a religious fondamentalism, can not accept the sense of freedom and tolerance that other Christian Religions teach!
Tolerance?? Xmm... let's see....how many Jews were persecuted during middle ages (catholic church's era of power)? How many innocent women were burned at stake accused of withcraft? How many heretics had the same fate? And moving forward, the Protestants were no better. In America pouritanism lead the massacre of thousands of Indians. I don't claim that Orthodoxism is the best but when you are talking about tolerance, leave religions out of the discussion. There are no tolerant religions, except from a few chinese or so.
Catholics and Protestants persecuted the Jews. As Catholic, I live with great sense of ansiousity my religion for what the Jews suffered by the hand of Catholics.
But the extermination of the Jews or the POGROM, is a theory and practice created by orthodox Church!
I call bullpoop in this one, Niko.
I call bullpoop on this one,as well.I don't claim that Orthodoxism is the best but when you are talking about tolerance, leave religions out of the discussion. There are no tolerant religions, except from a few chinese or so.
Posting Permissions
