www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Turkey and the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Shlomo Dan,

You state: But the same can be said of the Byzantine Church. Here is what one Coptic site has to say about how the Byzantines acted:

Here is what a Maronite site has to say: Here is a quote from an Armenian site: And lastly here is what the Syriac Orthodox have to say: My point is that if it was not for how the Byzantines treaded their fellow Christians then Constantinople would never had faced the Muslim on-slaught that brought about the collapse. That and if they had not owed money and not paid.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Corrupt? A nation which kills millions of innocent children every year legally, now that's corrupt We are not going to help anyone until our own moral house is in order.

Yuhannon,

We all realize that both the West/Old Roman and East/New Roman empires have persecuted and devastated. I haven't heard of any apologies from the Phanar in regards to the devastation wreaked on Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Armenia, but I don't know if that's altogether necessary, just as I don't know if the papal apologies to Constantinople were entirely necessary.

I've always had my own issues with a group of people apologizing to someone else for wounds inflicted by those long dead and gone to the grave. I think, because now-living Roman Catholics are part of the same Church that devastated Constantinople during the Crusades, that people, subconsciously perhaps, view these moderners as almost the same people who commited these atrocities. Of course I, being a Roman Catholic (as well as the Pope himself and other ecclesiastical leaders) have no more a connection to those Crusaders than anyone living in Greece nowadaus, except for the fact that both I and the Crusaders are/were Roman Catholic.

In the same vein, the leaders of the Church of Constantinople today are not, and really have no connection to the actions of, those patriarchs and emperors who authorized or supported these atrocities against the abovementioned nations.

I think people feel the need for apology because these actions can be taken as being reflective of the general mind of the Church to which these members belong, so that a Greek Orthodox may think, "Well, these people are part of the Church that did this 900 years ago, so that must mean they support those actions." Obviously, the Most Holy Father wishes to make clear to those skeptics that the Catholic Church does not support the actions of these deviant Crusaders (nor did the Pope approve of these measures 900 years ago). Still, I don't see the rationale behind the connection; just because one belongs to the same ecclesial body as someone else doesn't mean they approve of their actions, especially inasmuch as they depart from how a Christian should act.

I think this is true both of the Crusaders and Constantinople as well as the oppression of the Egyptians, Maronites, Syrians, and Armenians by the Byzantine Empire.

Logos Teen

Dear Yuhannon,

What you say is very true.

The Byzantine empire's persecution of the Oriental Churches is a page of church history we BC's don't like to reference . . .

The antipathy EO's and OO's feel toward each other has much more to do with that painful memory than even the issue of Christology and mutual anathemas.

sldln. . . sorry, my orange scarf keeps falling on my fingers as I type . . .

Alex

An interesting story on yahoo and this subject.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...on_re_mi_ea/turkey_problematic_patriarch

Shlomo Teen,

I was not saying that the present Byzantines should apology, but what I was saying is that they need to look at what they did historically to undermine Christianity in the Near East.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I think there is plenty of blame to go around for the fall of Constantinople. Yes, the Latins did weaken the empire and could have helped at the last moment, but didn't. But did Byzantine leaders, religious and secular, ever teach heresy? Did the Byzantine armies lose key battles long before the fall of the City, from which they never recovered? Did the Byzantines fail to update their military technology and become weaker than their enemies who did? Were Byzantines always examples of Christianity to other Christians? This could go on and on. Like I said, there is plenty of blame to go around, and part of it rests with the Byzantines.

Thank you Don for the additional article.

As my priest said, Istanbul is the only place where visiting priests and bishops have to wear suits and ties, because they are not allowed to wear a collar or rasso.

Since the numbers of Greek Orthodox are dwindling dramatically and dying off after the 1921 ethnic cleansing, and since it is Turkish law that anyone voted to be Patriarch has to be a Turkish citizen, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out their intentions: to eradicate Orthodoxy Christianity and the Patriarchate from its soil.

This is such a mess!

Although I disagree, I do understand *why* there are some that think the Patriarchate should move to the United States or Europe. They are sick of seeing our spiritual Patriarch, his rights, and Christian's religious rights being abused!

On the other hand, I recall that just a few days ago the relics of the great St. John Chrysostom were brought to Istanbul..and now they lay in the Phanar with countless other treasures of Byzantine Christianity and history, and know that if the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was ever forced to move, all of that would remain with the infidels in Turkey.

Alice, who is feeling very down about all of this because Turkey NEVER keeps its promises to the Greek Orthodox-- NEVER! (Even to get into the EU, they cannot swallow their pride and arrogance, show good will, and keep their formal and public *promise* to open the theological school of Halki!) Anyway--I think that the EU is watching this very closely.

Maybe you're right, Charles...had the West actually kept the empty promises it made to St. Constantine Paleologus, got themselves together and defended Christianity under attack by Islam, they likely would have turned on the weakened Constantinople and created a replay of the fourth Crusade afterwards.

Well if you really want to go back to the beginning, dividing the empire was a collosal mistake to begin with. It created two weaker entities with no common culture or language.

But perhaps the desire for membership will be the carrot that moves Turkey in the direction of religious freedom? Wouldn't that be a good thing, not only for the Christians of Turkey but for the Islamic world?

For the most of Islam that would be unique.

Dan L

This is much too simple a statement. At the Council of Florence, there was an agreement for unity and help, but when word reached Constantinople, the people were furious. Now they had been aroused by certain individuals, but that is neither here nor there. The persecuted hierarchs in favor of the treaty, both Greek and Latin, were forced to flea the city.

What the Greeks also did, was refuse to step into the church of Aghia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) for six months, simply because it was cataminated by a Latin Rite.

Fighting kept breaking out between the Italians and Greeks, and between the Venetians and Genoese. It didn't stop until the day before the city was taken. Nor did the people decide to pray in the great church until the day before it was taken.

Most of the upper class did leave for the Greek islands, and for the city of Mistra. The rest were massacred...and the Italians with them. The Genovese fought bravely, but the one's in the Genovese fortress of Galata, could only look on in horror... knowing that if they helped, they would be next.

What is interesting, is that the Greeks, love to lick their wounds. They like to perceive themselves and their church, as matyrs. Never does one hear among the Greeks, that their suffering might have been caused by their spiritual shortcomings.

Mind you, this does not mean that I am in complete agreement with the treaty of Florence. Believe me, I am not that knowledgable as to its contents.

As for Turkey, It tried to establish a land for itself after it was stripped of so much when it was defeated in WW I. It held on to the territory it now covers through genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Zenovia

Florence was really a disaster. It is proof that unity has to be from the "grass roots" of the people. When it was forced from above, because of the desires of a few bishops, it simply did not take. This created negativism about the union that continued for centuries.

Regarding being "too simple", admittedly any discussion of something as complicated as this history would be too simple outside of volumes of text with references. Perhaps it is not too simple to expect someone who promises you support in combating a common foe to actually come through on that promise. Certainly every man sins, Greeks, Italians, Turks, all.

As for licking wounds, when they are inflicted by others supposedly calling themselves Christians, those wounds are deeper and take longer to heal. But they certainly can be healed by the love of Christ and the intercessions of the Theotokos.

Shlomo Yuhannon - I have to agree with Alex that the treatment of the Oriental Orthodox was most terrible by the Byzantines. We share the pain and guilt of that treatment, which also created the first Uniate church in history, predating Brest or Florence by a millenium - the dual and rival Patriarchate of Alexandria.

It looks more and more like the Greeks got what they asked for. Before this discussion I tended to agree with Diak, that even though the Byzantine Empire was corrupt and treated others in a manner that no one would wish to be treated, they nevertheless deserved better from the West. It seems now that the Byzantine Empire was its own worst enemy. They couldn't be rescued because they didn't wish to be. The Empire had outlived its usefulness.

The issue now isn't whether Rome should or could have done more in 1453. The issue now is "Will Christianity be able to thrive in a hostile land controlled by those (The Turks) who consider them nothing more than pawns or slaves?"

Dan L