|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: First E. Orthodox Ecumenical Council in over 1200 years
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Not only that, but according to Vatican I his jurisdiction over the whole Church is apparently immediate, rendering all the bishops useless.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The 17th Ecumenical Council of the Church, held at Basle, Ferrara and Florence, made quite a number of important decisions. <snip>
Nothing at all like the Incarnation or the Trinity, however. So, do the Catholics think it's just as important as Nicea and Chalcedon? Please oh please say no.
quote:
Of course, it is fair to say that the efforts of the Byzantine emperor to make the Greek bishops agree to the Latin demands were probably motivated not only by holiness, but also by military concerns.
I have heard it said that the east was promised military help in exchange for accepting the overlordship of the Pope. Make of that what you will (as I know you will).
quote:
And perhaps we should not be surprised at the flip-flopping of the Eastern hierarchy, who followed the emperor while in the West, and then their flock when back in the East.
Darn those bishops not accepting caeseropapism.
quote:
Shortly after Constantinople was overrun by Muslims, de facto locking in the Eastern status quo we still see today. This we can see as a failure of the West: if Western forces had thrown back the Muslim invasion, then perhaps the emperor would have succeeded in pushing through the formal unity at home.
If the fucking west hadn't fucking sacked fucking Constantinople and raided the God-dammned place, and burned the fucking city down, its strength might well have continued unabated, and the 1453 war would have been a footnote. So yeah the fall of Constantinople was a failure of the fucking West. Fuck the fucking self-righteous "oh why couldn't you accept our sweet little council?" West.
ETA: not that I'm bitter.
*cough*Massacre of the Latins*cough*
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC for example consists currently of 23 autonomous (sui iuris) particular churches.
Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
Autonomous and autocephalous are different things. China has autonomous provinces, and Spain has autonomous regions. Of course it's ironic, but there are degrees of autonomy. The Eastern Catholic Churches have more autonomy than Tibet, I would say.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC for example consists currently of 23 autonomous (sui iuris) particular churches.
Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
Autonomous and autocephalous are different things. China has autonomous provinces, and Spain has autonomous regions. Of course it's ironic, but there are degrees of autonomy. The Eastern Catholic Churches have more autonomy than Tibet, I would say.
And the autocephalous Orthodox churches, such as the Archbishops and Patriarchs, aren’t that different from the Roman pontificate. In fact, many of the Orthodox arguments against the authority and primacy of the Pope is, if valid, equally damaging to these. And this is not something that Roman Catholics have come up with. It’s from the mouth of Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, in his article “The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology”:
quote:
Theoretically, it is true, a personal power of one bishop over another bishop is rejected; the "supreme power" is exercised usually by the Primate together with a governing body: synod, council, etc… For us, however, the important fact is that such supreme ecclesiastical government is always characterized as power over bishops, who are therefore subordinated to it. "Supreme power" is thus introduced into the very structure of the Church as its essential element. The divorce between canonical tradition and the canonical facts is nowhere more obvious than in this universal triumph of the notion of supreme power. Having rejected and still rejecting it in its Roman form, i. e., as universal power, the Orthodox conscience has easily accepted it in the so-called "autocephalies."
The question to ask, is obviously this: Why is it wrong for the Pope to assume authority over bishops, but OK for a Patriarch?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
As I posted earlier in this thread:
"From an Orthodox persective any heirachy among the bishops is ultimately only a matter of convenience, making it easier to govern the Church. If any honour is given to one bishop above another it's not because it's essential to the continuing existence of the Church. The Church doesn't necessarily need the patriarchies in order to exist. All it needs is at least one orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate, but that could be the bishop of anywhere."
For some it may seem like only a subtle difference but reality it's a fundamental difference in ecclesiology between East and West. This is why the West has had to create an apparatus around the bishop of Rome, namely the "Petrine ministry", in order to make everything look neat and tidy (and such neat and tidiness is a human invention).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nothing at all like the Incarnation or the Trinity, however. So, do the Catholics think it's just as important as Nicea and Chalcedon? Please oh please say no.
I'm not aware of any official ranking concerning the various Ecumenical Councils. However, I see no problem with saying both that all ECs have the same highest authority and that some ECs decided on more important matters than others. It is fairly obvious that the usage of unleavened bread is less fundamental an issue than the structure of the Trinity.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have heard it said that the east was promised military help in exchange for accepting the overlordship of the Pope. Make of that what you will (as I know you will).
I'm pretty sure that the hope for military aid was a major motivation for the emperor. I do not know though to what extent there actually were explicit promises of such aid from anyone in the West. I have the impression that it was more a "good will campaign" on the side of the emperor, in the hope that this would lead to tangible military benefits. But I haven't really studied the history. Anyway, I would be rather surprised if the emperor gave a damn about any of the religious ado, other than as a bargaining chip for his political game. From my perspective, he likely did the right thing for the wrong reasons...
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Darn those bishops not accepting caeseropapism.
Sorry, I missed the part where they stood up to the emperor while being confronted by him? To suck up to whoever is most in your face at the moment is not exactly a demonstration of moral fortitude...
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the fucking west hadn't fucking sacked fucking Constantinople and raided the God-dammned place, and burned the fucking city down, its strength might well have continued unabated, and the 1453 war would have been a footnote. So yeah the fall of Constantinople was a failure of the fucking West. Fuck the fucking self-righteous "oh why couldn't you accept our sweet little council?" West. ETA: not that I'm bitter.
CL mentioned the "Massacre of the Latins" in 1182 AD already. Apart from the atrocity itself, wiping out something like 60,000 RCs (mostly Italians) in Constantinople in the most brutal manner, it was a sign of long-term trade conflict of the Byzantine Empire with Venice, where the former was removing the latter from its long established privileged position as trading partner. Come 1202 AD, the Venetians had invested pretty much all their money into organising the transport for the Fourth Crusade. Turns out they couldn't pay their bills. So who actually came up with the bright idea of taking Constantinople to recover the money? Did the Venetians, who had their trade slashed and their people massacred, have this idea? No, they had the crusaders take on a rebelling Roman Catholic city for them. But when the Byzantine prince Alexios IV Angelos, who wanted to take the throne back for his father from his uncle, the reigning emperor Alexios III Angelos, promised them lots of money for that, they listened. Unfortunately, Alexios IV Angelos had problems delivering what he promised after the crusader army did what he had asked them to do, and made him co-emperor with his dad. He was then murdered by the Byzantine nobleman Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos, who basically told the Venetians / crusaders to shove off without their promised payment. Then they attacked, sacked and plundered Constantinople. So, yeah. Not the brightest moment in the history of the West, but hardly a matter in which the Byzantine population and rulers were just innocent victims. It was more a matter of the Byzantines sowing the wind, and reaping the Venetian / crusader whirlwind.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
It's like saying that Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of the UK, Australia and Canada, but that those are nevertheless independent countries. The pope has relatively speaking more power over these autonomous churches than the Queen over those countries, that is true. He's more of a monarch than she is. Nevertheless, these churches are "sui iuris", operate under a different canon law than the Latin rite Church, are led by their own Patriarch, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Not only that, but according to Vatican I his jurisdiction over the whole Church is apparently immediate, rendering all the bishops useless.
One might as well say that the immediate authority of the bishop over his diocese renders all the priests operating under him useless. Just as a bishop does not run his diocese by micromanaging the parishes instead of the priests, so the pope does not run the Church by micromanaging the dioceses instead of the bishops. In both cases the immediate authority comes into play when there are problems. In a showdown between a priest and his bishop (at ecclesial level), the priest loses. In a showdown between a bishop and the pope (at ecclesial level), the bishop loses. Ideally, such showdowns should never happen, and they are in fact rare. But when they do, then the authority structure is clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So any meeting of
FWCC is an ecumenical council?
Sure, why not? In its context. It's just not an ecumenical council the RCC attributes any significance to as far as her doctrine, law and discipline is concerned. Different context.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As I posted earlier in this thread:
"From an Orthodox persective any heirachy among the bishops is ultimately only a matter of convenience, making it easier to govern the Church. If any honour is given to one bishop above another it's not because it's essential to the continuing existence of the Church. The Church doesn't necessarily need the patriarchies in order to exist. All it needs is at least one orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate, but that could be the bishop of anywhere."
For some it may seem like only a subtle difference but reality it's a fundamental difference in ecclesiology between East and West. This is why the West has had to create an apparatus around the bishop of Rome, namely the "Petrine ministry", in order to make everything look neat and tidy (and such neat and tidiness is a human invention).
"... such neat and tidiness is a human invention."
So is the idea that the Church needs "at least one orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate" in order to exist. Ignatius of Antioch (God bless him!) has a lot to answer for on this bit of silliness.
Ignatius said (I'm quoting from memory): Where the bishop is, there is the Church.
Jesus, however, said: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them" (Matthew 18:20).
And some English guys got it just right when they said: "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."
If you Roman Catholics and Orthodox could just agree to accept the authentic biblical doctrine of the Church, a lot of problems could be solved. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Not the brightest moment in the history of the West, but hardly a matter in which the Byzantine population and rulers were just innocent victims.
Dear God, yes the population of Constantinople brought it upon their own heads. Those nuns who were raped deserved it, as did every priest who was spitted. Do they teach you this in CCD? Holy fucking shit.
quote:
It was more a matter of the Byzantines sowing the wind, and reaping the Venetian / crusader whirlwind.
All of them, yes. Every single fucking last one.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
It's like saying that Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of the UK, Australia and Canada, but that those are nevertheless independent countries. The pope has relatively speaking more power over these autonomous churches than the Queen over those countries, that is true. He's more of a monarch than she is. Nevertheless, these churches are "sui iuris", operate under a different canon law than the Latin rite Church, are led by their own Patriarch, etc.
So which of the pope's dictates are they free to ignore?
[ 28. March 2014, 17:22: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Not the brightest moment in the history of the West, but hardly a matter in which the Byzantine population and rulers were just innocent victims.
Dear God, yes the population of Constantinople brought it upon their own heads. Those nuns who were raped deserved it, as did every priest who was spitted. Do they teach you this in CCD? Holy fucking shit.
quote:
It was more a matter of the Byzantines sowing the wind, and reaping the Venetian / crusader whirlwind.
All of them, yes. Every single fucking last one.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
It's like saying that Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of the UK, Australia and Canada, but that those are nevertheless independent countries. The pope has relatively speaking more power over these autonomous churches than the Queen over those countries, that is true. He's more of a monarch than she is. Nevertheless, these churches are "sui iuris", operate under a different canon law than the Latin rite Church, are led by their own Patriarch, etc.
So which of the pope's dictates are they free to ignore?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Devastating rebuttal.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As I posted earlier in this thread:
"From an Orthodox persective any heirachy among the bishops is ultimately only a matter of convenience, making it easier to govern the Church. If any honour is given to one bishop above another it's not because it's essential to the continuing existence of the Church. The Church doesn't necessarily need the patriarchies in order to exist. All it needs is at least one orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate, but that could be the bishop of anywhere."
For some it may seem like only a subtle difference but reality it's a fundamental difference in ecclesiology between East and West. This is why the West has had to create an apparatus around the bishop of Rome, namely the "Petrine ministry", in order to make everything look neat and tidy (and such neat and tidiness is a human invention).
"... such neat and tidiness is a human invention."
So is the idea that the Church needs "at least one orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate" in order to exist. Ignatius of Antioch (God bless him!) has a lot to answer for on this bit of silliness.
Ignatius said (I'm quoting from memory): Where the bishop is, there is the Church.
Jesus, however, said: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them" (Matthew 18:20).
And some English guys got it just right when they said: "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."
If you Roman Catholics and Orthodox could just agree to accept the authentic biblical doctrine of the Church, a lot of problems could be solved.
The idea that something needs to be clearly stated in Scripture in order to be doctrine seems as strange to me as I'm sure many of my ideas sound to you. But I'm far from an orthodox RC anyway.
The fulness of the Church is present when a bishop is present in his diocese. This does not mean that the Church is not present at all when there is a gathering of a few lay Christians, and it certainly does not mean that Christ is not present when such a gathering occurs. By the way, what does it mean to be gathered in Jesus' name? Might it not mean being in communion with the broader Christian community in some way? We can discuss what this communion entails, but many Christians believe that the episcopate plays some role in maintaining and leading this unity. As a heretic, schismatic, apostate, or worse, I am hypocritical to point this out, but hey, it's what I'm thinking so I'm saying it.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
One might as well say that the immediate authority of the bishop over his diocese renders all the priests operating under him useless. Just as a bishop does not run his diocese by micromanaging the parishes instead of the priests, so the pope does not run the Church by micromanaging the dioceses instead of the bishops. In both cases the immediate authority comes into play when there are problems. In a showdown between a priest and his bishop (at ecclesial level), the priest loses. In a showdown between a bishop and the pope (at ecclesial level), the bishop loses. Ideally, such showdowns should never happen, and they are in fact rare. But when they do, then the authority structure is clear.
I'm not sure if the RCC has fully resolved the seeming conflict in its Vatican-II-era statements regarding the local bishop in his diocese being the fulness of the Church and the collegiality of bishops, etc., with universal ordinary jurisdiction. Universal ordinary jurisdiction is clearly the doctrine, but we only see it in action when a bishop goes bonkers and the Pope deposes him (usually a bishop is pressured to resign instead - so the appearance of collegiality remains) - can anyone think of an example in the past two centuries of a Pope deposing a bishop other than that one bishop in Australia? The thing that makes the whole seem appear confusing is that there is no degree of holy orders higher than bishop. The Pope is not ordained to anything higher and if he has already been consecrated bishop upon his election, which is now always the case in practice, then he is just installed on his throne like any other bishop. So he has universal ordinary jurisdiction and the extraordinary magisterium at his disposal, but you don't really see it in terms of any ordination that gives him that special charism. It's a bit more invisible than a lot of the other ministries of the RCC, because 99% of the time you can argue that the Pope is just "advising and teaching" and that the bishops are going along, not that the pope is compelling the bishops to do anything. Priests are different. Priests' sacramental ministry flow completely from the ordinary bishop in RCC theology - I'm not sure that you could argue that a bishop's ministry flows from the ministry of the Pope. Maybe you can, but I haven't heard it before.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
A simple question. If the Patriarchate of the West genuinely regards Florence as an Ecumenical Council, why isn't the form of the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit 'proceeds from the Father, through the Son' now universal in the west? Or was that only agreed conditionally on the others adopting it too?
Can an Ecumenical Council make a pronouncement conditionally?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The idea that something needs to be clearly stated in Scripture in order to be doctrine seems as strange to me as I'm sure many of my ideas sound to you. But I'm far from an orthodox RC anyway.
Stonespring,
Sorry. I intended my post as a sort of Protestant "drive-by shooting." I don't think we should derail/hijack/clutter this thread with off-topic debates about Protestant views on the Bible and the Church. So, I'll cease my "intervention" here with this post.
By the way, as of this moment, you're at 666 posts! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
[QUOTE]
By the way, as of this moment, you're at 666 posts!
How does one celebrate?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A simple question. If the Patriarchate of the West genuinely regards Florence as an Ecumenical Council, why isn't the form of the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit 'proceeds from the Father, through the Son' now universal in the west? Or was that only agreed conditionally on the others adopting it too?
Can an Ecumenical Council make a pronouncement conditionally?
Right now the Papalists put the filioque into the creed when it is in Latin or in translations of the Latin liturgy into other languages (I am not sure what happens when the Roman Rite is celebrated in Greek, not that that happens very often). The Eastern Catholic Churches tend to not insert the filioque into the Creed when it is in Greek or when the Liturgy is a translation of Greek into another language (or a translation of Church Slavonic into another language, which was originally a translation of Greek into Church Slavonic). Not sure what is done in the non-Byzantine Eastern Rite Churches. Also the filioque used to be there in a lot of the Byzantine Eastern Rite Liturgies but around Vatican II there was a process of de-Latinization and taking the filioque out was part of it.
The explanation I have heard is that the filioque is doctrinally incorrect when worded in Greek, but doctrinally correct when worded in Latin.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
[QUOTE]
By the way, as of this moment, you're at 666 posts!
How does one celebrate?
Alas, the moment has passed! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The explanation I have heard is that the filioque is doctrinally incorrect when worded in Greek, but doctrinally correct when worded in Latin.
Boy, does that sound like a long-after-the-fact fudge.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The explanation I have heard is that the filioque is doctrinally incorrect when worded in Greek, but doctrinally correct when worded in Latin.
Boy, does that sound like a long-after-the-fact fudge.
Indeed! And, if serious people are actually making this claim....
It's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard! How on earth could "and the Son" mean anything different in Greek than it means in Latin? It's not like this is technical language, like the potential differences in meaning between ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί ("of the same being with the Father") and "consubstantialem Patri" ("of the same substance with the Father"). It's simple vocabulary.
[ 29. March 2014, 00:05: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Priests' sacramental ministry flow completely from the ordinary bishop....I'm not sure that you could argue that a bishop's ministry flows from the ministry of the Pope.
Yep, and that's why in Orthodoxy, for intsance, a priest dismissed by his bishop simply ceases being a priest. All orthodox bishops are St. Peter's successors.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's like saying that Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of the UK, Australia and Canada, but that those are nevertheless independent countries. The pope has relatively speaking more power over these autonomous churches than the Queen over those countries, that is true. He's more of a monarch than she is. Nevertheless, these churches are "sui iuris", operate under a different canon law than the Latin rite Church, are led by their own Patriarch, etc.
So which of the pope's dictates are they free to ignore?
No answers to this yet? I can't see how it's a ridiculous question in the overall flow of this question about the authority of the Pope of Rome (pace CL's oh-so-helpful eyeroll).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos navis
# 5818
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The explanation I have heard is that the filioque is doctrinally incorrect when worded in Greek, but doctrinally correct when worded in Latin.
Boy, does that sound like a long-after-the-fact fudge.
It sounds like the truth to me. Theological language depends on context. The context presupposed by the Nicene Creed is a Greek theological context in which the filioque sounds wierd. The Latin theological context is different. That is why, at the Synod of Haethfelth (possibly Hatfield in Hertfordshire, England) in A.D. 680, the English bishops stated in their confession of faith that they glofified the Father, the Son, and "the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter)", and this confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore.
--------------------
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.
Posts: 1443 | From: Between Broken Bow and Black Mesa | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The explanation I have heard is that the filioque is doctrinally incorrect when worded in Greek, but doctrinally correct when worded in Latin.
Boy, does that sound like a long-after-the-fact fudge.
It sounds like the truth to me. Theological language depends on context. The context presupposed by the Nicene Creed is a Greek theological context in which the filioque sounds wierd. The Latin theological context is different. That is why, at the Synod of Haethfelth (possibly Hatfield in Hertfordshire, England) in A.D. 680, the English bishops stated in their confession of faith that they glofified the Father, the Son, and "the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter)", and this confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore.
How different can "and the son" be?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
It sounds like the truth to me. Theological language depends on context. The context presupposed by the Nicene Creed is a Greek theological context in which the filioque sounds wierd.
There's nothing "weird" about the simple formula filioque. It can easily be translated into three Greek words that mean exactly the same thing in Greek: "and from the Son."
Your argument here suggests that the bishops of the Eastern Church were idiots, who couldn't understand basic Latin grammar and vocabulary.
But they weren't idiots, and they very well understood what that Latin formula was: a deviation from the faith of the Church expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
quote:
The Latin theological context is different. That is why, at the Synod of Haethfelth (possibly Hatfield in Hertfordshire, England) in A.D. 680, the English bishops stated in their confession of faith that they glofified the Father, the Son, and "the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter)", and this confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore.
St. Theodore may very well have believed this expression was orthodox, but he had no authority to speak for the rest of the Eastern Church. I doubt that most Eastern bishops would have thought adding "inenarrabiliter" and making the meaningless change of "filioque" to "et filio" solved the fundamental problem that the West was adding words to the Creed that contradicted the faith expressed in that Creed.
It's simple, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. He proceeds from the Father. Period. Full stop. Settled by 381. No need for further mucking about.
As a Protestant, I don't even really need the two councils on this one. The New Testament seems clear enough: John 15:26: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father [the same verb as in the Creed!], he will testify on my behalf." Obviously, as Eastern commentaries on the Creed regularly note, this verse is the source for the language of the statement on the Spirit.
It's a shame that the 16th century Reformers tended to stick with Rome on the "filioque" innovation. Fortunately, the expression is increasingly being dropped by Anglicans. It hasn't crossed my lips in years.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I think the claim about the Filioque being ok in Latin but not ok in Greek was about the word that in English we translate as proceed - not about the words "and the Son."
BTW, I'm not trying to argue the RC side here - and thinking. About the details of the Trinity in this away makes my head spin. But I think the whole discussion if it is interesting.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
BTW, I'm not trying to argue the RC side here - and thinking. About the details of the Trinity in this away makes my head spin. But I think the whole discussion if it is interesting.
Not trying to saddle you with the RC's heresies, just arguing the case.
If the HS can be said to proceed[L] from the Son but not to proceed[G] from the Son, then proceed[L] is not an adequate translation of proceed[G] and is thus susceptible to producing theological errors.
Reminds me of Mary Baker Eddy concluding that there is no such thing as sin because Jesus said, in the KJV, "which of you convinceth me of sin," and she took it to mean "can convince me of the existence of" without knowing that the word had changed meanings since 1614 and used to mean "prove me guilty of." You get the meaning of a word wrong, and any number of heresies can flow from it. This little fact actually explains a lot in the problems between the East and the West.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
How do the Orthodox respond to the often-heard criticism that the whole section of the Creed about the Holy Spirit was added to the Nicene text at the Council of Constantinople? Didn't the Council of Nicaea say not to add anything to its Creed?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
How do the Orthodox respond to the often-heard criticism that the whole section of the Creed about the Holy Spirit was added to the Nicene text at the Council of Constantinople?
We admit it's true.
quote:
Didn't the Council of Nicaea say not to add anything to its Creed?
That I do not know. Do you have a link to where it says this? My own response would be, "They were wrong to make that demand, as their creed didn't cover the Holy Spirit adequately." I don't know what the EOC's response would be.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
How do the Orthodox respond to the often-heard criticism that the whole section of the Creed about the Holy Spirit was added to the Nicene text at the Council of Constantinople?
We admit it's true.
quote:
Didn't the Council of Nicaea say not to add anything to its Creed?
That I do not know. Do you have a link to where it says this? My own response would be, "They were wrong to make that demand, as their creed didn't cover the Holy Spirit adequately." I don't know what the EOC's response would be.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
How do the Orthodox respond to the often-heard criticism that the whole section of the Creed about the Holy Spirit was added to the Nicene text at the Council of Constantinople?
We admit it's true.
quote:
Didn't the Council of Nicaea say not to add anything to its Creed?
That I do not know. Do you have a link to where it says this? My own response would be, "They were wrong to make that demand, as their creed didn't cover the Holy Spirit adequately." I don't know what the EOC's response would be.
Ok - so I tried to look things up. The Council of Nicaea didn't say anything about not being able to add to or change the creed. I Constantinople then added the part about the Holy Spirit (I don't know if they said anything at this council about whether no more changes could be made to the Creed but I don't think so. I'm also not sure whether the addition of the part about the Holy Spirit was seen as a separate statement of faith or whether it was seen as being added to the Nicene Creed - this makes what happened later at Ephesus more confusing).
Then at Ephesus they started by quoting the text of the creed from Nicaea (sadly the texts I can find only say "etc." - so if anyone can find confirmation if the Nicene or the Constantinopolitan text was read that would be great. Wikipedia (who knows if they're right) says in their filioque article that the text was just the text from Nicaea. It seems that since they say "at Nicaea" they mean only the Nicene text:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.iv.html
Then in the canons from Ephesus they say don't change this creed from Nicaea!
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html
Later at Chalcedon, they read both the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan texts and basically said don't change this creed - I think this may have been done to settle any ambiguity from Ephesus.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xiii.html
So pedantic hair-splitting RC's can claim that since Ephesus said that the shorter Nicene text could never be altered, that the additions made at Constantinople should not be added to the official creed if the same logic is used to anathematize adding the filioque. I can see Orthodox people saying that the fact that Constantinople came first and since Chalcedon said "ok, it's one big statement of faith now - don't change it ever," this settles the ambiguity of Ephesus.
So it doesn't seem to me that the RC's have an airtight case on the whole adding the Holy Spirit part - but maybe someone who supports the RC view could explain their position better than I?
PS - Here's Wikipedia's explanation (so who knows how accurate it is) over the words for "proceed" in Greek versus Latin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque#cite_ref-45
It thus speaks of the Holy Spirit as "proceeding from the Father" (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον), a phrase based on John 15:26 (ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται).
The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb procedere (and the corresponding word in other languages used to translate it) can apply also to proceeding from a mediate channel.[41] While the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι means "to issue forth as from an origin", the Latin verb procedere means more generically "to move forward", "to come forth".[42] It does not have "the added implication of the starting-point of that movement; thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms".[32] The Latin word is in fact used in the Vulgate to translate not only ἐκπορεύεσθαι, but also ἔρχεσθαι, προέρχεσθαι, προσέρχεσθαι, and προβαίνω (four times) and is used of Jesus' originating from God in the Vulgate rendering of John 8:42, although at that time Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι was already beginning to designate the Holy Spirit's manner of originating from the Father as opposed to that of the Son (γέννησις – being born).[43]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
To follow up on Mousethief's point....
So, the Latin Church came up with a translation of the Greek "proceeds" that cannot adequately represent the specific meaning of the Greek verb?
This is an interesting claim in view of the assertion by RC traditionalists that the Latin Mass, etc. shouldn't be translated into the vernacular, because translations distort the precise meanings of the original Latin.
Maybe we should all have stuck with Greek, then we'd be sure of what we're saying!
[ 01. April 2014, 01:25: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
To follow up on Mousethief's point....
So, the Latin Church came up with a translation of the Greek "proceeds" that cannot adequately represent the specific meaning of the Greek verb?
Wait, this is the same verb as in John 15:26. How do we know their translation of that verse is accurate, if their verb doesn't properly translate the creed? And if their verb doesn't properly translate John 15:26, how can we know that ANY of their translation is correct?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... This little fact actually explains a lot in the problems between the East and the West.
Apparently, it has now been found to explain the difference between those churches that are technically categorised as Monophysite and the rest of us.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dear God, yes the population of Constantinople brought it upon their own heads. Those nuns who were raped deserved it, as did every priest who was spitted. Do they teach you this in CCD? Holy fucking shit.
To correct a one-sided account of human failure is not to endorse the failure. The Massacre of the Latins was not a "proper" war against (male) combatants of an opposing army, it was an ethnic cleansing of 60,0000 people. The sick were killed in their hospital beds, families were slaughtered, people were sold into slavery. And the religious naturally came in for "special treatment". For example, the papal legate was beheaded, his head bound to a dog's tail and then that dog was chased through the streets of Constantinople. Does this justify the atrocities of the Venetians and crusaders when they twenty years later sacked the city? No, it doesn't. But it certainly makes them more understandable in my eyes. And the sack of the city occurred after the Byzantine prince inviting Latin military intervention, which was "cleanly" fought did not pay up what he had promised, and was murdered by members of the Byzantine court, putting a bitter enemy of the Latins in charge. The situation really was ... tempting, and the evil that resulted rather predictable. I'm not condoning the actions of the Latin forces, but an even-handed account simply cannot paint the Byzantines - rulers and population of Constantinople - as purely naive and innocent victims. Such an account is the sort of partisan one-sidedness which is part of the problem, not of the solution.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So which of the pope's dictates are they free to ignore?
If the pope issues a direct command to them, then they are not free to ignore it (assuming it is a reasonable command within the bounds of faith and morals, exercising his due governance). The pope has the same "governing power" in person as an Ecumenical Council as collective. Orthodox bishops are also not at liberty to ignore the commands of an EC. This does however not mean that the pope "runs the show", locally. Just as the ECs do not do so for the Orthodox. For the most part, popes and ECs provide broad guidelines for operation and do not micromanage. But if necessary, both of them do. The only difference here between the Orthodox and RCs is that the "higher than an individual bishop" power structure of the Orthodox is 1) not sorted out properly (see this thread), and 2) has been practically dysfunctional for a thousand years. You can try to pretend that this is some kind of virtue, but that's all smoke and mirrors. The truth is that also in Orthodoxy there is a power that can interfere with the governance of a local bishop, remove him or even excommunicate him. The mere fact that these mechanisms are broken does not mean that they are not there. The Latins are running a well-constructed, diligently maintained and frequently oiled (pun intended) mechanism by comparison. We can discuss whether this mechanism is so much more functional in practice because it has the pope on top, or if that is simply an accident of history. But the Orthodox cannot viably claim that their bishops have no ecclesial power above themselves. Rather, their way of doing church makes Italians appear highly organised, punctual, efficient, impartial and rule-abiding by comparison.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ah, so the fourth crusade was a righteous punishment of the entire city for the sins committed by some of the city. The nuns who were raped, for instance, were directly responsible for killing how many Latins? Answers on a postcard.
And the gratuitous swipe against the Orthodox Church because you were made to admit that the Pope really is a super-bishop? Please.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, so the fourth crusade was a righteous punishment of the entire city for the sins committed by some of the city. The nuns who were raped, for instance, were directly responsible for killing how many Latins? Answers on a postcard.
In what way is that even remotely a fair summary of my comments? That some nuns were among the innocent rape and/or murder victims of the sack of Constantinople does not mean that the Byzantine rulers and the population of Constantinople had no part in what happened there. In fact, it turns out that they contributed significantly to bringing this atrocity on their heads, and in part by committing an equally horrible atrocity against the (property, friends and family of) their tormentors earlier. That's simply what happened.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And the gratuitous swipe against the Orthodox Church because you were made to admit that the Pope really is a super-bishop? Please.
I was made to admit that? It is obvious that the pope is a "super-bishop" in the RCC. The question is simply what sort of "super" we are talking about. And as far as the Orthodox is concerned, the question is whether that same sort of "super" is present in their ecclesiology as well. It turns out that yes, it is very much present, but it has been dormant for a thousand years because the Orthodox just cannot get their shit together. That may be a swipe, but one that is to the point both of the subject matter and the Orthodox attempt to paint themselves as oh so different, and hence not gratuitous.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Really. When has an Orthodox bishop ever claimed infalliblity or universal jurisdiction? But at least you admit you brlieve the pope is a super-bishop and it shows the fundamental difference in our ecclesiologies. The neat a tidiness that has been created around the pope is a human invention.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... This little fact actually explains a lot in the problems between the East and the West.
Apparently, it has now been found to explain the difference between those churches that are technically categorised as Monophysite and the rest of us.
Pretty much; from the 1984 Common Declaration of Pope John Paul II of Rome and Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas of Antioch and All the East:
quote:
"The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon."
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Really. When has an Orthodox bishop ever claimed infalliblity or universal jurisdiction? But at least you admit you brlieve the pope is a super-bishop and it shows the fundamental difference in our ecclesiologies. The neat a tidiness that has been created around the pope is a human invention.
Really. If you had bothered to actually read what I had written, then you would know that I had equated to "super-bishopness" of the pope to an Ecumenical Council. The very thing that would govern the Orthodox infallibly and universally, super-episcopally, if the Orthodox communion wasn't a dysfunctional collection of national (and nationalistic) churches who are united by their shared schism from the pope more than by anything else.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Thing is, IngoB, you continue to blame the population of Constantinople en masse for the sins of some of them. It's like people (I know one, and he's otherwise fairly rational) who say "The Palestinians deserve anything the Israelis do to them because they have acted so stupidly in the years since 1948." Punishing an entire people group for the sins of some of them is actually against the Geneva Conventions. But apparently not against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
It's an awful lot like the arguments of the Pat Robertson brigade that the people of New Orleans deserved Hurricane Katrina because the city was so wicked. News flash: A lot of not wicked people suffered when that hurricane breached the seawall. Ditto the Rape of Constantinople. Bah. They all deserved it because of the Slaughter of the Latins. Repeat that 100 times and it still won't be true. I think you're up to about 5 now. 1/20th of the way there.
[ 01. April 2014, 16:53: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thing is, IngoB, you continue to blame the population of Constantinople en masse for the sins of some of them. It's like people (I know one, and he's otherwise fairly rational) who say "The Palestinians deserve anything the Israelis do to them because they have acted so stupidly in the years since 1948." Punishing an entire people group for the sins of some of them is actually against the Geneva Conventions. But apparently not against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
You continue unabashedly to misread and misrepresent what I write. Nowhere have I said that that the sack of Constantinople was justified. Nowhere have I said that any particular person in Constantinople deserved the atrocities of the Venetians / crusaders as punishment. In fact, I have explicitly said the opposite, and that multiple times.
What I have said is that the Byzantines were not simply innocent victims of a sudden and unexpected attack by the Latins. The actions of the rulers and population of Constantinople directly and significantly contributed to the eventual sack of Constantinople, and to the form it took. That is plain and simple historical fact. As in many (most?) conflicts throughout history, this was not just one guilty evil side attacking another innocent saintly side. The sack of Constantinople was one particularly nasty event in a series of nasty event in which both sides have appeared as perpetrators and as victims. Something like that can be said about the modern conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, the modern (civil) wars fought over former Yugoslavia, etc. One can then still pick a side as "more of a victim", for example claiming that the Palestinians were more at the receiving end than the Israelis (or vice versa).
But it is simply bullshit to pick one event out of such ongoing conflicts, decide the roles of perpetrator and victim according to that event, and claim that this is all one needs to really know about the conflict. You cannot analyse what's happening between Palestinians and Israelis by taking either the Kafr Qasim massacre or the Costal Road massacre as your sole point of reference. And wherever one may see the majority of the blame in that conflict, one simply cannot paint one side pure black and the other pure white. Likewise, the sack of Constantinople was not an isolated event and neither Latins nor Byzantines were pure villains / perpetrators or pure saints / victims in this lengthy conflict. That's all.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Once again you lump the "population of Constantinople" into a homogeneous mass, and blame them all for the Slaughter of the Latins. That's six.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Once again you lump the "population of Constantinople" into a homogeneous mass, and blame them all for the Slaughter of the Latins. That's six.
Isn't what you accuse IngoB of doing the same thing you do here? You write:
quote:
If the fucking west hadn't fucking sacked fucking Constantinople and raided the God-dammned place, and burned the fucking city down, its strength might well have continued unabated, and the 1453 war would have been a footnote. So yeah the fall of Constantinople was a failure of the fucking West. Fuck the fucking self-righteous "oh why couldn't you accept our sweet little council?" West.
It looks to me like you're lumping the entire West "into a homogeneous mass, and blame them all" for the Sack of Constantinople.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I was following on from somebody else instantiating that term. And I wasn't using it to cast blame on anybody for their own suffering.
In short, using "the West" as a synecdoche for the leaders of the Catholic forces of western Europe is of a different nature from using "the population of Constantinople" as a synecdoche for that part of the population that took part in the murder of the Latins because of the grossly disparate uses that are being made of the two.
I will willingly admit that not all the West took part in the sacking of Constantinople, and that I was speaking loosely. Nor do I hang any blame on "the West" in such a way as to imply that the innocent townfolk of any specific western city are to blame for any harm that befell them.
IngoB has yet to admit that not all the population of Constantinople took part in the massacre of the Latins, and he continues to blame the people of Constantinople, without qualification, and there's the big thing, all I'm asking for is a qualification and he is unwilling and unable to provide me one, for the destruction of their city.
So, no. That's not what I'm doing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, using "the West" as a synecdoche for the leaders of the Catholic forces of western Europe is of a different nature from using "the population of Constantinople" as a synecdoche for that part of the population that took part in the murder of the Latins because of the grossly disparate uses that are being made of the two.
*wiggle* *wiggle* *squirm*
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IngoB has yet to admit that not all the population of Constantinople took part in the massacre of the Latins, and he continues to blame the people of Constantinople, without qualification, and there's the big thing, all I'm asking for is a qualification and he is unwilling and unable to provide me one, for the destruction of their city.
Yes, mousethief, not all of the population of Constantinople took part in the Massacre of the Latins. I never asserted that they did, nothing I said implied that they did, my point does not in the slightest rely on the assumption that they did. In fact, I have already stated this above: "That some nuns were among the innocent rape and/or murder victims of the sack of Constantinople does not mean that the Byzantine rulers and the population of Constantinople had no part in what happened there." Note, I was not saying that just your nuns were the (only) innocent victims, but that they were among them.
I'm talking about the "Byzantines" and "Latins" and their conflict in exactly the same way one talks about the "Palestinians" and "Israelis" and their conflict. It is simply not the case that these sort of terms are taken to mean every single person of these groups in such discussions. This can be a problem, e.g., if one uses the general terms to justify actions against all individuals. Except that I've constantly said that none of these actions were justified. Furthermore, my actual point has been precisely that neither side was purely good or purely evil.
So, basically, what are you going on about?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If you haven't figured out by now, and clearly you haven't, nothing I can say can clear it up for you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you haven't figured out by now, and clearly you haven't, nothing I can say can clear it up for you.
I take it then that a qualification was not really all you were after... To avoid further misunderstandings, let's simply hear what you consider as the significance of the Massacre of the Latins on one hand, and the Byzantine rules calling in the Venetians / crusaders to settle their dynasty disputes militarily on the other hand. Do these historical facts play any role in a fair evaluation of the sack of Constantinople, or not?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, but Not. The. Fucking. Point.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Gentlemen, if you can't stick to the issue without getting personal, take it to Hell.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
