Greek Orthodox Bishops accuse Pope of heresy


#65

Yes I have. Probably the greatest artifacts they took in the fall of Constantinople were the bronze horses.

Does the Orthodox Church claim to own all property previously owned by Byzantium? That’s quite a radical claim…

No it isn’t because it never stops. If the descendants of the Venetians that sacked Constantinople owe you reparations, how much in reparations do the children of Imperial Byzantium owe the residents of the Mediterranean world? Particularly Egypt?

It’s one of the main reasons that sent me “Rome-ward”.


#66

Care to elaborate? Are you referring to our present pope? I genuinely wasn’t aware he could knight people…


#67

Yah. Tell that to the people of Constantinople who were sacked by the Latins in 1204. They never will forget that and I don’t blame them.


#68

And the people of Constantinople “who were sacked by the Latins” are long dead. If anything, the domination of Constantinople by the Turks still continues to this day - you’d think that would be a bigger issue.


#69

Typical radical “traditionalism” nonsense. Do you understand that there are two types of doctrine — dogma, and discipline?

The problem with traditionalism is implied in its name…the making of tradition into an “-ism.” The saddest part is how people are willing to forego everything — including their respect and obedience to the Holy Father’s authority — for the sake of what they falsely perceive Apostolic Tradition to be.


#70

The Patriarch stated he would rather be under Islam occupation than get the Latins to come help! That’s how terrible it was. It was a completely messed up thing going in there and destroying everything and sending stuff back to Venice as booty. The city never recovered from that. It would still be Constantinople if the Venicians hadn’t done that. Maybe not for sure but it really messed stuff up. And not to mention there were talks prior to this of reunification.

I am Catholic but I also studied history and I’m tired of Catholics blaming the schism on the east as if they had no part in it. The fact is both sides are to blame. It was ignored for centuries, officially happened in 1054 but was utterly certain in 1204. So complicated. The papal supremacy part really was not nearly as much to do with it as people make it out. Nor was papal supremacy as big of a deal until the schism. Before that the bishop of Rome was the first among equals. Which now the patriarch of Constantinople holds the title being new Rome. I am not going to get much into it but it was both sides fault.


#71

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.