[Eugen7]

În prealabil postat de Mihnea Dragomir

Accept cu bucurie. Este important de reţinut că nu există niciun document prin care să se susţină ideea că preoţii catolici, sau unii dintre ei, sau fie şi unul singur, ar fi incitat la violenţe împotriva populaţiei civile ortodoxe din Constantinopol,

Cine este fara de pacat? Singur Dumnezeu (si implicit Hristos Iisus, Dumnezeu Adevarat si om Adevarat)!

Iarasi ma simt nevoit sa repet ca mesajul postat se refera inechivoc doar la incitarea directa a preotilor romano-catolici la atacul exclusiv al orasului Constantinopol ceea ce a condus indirect la macel si jaf, inclusiv a Sfintelor Bisrerici si a Patriarhiei Constantinopolului (inclusiv ca institutie episcopala). Preotii romano-catolici au fost incapabili sa opreasca jaful existins de la cladirile laice la cele religioase ortodoxe.
"Interesant" este insa din punct de vedere eclezial si teologic, dar si istoric, ca desi Papa a condamnat atacul... a binecuvantat episcopia latina de Constantinopol, "legitimitatea" ei nefiind pusa la indoiala.
Cu aceasta ocazie reinoiesc invitatia pentru cei care au cunostine elocvente de istorie si ecleziologie sa intervia cu referinta la lucrari de specialitate, indicand capitole, pagini.

(Nu voi traduce in limba romana textul, intrucat consider ca cei ce discuta aceste aspecte, la un nivel adecvat, fie au cunostinte suficinete de limba engleza fie pot apela la persoane care sa ii ajute).

Preotii romano-catolici (si aici evident ca nu confundam medicul cu medicina, adica nu toti preotii romano-catolici din vremea respectiva au facut asta ci doar cei prezent acolo, si aserviti intereselor...) au predicat atacul impotrica orasului Constantinopol si a locuitorilor acestuia folosind si motive religioase:

"The clergy's message was designed to reassure and encourage the Crusaders. Their argument that the attack on Constantinople was spiritual revolved around two themes. First, the Greeks were traitors and murderers since they had killed their rightful lord, Alexios IV.[1] The churchmen used inflammatory language and claimed that "the Greeks were worse than the Jews",[1] and they invoked the authority of God and the pope to take action."
1)Phillips, The Fourth Crusade

Autorul:
Dr. Jonathan Phillips is a Reader in Medieval History at Royal Holloway, University of London. His scholarly contributions to the crusades include the books Defenders of the Holy Land: Relations Between the Latin East and West, 1119-1187, The Crusades, 1095-1197, and most recently, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople. His articles have appeared in a number of British publications including BBC History, History Today, and the Independent. Additionally, he is regularly consulted on radio and television programs as a leading expert on crusades history.
http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com...nphillips.html


"Speros Vryonis in Byzantium and Europe gives a vivid account of the sack:

The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.[1][2]"
1) Vryonis, Speros (1967). Byzantium and Europe. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. p. 152.
2) Hughes, Philip. "Innocent III & the Latin East," History of the Church, Sheed & Ward, 1948, vol. 2, p. 372.

Autorul:
Professor Speros Vryonis, Jr. Appointed AHIF Senior Fellow for Hellenism and for Greek and Turkish Studies
http://www.ahiworld.com/press_releases/071607.html


Pope Innocent III:
" How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen 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, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood, they have spared neither religion, nor 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.[1]
1) Pope Innocent III, Letters, 126 (given July 12, 1205, and addressed to the papal legate, who had absolved the crusaders from their pilgrimage vows). Text taken from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook by Paul Halsall. Modified. Original translation by J. Brundage.

În prealabil postat de Mihnea Dragomir

Asemenea invenţii nu numai că defăimează Biserica şi mistifică adevărul istoric, ci întreţin o psihologie a revanşei şi urii.

Repet: "Cine este fara de pacat sa arunce primul piatra" spune Domnul... si tot EL spune "Mila voiesc iar nu jertfa". Ortodoxia nu cauta revansa si nici ura, ci tamaduire, dragoste, adevar, iertare... pocainta sincera.
Negarea nu aduce intreptarea prin pocainta... ci pocainta sincera aduce iertarea si tamaduirea lui Hristos Iisus, caci Biserica este a LUI si nu a noastra, nici a preotilor, episcopilor.
Si ortodocsii au gresit in 1204, caci "simfonia bizantina" (indisolubila relatie biserica-stat) a implicat (ca sanu zic direct: tarat) indirect Biserica in conflictele politice.

În prealabil postat de Mihnea Dragomir

Vă referiţi fără să aduceţi dovada. Wikipedia nu este referinţă între oameni serioşi, oricine poate scrie în wikipedia ce consideră, spre exemplu aţi putea şi dv.

Consider ca cererea dvs a fost indeplinita prin postarile de mai sus.

Doamne ajuta. Har si pace sa ne daruiasca Domnul Iisus Hristos.