The Crusades: Was this a protestant, R. Catholic or Orthodox movement

[Amdetsion]

Having looked at this issue pretty thoroughly over the last few years I have come to the conclusion that this movement was first a fluke. The impetus that started this nightmare had innocent aims. These aims were dismissed and was instead manipulated, fabricated into something else.

That 'something else' is what we now know as the crusades.

It is the early impetus that appears to be the work of Constatinople when a letter was sent to France requesting help from what was beleived to be a possible Muslim attack on the Holy City. That was all that was at issue. After some time the letter was not answered and at any rate the "attack" did not even occur.

Oops...never mind!

But a new bishop came to power (Archbishop of Claireveaue?) in France. This man had the thirst for power of the wordly sort. He got his hands on the old letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople and used it to fan a wide range attack on the "Holy land".

Of course that WAS NOT what Constantinople was talking about and what they were talking about was already handled.

This gross manipulation began the blood bath that ripped a line of a destruction from France clear through Europe to the east to Costantinople across the basforus..into Asia minor and all the way up to Jerusalem. Utter madness.

When the first wave of lost souls finally made it up to Jerusalem the Church was sound and peaceful in good relations with Arab Muslims and Jews. Each tolerating the other.

These zombies figured well "we are here now" and began to do what only a Godless gutless sub-human could do best SLAUGHTER AND KILL IN MASS NUMBERS MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN.....A L L  Orthodox Christians.

Of course we all know that this is why we have such hate form Muslims and Arabs toward the west. This also started what people call anti-semitism today. while still in Europe it seems that first wave of killers decided to maul and kill European Jews since they were the ones who had killed Christ in the first place.

So we are seeing and feeling the results of the crusades even in our time.

In my mind these people were protestant albeit IN nature. This "nature" spurned the lutherite idealism and the subsequent FORMALIzation we call the protestant movement. So yes Luther started the 'movement' under the banner "protestant"...BUT NOT the precepts, mindset, which existed long before.

My point is protestantism is not a popular word or movement. What it really is is what makes a movement move. It is the aim and intent of mind.

The recklessness that we find in the crusades are the main building blocks of what would be formally the protestant movement.

Rebellion against the Church of God....a protestant main attribute.

The crusader forces were all rebells. Killing Christians enmass.

Even Sala-aadin who finally flushed these Godless people out of Jerusalem around the 10th century also removed ALL christians from the Holy City...exception!!  ONLY the Orthodox could stay as they were 100 years before. Sala-aadin appointed a muslim family to keep the Christian safe. They held the key to the main doors of the main Church of Holy Sepulcher and continues to this day to open and close the doors.

Even a Muslim knew who the real Christians were.

 

[welkodox]

That would certainly play well in the academy.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzhhODM1MDhkYWMxNTRiYmRjMzg2NmY2YjM3ZTRiZDQ=

 

[Riddikulus]

Even Sala-aadin who finally flushed these Godless people out of Jerusalem around the 10th century also removed ALL christians from the Holy City...exception!!   ONLY the Orthodox could stay as they were 100 years before. Sala-aadin appointed a muslim family to keep the Christian safe. They held the key to the main doors of the main Church of Holy Sepulcher and continues to this day to open and close the doors.

Even a Muslim knew who the real Christians were.

Oh dear, and I did have such a soft spot for Balian of Ibelin, who by the way, negotiated the Treaty of Ramia between Richard Lionheart and Saladin. This treaty ended the crusade and under its conditions, Ibelin remained under Saladin's control. However, many sites along the coast which had been reconquered during the crusade were allowed to remain in Frankish Christian hands. And after Richard left the Holy Land, Saladin compensated Balian for the loss of Ibelin with the Castle of Caymont and five nearby sites, all outside Acre. Perhaps Saladin knew Balian was a real Christian, too?

In the end, however, God is the judge of who is or isn't a real Christian.

Lord have mercy on us all.

 

[Ebor]

Having looked at this issue pretty thoroughly over the last few years

May one ask what books and resources you used please?  Thank you in advance.

Ebor

 

[BrotherAidan]

That would certainly play well in the academy.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzhhODM1MDhkYWMxNTRiYmRjMzg2NmY2YjM3ZTRiZDQ=

I don't know... as much as the intelligentsia and media love to take potshots at evangelical protestants, there is no delicacy more dilectible for them than to take potshots at the Roman Catholic Church. I don't think, knowingly, they would spare the Catholics to take a shot at protestants. If so, it was an "unwitting sin of ignorance" against the god of secularism to have spared the Catholics at the expense of the protestants.

 

[BrotherAidan]

Any way, back to the OP, the Crusades were a Catholic phenomenon, with its origins in Western Europe.

Any other attribution of origins is anachronistic.

 

[welkodox]

I don't know... as much as the intelligentsia and media love to take potshots at evangelical protestants, there is no delicacy more dilectible for them than to take potshots at the Roman Catholic Church. I don't think, knowingly, they would spare the Catholics to take a shot at protestants. If so, it was an "unwitting sin of ignorance" against the god of secularism to have spared the Catholics at the expense of the protestants.

Indeed no, and anti Catholic prejudice is one of the last acceptable forms of bigotry one can openly exercise in our society.  The self-loathing, politically correct western secular world ultimately of course opposes both branches of Christianity present in its midst.

The Crusades were not Protestant inspired adventures, nor do they represent a form of Protestantism.  Some, such as the Albigensian Crusade, were directed at groups we would see as precursors to the Protestants.

The Crusades are multi dimensional, complex and not easy to pin down as being from one cause or even containing one motivation.  They began, as the author in the link I posted rightly pointed out, as a defensive war against militant Islamic expansion.  Spain and Malta are Christian today (to pick two examples), because of the Crusades.

They failed through greed, avarice, secular influence and the inability of Christendom to act as a cohesive entity; and of course lamentably could descend in to horrible brutality.

 

[BrotherAidan]

Amdetsion
I know from some of your other posts that you see alot of evil in protestantism in terms of its participation in the African slave trade and American slavery. And it is absolutely true that English and American Protestant Christians manipulated the scriptures to justify an evil practice. But the English ending of the slave trade was inspired, at least in part, by the prostestant evangelical William Wilberforce and many northern abolishonists in America were evangelical protestants. So you have to evaluate the good with the bad.

Also, Catholic Portugal was hugely involved in the slave trade. Catholic Spain enslaved thousands of native central and south American natives and animist tribal Africans were also involved in the slave trade.

That great evil is the sin of racism which people of any religion can be guilty of. Maybe historically, some religions did not get their hands dirty with African slave trade, but Orthodox, Hindus, Bhudists, Sihks, all have practiced the sin of tribalism/racism/idolatrous nationalism. It is in everyone's ancestral history and something for us all to remain vigilant about in our own day, search our hearts and repent of, crying Lord have mercy!

 

[Ebor]

Indeed, BrotherAidan, slavery in history is not limited to only one group be it religious, ethnic, national or political. As I recall from previous threads, there were slaves in the Byzantine Empire.  The first to bring slaves from Africa (where as you wrote they were captured and sold at times by other African peoples) were the Spanish and Portuguese. 

Also, there were different kinds of slavery or conditions that changed over time.  Persons from England were sometimes sent to North America as 'de facto' slaves that is as indentured servants.  Reading the advertisements for run-away whites and blacks from colonial times are often identical in wording.  However, anti-slavery societies were found in the colonies (The first one founded by Benjamin Franklin for example) many by persons who were belonged to some kind of Protestant Church.

A crucial change in slavery in American history came from the invention of the Cotton Gin which drove the huge increase in the planting of Cotton, a crop that required intensive labour.

Laws banning slavery were passed in a number of states by the early 1800's. Slavery was banned in the "Old Northwest" which was the Ohio Territory during the late 1700's.  The question of free vs. slave states was the driving force in American politics for decades prior to the Civil War with such things as the Missouri Compromise, the Admission of California as a free state, the "Wilmot Proviso" which was an attempt to ensure that any territory gained from the Mexican American War would not have slavery, "Bleeding Kansas" and more.

Here are some informational links:
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=timelines/african-american-history-timeline-1700-1800
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=timelines/african-american-history-timeline-1800-1900
http://library.thinkquest.org/13406/ta/3.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/wilmot.htm

I would suggest that perhaps there is not a balanced understanding of "Protestant" belief and practice, nor it's historical context.  To call the Crusades "protestant" is indeed an anachronism.

Ebor

 

[welkodox]

The Orthodox Church in Imperial Russia held vast estates with serfs (i.e. slaves in every sense of the word) bound to them.

Slavery has existed in the Islamic world to this day.  Islamic marauders wreaked havoc on coastal Europe, enslaving millions of Christians.  Read about the sack and plunder of Baltimore, Ireland for example and the carrying off of its population.

 

[DerekMK]

The Crusades are multi dimensional, complex and not easy to pin down as being from one cause or even containing one motivation.

I don't think this has been mentioned in this thread, but a major thing to consider is the way Western European feudalism left so many second and third born sons with essentially nothing to do and entirely cut off from inheritance of power, lands and wealth made crusading a practical way of acquiring those.  While not very romantic, something that mundane can dramatically effect the unfolding of events.   

 

[BrotherAidan]

I don't think this has been mentioned in this thread, but a major thing to consider is the way Western European feudalism left so many second and third born sons with essentially nothing to do and entirely cut off from inheritance of power, lands and wealth made crusading a practical way of acquiring those.  While not very romantic, something that mundane can dramatically effect the unfolding of events.     

quite true; sociological factors of life in western europe had much to do with the crusades, as well as religious, political, etc.
Most mass movements are extremely complex and are the result of many divergent factors reaching a "critical mass" that tilts them in one way or another (BTW, no pun intended on the twin usage of the word "mass")

 

[welkodox]

I know from some of your other posts that you see alot of evil in protestantism in terms of its participation in the African slave trade and American slavery. And it is absolutely true that English and American Protestant Christians manipulated the scriptures to justify an evil practice. But the English ending of the slave trade was inspired, at least in part, by the prostestant evangelical William Wilberforce and many northern abolishonists in America were evangelical protestants.

Abolitionism was largely a movement of Northern Congregationalists.  The Quakers opposed slavery and were instrumental in the underground railroad that helped escaped slaves reach the North and Canada.  I'm sure there are other counter examples.

This is unrelated but you may remember not that long ago the tragic shooting of the Amish schoolchildren in Lancaster County, which is about an hour drive from my parish.  The Amish leaders said they forgave the man and visited his wife and children to give them comfort.  Our priest in his homily after that said that we have the true faith, but it is the Amish who are acting like true Christians.

 

[BrotherAidan]

This is getting way off topic, but many of the slaves on the underground railroad made it to the Canadian Maritime provinces and founded a hockey league called the Colored Hockey League of the Maritimes. The Fosty brothers have written a book about it titled "Black Ice." That league will be part of a documentary the NHL is putting together to celebrate the 50th anniversary this January of Willi O'Ree, the first black player in the NHL, who broke the color barrier in pro hockey in a game between the Bruins and Canadiens (O'Ree played for the Bruins) in Jan. 1958. Willi is from New Brunswick. In addition to the color barrier he had lost 90% of the vision in one eye by being hit there by a puck (in the days before helmet and face shields).
He is quite an inspirational guy and quite under-appreciated. He was the Jackie Robinson of hockey.

 

[welkodox]

Oh, it's probably heading in a better direction BrotherAidan.  I had never heard of that, very interesting.

Another tidbit from archana land has to do with the crusades and a group known as the Khevsurs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khevsurs  I first read about them a while ago.

 

[Riddikulus]

Even Sala-aadin who finally flushed these Godless people out of Jerusalem around the 10th century also removed ALL christians from the Holy City...exception!!   ONLY the Orthodox could stay as they were 100 years before. Sala-aadin appointed a muslim family to keep the Christian safe. They held the key to the main doors of the main Church of Holy Sepulcher and continues to this day to open and close the doors.

Even a Muslim knew who the real Christians were.

Getting back to the OP.

Amdestion,

Please don't take offence, but the negative tone of your post is particularly irksome. I, for one, am completely sick of seeing the "only the Orthodox are true Christians; all others are satanic scum" mantra.

For the love of God, please take an unbiased look at human history and recognise that there are both failings and victories amongst individuals of all races and all religions. Orthodox history is no exception.

Lord have mercy on us all.

 

[Ebor]

But a new bishop came to power (Archbishop of Claireveaue?) in France. This man had the thirst for power of the wordly sort. He got his hands on the old letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople and used it to fan a wide range attack on the "Holy land".

If this is supposed to be referring to Bernard of Clairvaux, there are errors here.  He was no "Archbishop" but a monastic of the reformed Benedictine order of Citeaux, a Cistercian, who was the abbot of the house at Clairvaux.  On what might a charge of "thirst for power of the worldly sort" be based?  If it is Bernard who is meant, then he was instructed to preach for the Second Crusade by the then Pope.

The Second Crusade was 1145-1149, just to set the time.  Saladin didn't have anything to do with the Second Crusade, being born circa 1138.  He was active in the 1170's onwards and captured Jerusalem in 1187.  This then led to the Third Crusade.  So all of this happened in the 12th Century, not the 10th.  The Crusades were not one-sided, nor are they simple.  (Like many parts of Human history)

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

I don't think this has been mentioned in this thread, but a major thing to consider is the way Western European feudalism left so many second and third born sons with essentially nothing to do and entirely cut off from inheritance of power, lands and wealth made crusading a practical way of acquiring those.  While not very romantic, something that mundane can dramatically effect the unfolding of events.     

The case of younger sons or men with few prospects traveling far to gain wealth is not limited to the situation of feudalism.  The Icelanders, Norwegians and others from northern Europe. who by no means were in a feudal condition, traveled to join the Varangian Guard (as written of in various sagas) to get wealth and honours that they then (if they lived) took back home.    As you wrote, Nektarios, sometimes the mundane necessities of living or survival have a greater affect on affairs then any idealism or philosophy. 

Ebor

 

[Sloga]

Crusades were catholic in origin, since they all occured post-schism, the goal goal was to defeat the "enemies of the Pope". The land armies would kill non-catholic christians on their way to the holy land, such as the hussites (sp?) and of course, the Orthodox Christians. The fact that Constantinople did not really comdem them (and even asked for the 4th crusade, sort of) was because the Byzantines needed any help they could get from the incoming Islamic invasions. Of course, we all know how the 4th crusade finishes.

A simplified understanding of the crusades

Protestentism did not exist at that point so I dont know what to say about that.

 

[Amdetsion]

Getting back to the OP.

Amdestion,

Please don't take offence, but the negative tone of your post is particularly irksome. I, for one, am completely sick of seeing the "only the Orthodox are true Christians; all others are satanic scum" mantra.

For the love of God, please take an unbiased look at human history and recognise that there are both failings and victories amongst individuals of all races and all religions. Orthodox history is no exception.


Lord have mercy on us all.

I feel the same way.

It is hard to make such reference to people.

Considering that the "crusades" were nothing more than a "blood sport"....my words were true to point never-the-less.

Christians are not warriors, cannables, fornicators, money dealers, trouble makers, slave dealers, killers etc, etc. These are the character traits of the heathen.

It is cute that the heathen crusaders wore "crosses" and assumed other various acts common to Christians and the Holy Church....It was cute; that is all. These people were surely the "bad apple" if the were anything at all.

Mataphorically..I am sorry if an apple is bad in the bunch. But I know its bad so I call it "bad" and remove it before it makes bad of the rest; even if only by reputation.

Imagine somebody asking..."Will the real Christian stand up". And this fornicating, blood thirsty mad man with human flesh stuck in his teeth stands up; who has not figured out what hiegene is to represent you and me. Oh! he is wearing a cross and has a pocket packed with prayer beads.

I will do not want to argue my point.

My words were rough.

The crusades were rougher.

I was being nice.

Let us pray for all the our Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters who suffered and died at the hands of these crusaders.


I should have noted (prayerfully) that.."May God have mercy on there souls"....Amen

We are obligated to pray for the worse sinners and the rightious.

PS:

The Orthodox Church is the Holy Church. I am sorry if that truth is a problem for you.
RC included.

The beliefs common to the RC community are issues requiring resolve by the whole body.

Protestants seem pretty comfortable remaining 'protest'-ant and thus outside the body of Christ.
I do not believe that that means out of Gods grace. Only God can know that. The whole world is under Gods grace; if it were not none of us would be here right now.

 

[Amdetsion]

 it is the Amish who are acting like true Christians.

I agree.

I wonder if they could hold that stance while ALSO holding onto the faith of Christ which is in His Church.

The apostolic order, canons, the Hierarchs, the fathers etc.

Endurance is the measure of the faith. Christs' suffering was not on His own terms but on the terms of others. He thus 'edured'

I can set up a modest, humble society on my own and of my own and on my own terms.

Question is>>>>Can I keep the 'humility of Christ' while holding to the established creed of the Holy Apostolic Church of God?

WE are to follow the great commission to preach the Gosple to all the world. NOT just exist among ourselves and investing in ourselves...shutting-out the world. God took the talents from the man who buried His money instead of increasing it to teach us an important lesson.

A great lesson indeed.

WE Orthodox have a need to learn this lesson.

Greeks preaching to Greeks, Russians preaching to Russians, Ethiopians preaching to Ethiopians etc etc......???

WE are to preach to all the world.

If you are in a situation where your parish is only your own country man and this parish is outside your native country in a foriegn land and this is the way you think it should stay I feel sorry for you and me.

I will be first to say that in America mostly  (99 %) of Ethiopian Chuches are filled with ONLY Ethiopian Nationals...NO CONVERTS.....and NO INTEREST in converts....THUS NO MISSION. This is a sin. This behavior is not apostolic at all and therefore lacks the "fruit of Orthodoxy". This is to say we have Orthodox Churches as a "national" community only....Christ did not die on the cross for national integrity and maintaining time honored traditions of our fathers while in foriegn lands. WE all know that.

If we are going to have this attitude we must stay in our original countries. Then it works. But it does not work outisde in new lands. It is contrary to Gods command to His Church.

Trying to keep our kids in the church is not the answer either. WE must gather all those around us where we go to live. Our Kids will find hope in this. They will find friends and wives and husbands and assimilation. BUT this will be found by a 'reverse assimilation'...bringing the "new community" into OUR old world...Orthodoxy not us assimilating into them and thus (eventually) loosing our orthodoxy..our children etc..

I know a Greek Church in NJ that is easily 75 years or more old.

It has a whole city block in a huge bustling city; right in the middle of this cities downtown. This Greek parish is closed today....CLOSED. The for sale sign is about to calapse it has been posted so long.

Why?

NO more Greeks.. They moved little by little. The demographics changed.

Of course nobody (non-Greeks) even knew the church was there. The locals (mostly African-American protestants in the last 30 years) walked passed it for years not having the slightest curiosity about the rich Orthodoxy that was right in their laps and nobody in the parish felt that they had something vitally important to share with all those who have come to the nieghborhood.

This is sad.

5 years before it closed I visited the parish one Sunday and was asked by someone..."what do you want?" ...shocked I said "to come and worship God here today"...He let me in (albeit with much hesitation and concern). I looked around and saw people who were all well into thier 70's. NO youth or young adults.

Across the street however; A RC Church which was on this same block just as long as the Greek Church still thrives having absorbed the local population which was once all Italian and Polish and is now all African-American. The RC Church has even expanded the all boys acadamy taking up two city blocks.

This is a blessed act of apostolic mission indeed whic we must ackowledge.

I have never had a puritan or amish speak to me about anything.

I am still happy for them that they show the kind of virtues that they would be taught within the Holy Church.

I pray that all who calls on God through His Son Jesus Christ receive the heavenly Kingdom...Amen

 

[Ebor]

Considering that the "crusades" were nothing more than a "blood sport".

That might be your opinion.  On what sources do you support this idea of it being a "sport" please?  And would you please give us some of the sources that you have read on this subject?  Thank you in advance.

Christians are not warriors, cannables, fornicators, money dealers, trouble makers, slave dealers, killers etc, etc. These are the character traits of the heathen.

Not warriors?  What of, for example to use EO ones St. Alexander Nevsky?  or St. George?  "Trouble makers"?  what kind of trouble?  The Roman Empire thought Christians were making trouble at times.

Regarding slave dealers, Slavery was not outlawed in Ethiopia until the 1920s
http://www.imperialethiopia.org/history3.htm

killers?  There have been wars with Christians in them for nearly 2 millennia. 

Imagine somebody asking..."Will the real Christian stand up". And this fornicating, blood thirsty mad man with human flesh stuck in his teeth stands up; who has not figured out what hiegene is to represent you and me. Oh! he is wearing a cross and has a pocket packed with prayer beads.

"Human flesh" in his teeth?  That is a serious assertion. This illustration is not a real person.  On what do you base this supposed example please?  Who do you have in mind?

I will do not want to argue my point.

Yet you made this point and others want to know on what do you base it or disagree with your broad sweeping assertions that do not apply in all times and places and peoples.

I was being nice.

???  You've made statements accusing others of cannibalism among other things with no supporting documentation, no examples, and said that it was "Protestant" which is a historical anachronism.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

I agree.

I wonder if they could hold that stance while ALSO holding onto the faith of Christ which is in His Church.

I have never had a puritan or amish speak to me about anything.

I am still happy for them that they show the kind of virtues that they would be taught within the Holy Church.

How much do you know about the real Amish please?  What do you know about their faith and beliefs and practices?  I can recommend some books for you, if you are interested.

As to not having an Amish person speak to you, it is very unlikely that you would meet such a person in most places.  They live in more rural areas.  They do not often work in cities.  They are not a large percentage of the population.
As to "puritans", afaik they aren't around any more. 

Ebor

 

[Amdetsion]

Ebor

I can not respond directly to each of your questions. I am sorry. I do not like to type and the amount of copy needed to address your questions would be far outside my 'typing' limit.

It seems you have an appreciation for these people. I do not.

I pray for them.

I have read, seen films and attended lectures on this subject. I always walk away shacking my head whenever I had to absorb more data about these ghastly people.

The one aspect of the whole crusader element that I still have not figured out is how the west have written them into their history as "Christians".

I have a very poor opinion of murderers no matter how many crosses they wear or hail Marys they do or vows of piousness they proclaim.

I could have a better opinion of murderers if I could at least discern a modicum of error in judgement for the sad folks. But these people were calculated, cold, and very intentional all the way up to the blessed end. Murder was their ritual purpose. Amazing! These people were murdering Christians and other innocent people in the name of Christ? Where is this doctrine of salvation preserved? The answer is nowhere.

Even St. Peter was repremanded (yet again) by our Lord for using his sword for justice. Christ left us this: "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword".

War and blood shed WILL NOT bring about Gods mercy.

Many nations (particularly western nations) has made an industry (away of of life) out of war. NO doubt that the best warriors are the deadliest. An the deadliest usually prevail supreme.

The church does not teach us to kill each other or to kill anyone. The church teaches peace. The church does not teach us to covet other peoples land, women and property or to decimate entire cultures . But to respect our neighbors and be thankful with what we have.

The crusader element did not follow any commandment of God but on the contrary rebelled against His commandments albeit with the piousness and open, public displays of "faith". Delusional indeed.

These people contrived a "holy christian" virtue with blood, pillage and booty. Utter madness! But what else can you expect from people whom largely were vastly uneducated about anything at all not to mention the true teachings of the church. And even if they did have the teachings in hand it would not help them since most of these toothless yahoos were illiterate anyway.

The later more sophisticated minority within the crusader cult dug in deep and carried away the finery of eastern thinking and knowledge; including architecture, mathematics, stone working arts and what the west calls 'gothic'design as well as many many stolen traditions and objects of interest to the wealthy west.

These people brought nothing to the east worth discussing.....Well; unless you want to add the horrible opinion of the west that prevails even to this day as well as the poor relations between the Islamic world and The Church and the destruction of Constantinople, the slaughter of the various eastern christian communities like the Syrians, the Armenians and others including the mortars in Christian Africa (Such as: Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Kenya, Djibouti, Tripoli and to a degree Ethiopia) and so on and so on.....

The proof you need I think you can find very easily. Start by taking a look at the great and Holy Church of Sophia in Istanbul.

The point is the proof is all around you.

The cannibalism of the crusaders is well known especially the first 50 or so years. They liked boiling the flesh or raw.. Babies were grilled on 'spits'. Discusting and amazing...but this is what the record shows.

These people needed someone to teach them about God. This was the main problem.

The crusaders are not the facts or History of the Holy Church. They are the subject and property of western expansionism, imperialism under the guise of "church" and "Christianity".

Like I said before even Saladin 'a muslim' saw through the charade. He routed the whole lot out of Jerusalem leaving only the Syrian, Armenian, Egyptian, Ethiopian and Greek Christians to regroup and remain as we were 100 years before. Saladin placed guards at all Holy Christian sites mainly at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to keep the western "Christians" forever out. To this very day you can go and see for yourself that the descendant of the family appointed 900 or so years ago is still holding the door keys and he opens and closes the church everyday. The proof is still with us. No books required. If you like reading nevertheless you may of course find for yourself the books you need.

 

[lubeltri]

The idea of the Crusades first came about after Constantinople (following the disaster at Manzikert) appealed to the West for aid. Also, Pilgrims headed to the Holy Land were often waylaid or killed on their way down.

Pope Urban II and the Western kings and nobles responded, but the phenomenon of crusading, sometime quite different, took over and hijacked the original purpose. This phenomenon had different origins, some (feudalism, etc.) already discussed above. Another is the the great dynamism and expansion of 11th- to 13th-century Western European civilization. This great burgeoning both fed and was fed by the Crusades. Growing, dynamic, vibrant civilizations always seem to embark on such periods of expansion---witness ancient Egypt or Rome, or Britain during the Commercial and Industrial Revolutions or the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries. It goes without saying that these expansions often have unfortunate consequences for the peoples affected.

 

[BrotherAidan]

Indeed. Better to be the expander than the expandee!

 

[Ebor]

Ebor

I can not respond directly to each of your questions. I am sorry. I do not like to type and the amount of copy needed to address your questions would be far outside my 'typing' limit.

That is unfortunate, particularly regarding the request for names and sources of your information.  When making assertions it is very helpful to give *some* information so that others can find out such things as whether they are reliable or understand the subject at hand.

It seems you have an appreciation for these people. I do not.

What I care about is Truth and real history.  In this thread there have been sweeping generalizations, assertions about history that were not supported by any evidence, errors in describing the situation, "strawmen" that are supposed to somehow apply to real people and statements of history that are not true.

I have read, seen films and attended lectures on this subject. I always walk away shacking my head whenever I had to absorb more data about these ghastly people.

How do you know that the films are historically accurate?  Or that the lecturers don't have some bias of their own or whether they really understand the subject?  Sometimes if one hears or reads something they like, it is easy to accept it as 'true' without question.  History is not 'one-dimensional' and ones viewpoint or preconcieved ideas can make a 'lens' perhaps.

I have a very poor opinion of murderers no matter how many crosses they wear or hail Marys they do or vows of piousness they proclaim.

I could have a better opinion of murderers if I could at least discern a modicum of error in judgement for the sad folks. But these people were calculated, cold, and very intentional all the way up to the blessed end. Murder was their ritual purpose. Amazing! These people were murdering Christians and other innocent people in the name of Christ? Where is this doctrine of salvation preserved? The answer is nowhere.

Even St. Peter was repremanded (yet again) by our Lord for using his sword for justice. Christ left us this: "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword".

War and blood shed WILL NOT bring about Gods mercy.

Many nations (particularly western nations) has made an industry (away of of life) out of war. NO doubt that the best warriors are the deadliest. An the deadliest usually prevail supreme.

The "west" does not have any lock on warfare.  I mean no offense to this board, I assure you, but the history of Eastern Christianity has not been one of pacificism.  The Emperors in Constantinople did not have the Varangian Guard and the armies for ceremonial purposes.  There were wars and conflict and killings.  One wonders whether those who were bested by the Byzantine armies thought of them as "murderers".   

The church does not teach us to kill each other or to kill anyone. The church teaches peace. The church does not teach us to covet other peoples land, women and property or to decimate entire cultures . But to respect our neighbors and be thankful with what we have.

Yet, Christian countries have gone to war for land and resources or to stop a perceived threat.  There have been wars in the "West" and the "East", in Europe, in Africa and in the Middle East, some defensive, and some offensive.  For some good works on the period, those of Sir Steven Runciman are good.

The proof you need I think you can find very easily. Start by taking a look at the great and Holy Church of Sophia in Istanbul.

The point is the proof is all around you.

The cannibalism of the crusaders is well known especially the first 50 or so years. They liked boiling the flesh or raw.. Babies were grilled on 'spits'. Discusting and amazing...but this is what the record shows.

You made assertions on history and have not offered any real information to back them up. You described a Strawman "crusader" with no support other then your opinion and it is not known on what real historical data you base it.  You made the charge of "cannibalism", the onus is on you to provide some kind of information, source or other data to support this accusation. Why should such a statement from you just be accepted without any corroboration at all, please? 

Like I said before even Saladin 'a muslim' saw through the charade. He routed the whole lot out of Jerusalem leaving only the Syrian, Armenian, Egyptian, Ethiopian and Greek Christians to regroup and remain as we were 100 years before. Saladin placed guards at all Holy Christian sites mainly at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to keep the western "Christians" forever out.

This is not true.  Saladin and Richard I of England signed the Treaty of Ramla in June 1192 which kept Jerusalem under Moslem control but allowed Christian pilgrims, not just OE/OO but any Christian pilgrims to visit the city. 

No books required. If you like reading nevertheless you may of course find for yourself the books you need.

Yet you do not give any of the titles you may have read to support your opinions or allow others to find out information that you would claim supports your ideas.  On what sources did you base your opinions please?

Reading reliable sources, and not everything put in a book *is* a good source, that is why discernment is needed to tell good from bad or biased from better attempts at presenting fact.    Books are a way for knowledge to be preserved and spread to multitudes. 

I have read history and continue to do so, real and honest history with both the good and the bad since no human or group of people is totally one or the other. 

Ebor

 

[Amdetsion]

That is unfortunate, particularly regarding the request for names and sources of your information.  When making assertions it is very helpful to give *some* information so that others can find out such things as whether they are reliable or understand the subject at hand.

What I care about is Truth and real history.  In this thread there have been sweeping generalizations, assertions about history that were not supported by any evidence, errors in describing the situation, "strawmen" that are supposed to somehow apply to real people and statements of history that are not true.

How do you know that the films are historically accurate?  Or that the lecturers don't have some bias of their own or whether they really understand the subject?  Sometimes if one hears or reads something they like, it is easy to accept it as 'true' without question.  History is not 'one-dimensional' and ones viewpoint or preconcieved ideas can make a 'lens' perhaps.


The "west" does not have any lock on warfare.  I mean no offense to this board, I assure you, but the history of Eastern Christianity has not been one of pacificism.   The Emperors in Constantinople did not have the Varangian Guard and the armies for ceremonial purposes.  There were wars and conflict and killings.  One wonders whether those who were bested by the Byzantine armies thought of them as "murderers".   

Yet, Christian countries have gone to war for land and resources or to stop a perceived threat.  There have been wars in the "West" and the "East", in Europe, in Africa and in the Middle East, some defensive, and some offensive.  For some good works on the period, those of Sir Steven Runciman are good.

You made assertions on history and have not offered any real information to back them up. You described a Strawman "crusader" with no support other then your opinion and it is not known on what real historical data you base it.  You made the charge of "cannibalism", the onus is on you to provide some kind of information, source or other data to support this accusation. Why should such a statement from you just be accepted without any corroboration at all, please? 


This is not true.  Saladin and Richard I of England signed the Treaty of Ramla in June 1192 which kept Jerusalem under Moslem control but allowed Christian pilgrims, not just OE/OO but any Christian pilgrims to visit the city. 

Yet you do not give any of the titles you may have read to support your opinions or allow others to find out information that you would claim supports your ideas.  On what sources did you base your opinions please?

Reading reliable sources, and not everything put in a book *is* a good source, that is why discernment is needed to tell good from bad or biased from better attempts at presenting fact.    Books are a way for knowledge to be preserved and spread to multitudes. 

I have read history and continue to do so, real and honest history with both the good and the bad since no human or group of people is totally one or the other. 

Ebor

WOW!!!

How can YOU ever know anything with all these questions?

You may as well ask ...'is the truth true'?  How do we really know?

I trust the sources I have researched.

That is the truth to me on the matter until I find other data to the contrary....

You may look into it yourself. (like I did)...... Let me know what you find.

The sad thing about the whole cannible issue is that the cronicles were left by the one or two educated crusaders that knew how to write.

Check it out.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Dear Deacon Amde,
I appreciate that this is an issue for which you have strong convictions, and which is very important to you.  However, under the circumstances, I believe that Ebor's request that you provide references for your sources is more than reasonable.  I am therefore going to request that you do so within 48 hours.  If you do not either provide them in the time requested or admit that your argument is groundless (either one or the other), further action may have to be taken.  I regret having to inform you of this, but it is very important to the integrity of this forum to strive to uphold objectivity as much as possible.

Thank you for your understanding.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator

 

[Amdetsion]

‘Crusades’
Produced: 1995
Producer: A&E for the History Channel
Director: David Wallace

I watched the above (4) video set as of this date about 10 times. It was developed to simplify and make easy (even funny) the facts of the various Crusades. It was in my opinion very easy to watch and yet very academic at the same time.

This is not the only source available on the subject of course. The sources are huge and very conflicting on certain points about the crusades.

I attended various lectures back 5 to 6 years ago. I have no notes at this time. I have also read various books, papers and articles over the years. The papers and articles I do not have anymore.

But the book I have posted here below (and the movie posted above) covers a lot of the subject and references much my resources. The book is the precursor to the made for TV movie.

This subject of course is filled with historical elements all from a vast array of social, political and imperial drama that plaid out over the European continent which greatly impacted the “western church”. Details are sketchy on certain issues and vary from one source to the next on others.

It seems that in some ways the crusades and its impact are in the eye of the beholder. For example I have read various Christian reports regarding cannibalism among the “crusader” written at the time.  In modern times certain scholars dis-approve of those writings regarding cannibalism among the crusaders as real history and some scholars insist that it is real history…true. I guess each of us has to look at the material available and make our judgments accordingly since the "well-studied" of Academia can't seem to meet at all edges of the subject and I am far from anything even resembling a scholar.

I have done so for myself and thus maintain my views of this period I already posted as accurate albeit 'debateable' . That is why I started the thread to open a discussion. NOT to try and excersise any scholarly prowess on my part with proofs, footnotes, back-up, case studies and the like and definately NOT to create a tit-for-tat fact-biting enviroment which this has degenerated into. I was willing to share MY views and compare with those who may be more informed.

This is why I said that the subject should be looked into by Ebor himself. In hopes that he would engage the subject of the thread instead of bulking at my views in an "arm-chair" sort of "you-gotta-show-me" sort of fashion.

It seemed to me that if I have nothing to offer a point of view on a thread (or vehemently disagree with the points made by someone) I simply just stay out of the thread instead of incumbering the discussion. Or I post factual data to refute what I think is bad info or lack of info.

I do not post on forums or expect to receive from forums exhaustive scholarly work (or back-up) published within each thread by each person who I feel has a point of view that needs to be confirmed and checked for accuracy and or “truth”. Who made me the intellegence and truth police is my thinking. That goes for all others as well in my mind.

I thought that is why the thread area is 'Various-Discussions' ....I thought. If it were one of the faith or religious forums than OK we must be more exacting and as such a case my views would be up for this kind of scrutiny. This thread was moved into this area after I already made my points.

The following book as mentioned above.

I took the liberty of adding a book review below:

Crusades by Terry Jones and Alan Ereira
4 Stars                                                                                                Recommended Reading Level:  College and up

This book is the companion to the very popular A&E TV special that ran back in 1995.
Terry Jones, to his credit, has several books, including "Chaucer's Knight: The Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary" and some children's books.  His television work also includes "The Complete and Utter History of Britain".  Alan Ereira is a producer of many historical documentaries for the BBC.

Terry Jones is probably best known for his work with "Monty Python" but this work, while sometimes humorous, is not "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".
Terry Jones presents us with the book companion to an A&E documentary on the Crusades (DVD available) that covered the time period from the First Crusade (1099 CE) to it's final ending at the fall of Acre to the Mameluk's in 1291 CE.

Terry Jones tongue in cheek style of presenting the history dominates both the DVD and the book.  No one is left unscathed, Crusaders or Moslems.  Terry Jones points out the obvious wanton waste of lives, the continued stupidity of historians to paint a gilded picture of the Crusaders and their cause, and brings to light some very good historical references.  He also, unfortunately, got a few "tiny bits" wrong.  But for the most part, it is historically accurate.

Terry Jones is an entertainer, and because of this, the DVD tends to be more of a theatrical production than the book.  The book, however, is a very valuable reference for those interested in the Crusades.  Again, while being entertaining, it takes what has been dealt with in other works as very cut and dry and makes it a very interesting read.  The book is chock full of pictures from manuscripts and photos of places that are important to the history.   Also included are some maps to help you track the progress.

The book is well written, following a chronological history of the Crusaders through the Holy Land.  It is easy to follow, it is interesting in its content, and does not fail to hold the attention of the reader.  There are many "gee, I didn't know that" moments.  There are also Terry Jones' biting satirical remarks.  The approach is from a historical and not a Christian viewpoint, while still maintaining the fervor and the cause for event.  The Moslems are treated with respect when they deserve it, and the Christians are called upon to answer for some of their deeds.  This is what made the DVD and the book different; we see things from the viewpoint of someone who challenges us not to look at the Crusades as a respected institution.

The book includes the battle, the intrigues, all the court dramas and interesting "side line" notes.  It does not wash over the blood and guts of the Crusades. Yet, Terry Jones manages to approach this all with intelligence and common sense.
Depending on your own personal view of the Crusades, this book can be beneficial in opening up a whole new look at the Crusades.  I would recommend it for college level students and over who will find it a very interesting read, challenging some of the more accepted renderings of the Crusade story.  And if you can find a copy of the DVD to go along with it, give that a watch, as it provides you with Terry himself relating the story which is as entertaining as it is thought provoking.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Also I have noted some resources below regarding the specific issue of ‘cannibalism’:

Radulph of Caen 1098,
An eyewitness to events at Ma'arra in 1098, wrote, "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled."

Albert of Aix ca 1099
The chronicler Albert of Aix seemed to rank Muslims lower than dogs when he wrote, "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate "dogs".

Guibert of Nogent
Guibert of Nogent, in his work Historia Hierosolymitana, provides more details on the incident of cannibalism at Ma'arra. There he notes that whenever the Tafurs who took part in the expedition discovered "scraps of flesh from the pagan's bodies" cannibalism was practiced with little discretion.  According to Guibert, the Tafurs were well aware that the Muslims feared them because of cannibalism. For that reason, on at least one occasion, the Tafurs publicly "roasted the bruised body of a Turk over a fire as if it were meat for eating, in full view of the Turkish forces." Guibert notes that the Franks also practiced cannibalism, but they did so "in secret and as rarely as possible." 

Fulcher of Chartres
Fulcher of Chartres also refers to the same instance of cannibalism at Ma'arra. In his Historia Hierosolymitana, also known as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, Fulcher confirms that when the crusaders "suffered from excessive hunger" at Ma'arra, they engaged in cannibalism. He wrote, "I shudder to say that many of our men, terribly tormented by the maddness of starvation, cut pieces of flesh from the buttocks of Saracens lying there dead. These pieces they cooked and ate, savagely devouring the flesh while it was insufficiently roasted."

Also the following recorded incidents of cannibalism:

Raymond of d'Aguilers
Anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum
Anna Comnena- Normans- Roasted babies

It should be noted that the accusation of 'eating babies' (not made by me) may be the one element of the “cannibalism’ issue among the crusaders that I have read about that may be untrue. I have read papers on the subject and while opinions and evidence is wildly presumptuous in my view; I decided to handle this ‘one’ aspect as ‘possible but untrue’.

A Dr. Helen Nicholson (the last name may be spelled wrong) has written exclusively on this ‘one’ incredible aspect.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Deacon Amde,

Thank you for responding in a timely fashion to my request.

I have done so for myself and thus maintain my views of this period I already posted as accurate albeit 'debateable' . That is why I started the thread to open a discussion. NOT to try and excersise any scholarly prowess on my part with proofs, footnotes, back-up, case studies and the like and definately NOT to create a tit-for-tat fact-biting enviroment which this has degenerated into. I was willing to share MY views and compare with those who may be more informed.

With all due respect, if you intended to seek out different people's opinions on this topic, then you should have worded your posts in such a way as to reflect this.  This is not the attitude that I see in your posts:  instead I see an accusational tone that is almost begging to receive an adversarial response. 

It seemed to me that if I have nothing to offer a point of view on a thread (or vehemently disagree with the points made by someone) I simply just stay out of the thread instead of incumbering the discussion. Or I post factual data to refute what I think is bad info or lack of info.

You made some very sensational assertions in this thread.  Please see my comments above.

I do not post on forums or expect to receive from forums exhaustive scholarly work (or back-up) published within each thread by each person who I feel has a point of view that needs to be confirmed and checked for accuracy and or “truth”. Who made me the intellegence and truth police is my thinking. That goes for all others as well in my mind.

I don't expect an "exhaustive" bibliography either.  Just a couple of very relevant sources could have curtailed the need to ask you to explain yourself.

Also I have noted some resources below regarding the specific issue of ‘cannibalism’:

Radulph of Caen 1098,
An eyewitness to events at Ma'arra in 1098, wrote, "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled."

Albert of Aix ca 1099
The chronicler Albert of Aix seemed to rank Muslims lower than dogs when he wrote, "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate "dogs".

Guibert of Nogent
Guibert of Nogent, in his work Historia Hierosolymitana, provides more details on the incident of cannibalism at Ma'arra. There he notes that whenever the Tafurs who took part in the expedition discovered "scraps of flesh from the pagan's bodies" cannibalism was practiced with little discretion.  According to Guibert, the Tafurs were well aware that the Muslims feared them because of cannibalism. For that reason, on at least one occasion, the Tafurs publicly "roasted the bruised body of a Turk over a fire as if it were meat for eating, in full view of the Turkish forces." Guibert notes that the Franks also practiced cannibalism, but they did so "in secret and as rarely as possible." 

Fulcher of Chartres
Fulcher of Chartres also refers to the same instance of cannibalism at Ma'arra. In his Historia Hierosolymitana, also known as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, Fulcher confirms that when the crusaders "suffered from excessive hunger" at Ma'arra, they engaged in cannibalism. He wrote, "I shudder to say that many of our men, terribly tormented by the maddness of starvation, cut pieces of flesh from the buttocks of Saracens lying there dead. These pieces they cooked and ate, savagely devouring the flesh while it was insufficiently roasted."

Also the following recorded incidents of cannibalism:

Raymond of d'Aguilers
Anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum
Anna Comnena- Normans- Roasted babies

It should be noted that the accusation of 'eating babies' (not made by me) may be the one element of the “cannibalism’ issue among the crusaders that I have read about that may be untrue. I have read papers on the subject and while opinions and evidence is wildly presumptuous in my view; I decided to handle this ‘one’ aspect as ‘possible but untrue’.

A Dr. Helen Nicholson (the last name may be spelled wrong) has written exclusively on this ‘one’ incredible aspect.

Your own Dr. Nicholson seems to debunk some of the primary sources you mention above.  (Please scroll down to the FAQ regarding roasting babies on a spit.)  It didn't take me long to "google" this, and I think you might have done the same.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nigel.nicholson/hn/indexFAQ.html


Nevertheless, I do appreciate that you have tried to provide quite a lot of material here.

I didn't look too deeply into Dr. Nicholson's web page, but from glancing at it superficially it appears to have lots of excellent material on the subject under discussion that you and Ebor might want to look at, including links to other information on the crusades.


Pravoslavbob

 

[Amdetsion]

Deacon Amde,

Thank you for responding in a timely fashion to my request.


With all due respect, if you intended to seek out different people's opinions on this topic, then you should have worded your posts in such a way as to reflect this.  This is not the attitude that I see in your posts:  instead I see an accusational tone that is almost begging to receive an adversarial response. 

You made some very sensational assertions in this thread.  Please see my comments above.

I don't expect an "exhaustive" bibliography either.  Just a couple of very relevant sources could have curtailed the need to ask you to explain yourself.

Your own Dr. Nicholson seems to debunk some of the primary sources you mention above.  (Please scroll down to the FAQ regarding roasting babies on a spit.)   It didn't take me long to "google" this, and I think you might have done the same.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nigel.nicholson/hn/indexFAQ.html


Nevertheless, I do appreciate that you have tried to provide quite a lot of material here.

I didn't look too deeply into Dr. Nicholson's web page, but from glancing at it superficially it appears to have lots of excellent material on the subject under discussion that you and Ebor might want to look at, including links to other information on the crusades.


Pravoslavbob

I posted this per Ebors request.

You threatened me if I did not.

NO matter.....WE move on!!

There is a wide view of the situations regarding the Crusade especially the 'cannibal' issue. Some say yay and some say nay. Again that is one of the reasons I had for starting the thread.

I did not google any of the information I placed on this thread. I do not consider the internet a trustworthy source of information. I did go to Amazon website and the History Channel website to verify some already 'in-hand' data.

As for Dr. Nicholson I am well aware of her position on the crusades especially regarding the 'cannibalism' issue. I have read her articles in Archealogy Mag and other sources. Your notion that she 'debunks' some of my claims is really not the issue. The issue is that she has her opinion of the data available. The rest of the field has drawn similar and contrary opinions based on the same data.

If there is any 'debunking' it is between the scholars not me. I am only as good as they are. They may 'debunk' each other as they often do.

I DO NOT agree with her liberal attitude and writing style of Nicholson. She in my view never really 'proves' anything better than her opponents in the field who she hopes to 'debunk'. She is very argumentative, ultra-sensitive and ultra-protective of the crusader cult in my view which makes me trust her less in the 'academic' sense. Of course this is my personal opinion. She is very well established and accomplished researcher so I do respect her enough to consider her views and as such I noted her on this thread with the intention to show that I am open to an opposing view.

She is not the only scholar who presents a case that would attempt to 'debunk' some of my conclusions about the crusader cult.

My position is unchanged.

The crusader cult is a quasi-christian event of "Western Civillization" not The Holy Church. It might be called by a pet name 'Proto-protestantism'.

These people were bandits and theives first, killers second, cannibals third. I would say Christian fourth if I actually believed these people had any revelent or measureable Christian intentions.

Such measureable intentions would be in line with Christs teachings. NOT the impulses of priest-kings, kings, popes and patriarchs whos hearts are seathing with greed and covetesness and wordly power hidden behind some pious front. Pseudo-religious at best.

Just because someone is carrying a cross and claiming "Christ" does not mean that whatever they do is Christian. Popes and priest inlcuded.

The whole attitude of these crusaders is the same assertive, misguided-aggressiveness, and selfish mindset and manner that we find latter within the western church (again); but this time this overbearing, brute, merciless war-likeness had a new purpose...to reform The Church.

Amazing...

Thus 'protestant' becomes the name for this NEW people and there NEW cause albeit the same OLD bad attitude and poor manners. It is in my view the old crusader cult re-wrapped and given a new life with a new name and a new cause where as before Christ and His commandments are given little to know concern. The land grabbing and bloodshedding of the new crusade or protestant movement is to this day still wielding power due the mighty nations that have grown up out of the spoils.

These are uncomfortable points but true.

Even Orthodoxy is loosing its footing in these times to protestantism.

Of late I am reading many articles from the Orthodox Bishops who are very concerned for "how protestantism under the guise of 'ecumenism' is taking over the Orthodoxy of the Holy Church albeit figuratively as to say by nature...'peoples orthodox view of life and the world is morphing into a more 'inclusive' liberalism not known to generations before. This is very concerning. I actually know an Orthodox community which canceled the Advent fast. Seems the people were very unhappy with it (fasting) in the USA which is more fanciful for the "holidays". They will now fit in more with the protestant around them. I have recently set in on meetings among the local hierarchs which discussed this in great lenght.

Thus I have (non-scientifically) concluded by comparison and observation that the protestant movement is by nature if nothing else the new crusade. Thus the crusader cult (by nature) is the mother of the so-called protestant movement.

This is my own (non-scientific) take on the information I have handled along with my own life experiences.

 

[BrotherAidan]

Amde
historically the Enlightenment proceeded right along parallel to the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, in some ways it informed its methodology and results. But it was a distinct movement of its own that flourished in 18th century rationalism/deism and then in 19th century darwinism. In those two centuries enlightenment skepticism competed with Protestantism. By the mid 20th century it superceded Protestantism a driving cultural force.

Some of what you say I could buy if you were critiquing secularism. Are you sure you are not confusing protestantism with secularism or lumping then together?

 

[arimethea]

I actually know an Orthodox community which canceled the Advent fast. Seems the people were very unhappy with it (fasting) in the USA which is more fanciful for the "holidays".

This is a heavy claim you are making here. There is a difference between people not following the fast and for a priest to make an announcement that they don't have to fast. Your statement here is a little ambiguous, perhaps you could explain this situation further so that there is no unambiguity present.

I think a majority of Orthodox in America would be scandalized by a priest canceling advent in his parish. Besides, if this is the case his Bishop should be made aware so that this matter can be dealt with.

 

[Amdetsion]

Amde
historically the Enlightenment proceeded right along parallel to the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, in some ways it informed its methodology and results. But it was a distinct movement of its own that flourished in 18th century rationalism/deism and then in 19th century darwinism. In those two centuries enlightenment skepticism competed with Protestantism. By the mid 20th century it superceded Protestantism a driving cultural force.

Some of what you say I could buy if you were critiquing secularism. Are you sure you are not confusing protestantism with secularism or lumping then together?

Interesting question?

I consider 'protestantism' and all of its off-shoots as absolutely secular.

 

[DerekMK]

I consider 'protestantism' and all of its off-shoots as absolutely secular.

Have you read any of the works of some of the great thinkers of Protestantism?  Some of my favorites are Kierkegaard (and many of his critiques are equally valid of Orthodoxy) and Bonhoeffer.  Or else have you visited any Scandinavian Lutheran communities in the American Midwest?  I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. 

   

 

[Amdetsion]

This is a heavy claim you are making here. There is a difference between people not following the fast and for a priest to make an announcement that they don't have to fast. Your statement here is a little ambiguous, perhaps you could explain this situation further so that there is no unambiguity present.

I think a majority of Orthodox in America would be scandalized by a priest canceling advent in his parish. Besides, if this is the case his Bishop should be made aware so that this matter can be dealt with.

I spoke with an Orthodox nun who was visiting the USA and staying with me at the time that this occurred. Based on our conversation over last weekend the period WAS NOT Advent ...but the 'fast of the Apostles'...which takes place in June for 3 weeks. I was reminded also that the church we were visiting announced that the "fast is being reduced to 1 week in lieu of the normal 3 weeks"

Sorry about the confusion on this point.

This is not as critical as what I mistakenly implied. But the point I am making is the same. The Orthodox churches mainly in America but at home as well in some cases are being overrun by secularism which to me is protestantism.

The Orthodox life is looking more and more like common secular life or protestant life.

On another thread the poster is having trouble with his prayer life because his family wants him to stop being such religious "idiot" or "geek". Seems our Orthodox brother prays and fasts too much.

This Orthodox brother is under attack to be more like the protestants around him.

I never heard anybody be called a religious "idiot" or religious "geek" for putting up every possible nick-nack and light on their house during Christmas season. NO problem with "excess" in this event.

Even the news media puts this type of overly excessive and wasteful display of "christmas-cheer" on TV for everbody to enjoy. But if we pray too much that is bad.

I have even heard Orthodox be called "religious fools" for our 'holiness' while "Rev" Jessie Jackson and "Rev" Al Sharpton walk around openly fornicating and encourging alliances with fellow fornicators and adulterers and still remain "Reverend" in the eyes of the American public. Go figure??

This is the rebellious character common to prostestants and why protestants invest heavely in secularism (which they invented) and they will not stop until WE are sitting with them.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Deacon Amde puts forward some interesting theories in this thread.  However, I am not sure that any Orthodox hierarchs endorse the idea that Protestantism can trace its roots to atrocities that took place during the Crusades.  It is indeed a tragedy that secularism is making inroads throughout the world and eroding traditional Christian ways of life.

 

[Amdetsion]

Have you read any of the works of some of the great thinkers of Protestantism?  Some of my favorites are Kierkegaard (and many of his critiques are equally valid of Orthodoxy) and Bonhoeffer.  Or else have you visited any Scandinavian Lutheran communities in the American Midwest?  I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.   

     

I would be surprised...to tears!

That so much correct thought and 'true virtue' could exist with people and they still NOT KNOW the where the true Church is.

That does not make you wonder.."If a person (people) can think, write and live such correct truth, then why do they continue to stand OUTSIDE the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church of God?

 

[Amdetsion]

Deacon Amde puts forward some interesting theories in this thread.  However, I am not sure that any Orthodox hierarchs endorse the idea that Protestantism can trace its roots to atrocities that took place during the Crusades.  It is indeed a tragedy that secularism is making inroads throughout the world and eroding traditional Christian ways of life.

I agree.

As for our hierarchs; I do not know what conclusions they would draw.

I am only thus far expressing my own conclusions.

Upon such response from the hierarchs I will defer thereto.