catholic theological union

There were several foreshadowing’s of the downfall of Constantinople. The council of Florence was one. On at least two other earlier occasions Constantinople desired union with the Latin’s and for much the same invalid reason(s). “Constantinople finally splintered, and its manifold accomplishments fell in the shadow of the Italian Renaissance” When Constantinople was faced with the largest invading Islamic army yet “The West finally promised help, but at a fearful price: submission of Byzantium's Holy Orthodox Church to the Church of Rome.” “God had punished the Greeks, Russians piously observed in 1453, when the Turks took Constantinople. For betraying their faith by submitting to Rome, He withdrew His protection and their empire fell” [1] pgs. 709, 755, 762.

The Russians “turned their backs on apostate Byzantium, since she had forfeited all claims to leadership in the Orthodox world by betraying the true Faith.” In Constantinople “Papal commemorative services commenced on November 12, 1452. On December 12, 1452, the union of the two Churches was solemnly commemorated in the Church of Aghia Sophia.” Then, “Greeks who refused to understand the decree of union were to be sent to Rome for re-education.” Also, “Makarios Melissenos records that every night a fire descended from the sky, stood over the City and enveloped her with light all night long... (Then, on the evening of May 27, 1453) the heavenly sign descended in its customary manner but did not envelope the City. The light appeared to be distant, and then it scattered quickly and vanished at once. This filled the Sultan and his court with malignant joy. They interpreted the sign, saying, ‘God has now abandoned the Christians forever!’” Finally, “on the last night of the City's freedom, clergy and congregation, whatever they might feel about union, came together for a final liturgy in Aghia Sophia... Having put aside all bitterness, barely a citizen, except those watching the walls, stayed away from this desperate service of intercession. Those priests who maintained that union with Rome was a grave sin now came to the altar to serve with unionists. The cardinal was there, and beside were bishops who would never acknowledge his authority. All came to confession, so they might take communion, not caring whether Orthodox or Catholic administered it.” [2] pages 476, 503, 504, 518, 521.

Iosif of Volokolamsk (the Father of Medieval Russia) soon wrote, “Behold, today apostasy is come.”

Andrei Kurbsy, a prince of 16th century Russia and defender of Orthodoxy, is noted for saying that the fall of Constantinople was truly destruction along the lines of the apocalypse, that it was then that “Satan was loosed from his bonds.”

Time and again we can see how it is that the Greeks and those in union with them, like the Antiochian’s, were understood as apostates, ever since the fall of Constantinople. When the Antiochian Patriarch Makarios visited Russia in the 17th century “the foreign envoys did not even have a right to attend Russian church services.” [3]. (I would note that Makarios smoked hash at liturgy.)

There have been certain Greek judgments against the union of Florence, but these were too little too late, the damage is done. The Greek capital remains in the hands of the Infidel. This is when the saying, “Better the Infidel…” began. The compromise of Orthodoxy had become second nature and was not corrected by such sayings. The Greeks have been bereft with continual compromises ever since, such as the “Protestant Patriarch” (also known as the Calvinist Patriarch) Cyril Lucaris and also his cousin Alexandrian Patriarch Meletios Pigas before him. This “unionist” thinking continues today as we see such things as the lifting of the anathema upon the Latin’s and the likes of Orthodox presidency of false church councils started by Protestants. In actuality all of Eastern Christianity was at a theological standstill after the “Orthodox Confession” of seventeenth century Kiev, which embraced much Latin ideology.

During the two centuries after the fall of Constantinople there was communion between the Latin’s and the Greek’s. The Orthodox Church, 1972 Ware p. 108 see p. 107 also.

Prince Ivan I said, “Since Constantinople and (its) emperor are no more, we must do what we can. God depends on us, the Russians, to carry on his kingdom. We are his Church and what remains of the Roman and Byzantine Empires.” The Russians’ Secret, Page 50

Notes:
[1] National Geographic, December 1983
[2] Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, Holy Apostles Convent 1990.
[3] http://ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/id 22.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Con stantinople

The Fall of Constantinople refers to the capture of the Byzantine Empire's capital by the Ottoman Empire on Tuesday, May 29, 1453. The event marked the end of the political independence of the millennium-old Byzantine Empire, which was by then already fragmented into several Greek monarchies.[7] Most importantly, the fall of Constantinople accelerated the scholarly exodus of Byzantine Greeks which caused the influx of Classical Greek Studies into the European Renaissance.[8] In addition, it played a crucial role in Ottoman political stability and its subsequent expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. The date of the event is one of the frequently proposed events marking the end of the Middle Ages as a historical period.

Contents [hide]
1 State of the Byzantine Empire
2 Preparations
2.1 Odds
2.2 Equipment and strategies
3 Siege and final assault of the city
3.1 Final assault
4 Consequence
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
8 External links



[edit] State of the Byzantine Empire
In the approximately 1,100 years of the existence of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople had been besieged many times but had been captured only once, during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The crusaders had most likely not intended to conquer Byzantium from the beginning, and an unstable Latin state was established in Constantinople for a short period of time. The Byzantine Empire fell apart into a number of Greek successor states, notably Nicaea, Epirus and Trebizond. The Greek states fought as allies against the Latin establishments but also as rivals against each other over the Byzantine throne. The Nicaean Greeks were the first to re-conquer Constantinople from the Latins in 1261. In the following two centuries, the much-weakened Byzantine Empire was facing threats from the Latins, the Serbians, the Bulgarians and most importantly, the Ottoman Turks. In 1453 the empire consisted of little more than the city of Constantinople itself and a portion of the Peloponnese (centered on the fortress of Mystras); the Empire of Trebizond, a completely independent successor state formed in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade also survived on the coast of the Black Sea.


[edit] Preparations

The Byzantine Empire in the first half of the 15th century. Thessaloniki was captured by the Ottomans in 1430. A few islands in the Aegean and the Propontis remained under Byzantine rule until 1453 (not shown on the map).When Sultan Murad II was succeeded by his son Mehmed II in early 1451, it was widely believed that the new sultan would turn out to be an incapable ruler who could pose no great threat to Christian possessions in the Balkans and the Aegean.[9] This belief was reinforced by Mehmed's friendly assurances to envoys that were sent to him at the assumption of his reign. His promise to respect Byzantine territorial integrity, however, soon proved false. During the spring and summer of 1452, sultan Mehmed II, whose great grand-father Bayezid I had previously built a fortress on the Asian side of the Bosporus called Anadolu Hisarı, now built a second castle outside the walls of Constantinople on the European side, which would increase Turkish influence on the straits. An especially relevant aspect of this fortress was its ability to prevent help from Genoese colonies on the Black Sea coast from reaching the city. This castle was called Rumeli Hisarı; Rumeli and Anadolu being the names of European and Asian portions of the Ottoman Empire, respectively. The new fortress is also known as Boğazkesen which has a dual meaning in Turkish; strait-blocker or throat-cutter, emphasizing its strategic position. The Greek name of the fortress, Laimokopia, also bears the same double-meaning.

Constantine appealed to Western Europe for help, but his request did not meet the expected attention. Ever since the mutual excommunication of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches in 1054, the Roman Catholic west had been trying to re-integrate the east; union had been attempted before at Lyons in 1274 and, indeed, some Paleologan emperors had been received in the Latin Church since. Emperor John VIII Palaeologus had attempted to negotiate Union with Pope Eugene IV, and the Council held in 1439 resulted in the proclamation, in Florence, of a Bull of Union. In the following years, a massive propaganda initiative was undertaken by anti-unionist forces in Constantinople and the population as well as the leadership of the Byzantine church was in fact bitterly divided. Latent ethnic hatred between Greeks and Italians stemming from the events of 1204 and the sack of Constantinople by the Latins, also played a significant role, and finally the Union failed, greatly annoying Pope Nicholas V and the Roman Catholic church.


Map of Constantinople and its land wallsIn the summer of 1452, when Rumeli Hisari was completed and the threat had become imminent, Constantine wrote to the pope, promising to implement the Union. Although he was eager to help, Pope Nicholas V did not have the influence the Byzantines thought he had over the Western kings and princes, and these had not the wherewithal to contribute to the effort, especially in light of France and England being weakened from the Hundred Years' War, Spain being in the final part of the Reconquista, the internecine fighting in the German Principalities, and Hungary and Poland's defeat at the Battle of Varna of 1444. Although some troops did arrive from the mercantile city states in the north of Italy, the Western contribution was not adequate to counterbalance Ottoman strength. Some Western individuals, however, came to help defend the city out of their own account; one of them was an accomplished soldier from Genoa, Giovanni Giustiniani, who arrived with 700 armed men in January 1453.[10] A specialist in defending walled cities, he was immediately given the overall command of the defense of the land walls by the emperor. Around the same time, the captains of the Venetian ships which happened to be present in the Golden Horn offered their services to the Emperor, barring contrary orders from Venice, and Pope Nicholas undertook to send three ships laden with provisions, which set sail near the end of March.[11] In Venice, meanwhile, deliberations were taking place concerning the kind of assistance the republic would lend to Constantinople. The senate decided upon sending a fleet, but there were delays, and when it finally set out late in April, it was already too late for it to be able to partake in the battle.[12]


[edit] Odds
The army defending Constantinople was small; it totalled about 7,000 men, 2,000 of whom were foreigners.[13] The city had about 20 km of walls (Theodosian Walls: 5.5 km; sea walls along the Golden Horn: 7 km; sea walls along the Sea of Marmara: 7.5 km), probably the strongest set of fortified walls in existence at the time. The walls had recently been repaired (under John VIII) and were in fairly good shape. In addition, the defenders were relatively well-equipped. The defenders also had a fleet of 26 ships: 5 from Genoa, 5 from Venice, 3 from Venetian Crete, 1 from Ancona, 1 from Spain, 1 from France, and about 10 Byzantine.[14] The Ottomans, on the other hand, had a larger force. It was thought to number around 100,000 men, including 20,000 Janissaries; recent estimates span between 80,000 soldiers and 5,000 Janissaries[15] and 150,000 soldiers, including mounted troops and 6,000-10,000 Janissaries.[1] Contemporary witnesses of the siege provide higher numbers for the military power of the sultan[1] (Nicolò Barbaro: 160,000;[16] the Florentine merchant Jacopo Tedaldi[17] and the Great Logothete George Sphrantzes:[18] 200,000; the cardinal Isidore of Kiev[19] and the archbishop of Mytilene Leonardo di Chio:[20] 300,000). Mehmed also built a fleet to besiege the city from the sea (partially manned by Greek sailors from Gallipoli[15]). Contemporary estimates of the strength of the Ottoman fleet span between about 100 ships (Tedaldi[17]), 145 (Barbaro[16]), 160 (Ubertino Pusculo[21]), 200-250 (Isidore of Kiev,[19] Leonardo di Chio[20]) to 430 (Sphrantzes[18]). A realistic report puts the total at 6 large galleys, 10 ordinary galleys, 15 smaller galleys, 75 large rowing boats, and 20 horse-transports.[22]


[edit] Equipment and strategies
Prior to the siege of Constantinople it is known that the Ottomans held the ability to cast medium-sized cannon, yet nothing near the range of some pieces they were able to put to field. Instrumental to this Ottoman advancement in arms production was a somewhat mysterious figure by the name of Orban, a Hungarian. The master founder immediately tried to peddle his skills to the city's invaders. Guaranteeing Mehmed that he could cast cannons powerful enough to break down the greatest fortifications ever constructed, every resource was placed at his fingertips. In a move of unprecedented technicality, working in a makeshift foundry, Orban pushed the limits of his art and cast what was likely the largest contemporary gun ever made—27 feet long and large enough for a full grown man to crawl into. Orban's cannon could fire a 1200 lb (544 kg) ball as far as one mile. It was dubbed "the Great Turkish Bombard". Orban's cannon had several drawbacks, however: it took three hours to reload; the cannon balls were in very short supply; and the cannon is said to have collapsed under its own recoil after six weeks (this fact however is disputed,[1] being only reported in the letter of archbishop Leonardo di Chio[20] and the later and often unreliable Russian chronicle of Nestor Iskinder). The creation of such a weapon was such a feat for its time that it took on an air of religious reverence[citation needed]. Orban's accomplishments in dealing with such fine tolerances on such a massive scale place his work as one of the greatest engineering feats of the time yet nothing is certainly known about his demise. [23] Having previously established a large foundry approximately 150 miles away, Mehmed now had to undergo the painstaking process of transporting his massive pieces of artillery. Orban's giant cannon was said to have been accompanied by a crew of 90 oxen and over 400 men.


Mehmed II is leading the Ottoman army which began marching from Edirne.Mehmed planned to attack the Theodosian Walls, the intricate series of walls and ditches protecting Constantinople from an attack from the west, the only part of the city not surrounded by water. His army encamped outside the city on the Monday after Easter, April 2, 1453.

On April 5, as the sultan himself arrived with his last troops, the defenders took up their positions.[24] As their numbers were insufficient to occupy the walls in their entirety, it had been decided that only the outer walls would be manned. Constantine and his Greek troops guarded the Mesoteichon, the middle section of the land walls, where they were crossed by the river Lycus. This section was considered the weakest spot in the walls and an attack was feared here most. Guistiniani was stationed to the north of the emperor, at the Charisian Gate and the Myriandrion; later during the siege, he was shifted to the Mesoteichon to join Constantine, leaving the Myriandron to the defense of the Bocchiardi brothers. Minotto and his Venetians were stationed in the Blachernae palace, together with Teodoro Caristo, the Langasco brothers, and archbishop Leonardo di Chio. To the left of the emperor, further south, were the commanders Cataneo, with Genoese troops, and Theophilus Palaeologus, who guarded the Pegae Gate with Greek soldiers. The section of the land walls from the Pegae Gate to the Golden Gate (itself guarded by a certain Genoese called Manuel) was defended by the Venetian Filippo Contarini, while Demetrius Cantacuzenus had taken position on the southernmost part of the Theodosian wall. The sea walls were manned more sparsely, with Jacobo Contarini at Stoudion, a makeshift defense force of Greek monks to his left hand, and prince Orhan at the Harbour of Eleutherius. Péré Julia was stationed at the Great Palace with Genoese troops; cardinal Isidore of Kiev guarded the tip of the peninsula near the boom. The sea walls at the southern shore of the Golden Horn were defended by Venetian and Genoese sailors under Gabriele Trevisano. Two tactical reserves were kept behind in the city, one in the Petra district just behind the land walls and one near the Church of the Holy Apostles, under the command of Lucas Notaras and Nicephorus Palaeologus, respectively. The Genoese Alviso Diedo commanded the ships in the harbour. Although the Byzantines also had cannons, they were much smaller then those of the Ottomans and the recoil tended to damage their own walls.[20]

The bulk of the Ottoman army were encamped south of the Golden Horn. The regular European troops, stretched out along the entire length of the walls, were commanded by Karadja Pasha. The regular troops from Anatolia under Ishak Pasha were stationed south of the Lycus down to the Sea of Marmora. Mehmed himself erected his red-and-gold tent near the Mesoteichon, where the guns and the elite regiments, the Janissaries, were positioned. The Bashi-bazouks were spread out behind the front lines. Other troops under Zaganos Pasha were employed north of the Golden Horn. Communication was maintained by a road that had been constructed over the marshy head of the Horn.[25]


[edit] Siege and final assault of the city

Siege of ConstantinopleAt the beginning of the siege, Mehmed sent out some of his best troops to reduce the remaining Byzantine strongholds outside the city of Constantinople. The fortress of Therapia on the Bosphorus and a smaller castle at the village of Studius near the Sea of Marmora were taken within a few days. The Princes' Islands in the Sea of Marmora were taken by admiral Baltoghlu's fleet.[26]

Mehmed's massive cannon fired on the walls for weeks, but due to its imprecision and extremely slow rate of reloading the Byzantines were able to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon's effect.

Meanwhile, despite some probing attacks, the Ottoman fleet under Baltoghlu could not enter the Golden Horn due to the boom the Byzantines had laid across the entrance, and although one of its main tasks was to prevent any ships from outside from entering the Golden Horn, on 20 April a small flotilla of four Christian ships[27] managed to slip in after some heavy fighting, an event which strengthened the morale of the defenders and caused embarrassment to the Sultan. To circumvent the boom, Mehmed ordered the construction of a road of greased logs across Galata on the north side of the Golden Horn, and rolled his ships across on 22 April. This seriously threatened the flow of supplies from Genovese ships from the - nominally neutral - colony of Pera and demoralized the Byzantine defenders. On the night of 28 April, an attempt was made to destroy the Ottoman ships already in the Golden Horn using fire ships, but the Ottomans had been warned in advance and forced the Christians to retreat with heavy losses. From then on, the defenders were forced to disperse part of their forces to the Golden Horn walls, causing defense in other sections of the walls to weaken.

The Turks had made several frontal assaults on the land wall, but were always repelled with heavy losses. From mid-May to 25 May, the Ottomans sought to break through the walls by constructing underground tunnels in an effort to sap them. Many of the sappers were Serbians sent from Novo Brdo by the Serbian Despot. They were placed under the rule of Zaganos Pasha. However, the Byzantines employed an engineer named Johannes Grant (who was said to be German but was probably Scottish), who had countertunnels dug, allowing Byzantine troops to enter the tunnels and kill the Turkish workers. The Byzantines intercepted the first Serbian tunnel on the night of 16 May. Subsequent tunneling efforts were interrupted on 21, 23, and 25 May, destroying them with Greek fire and vigorous combat. On 23 May, the Byzantines captured and tortured two Turkish officers, who revealed the location of all the Turkish tunnels, which were then destroyed.[28]


Mehmed II tries to save his fleet during the siege of ConstantinopleMehmed offered to lift the siege if they gave him the city. When this was declined, Mehmed planned to overpower the walls by sheer force, knowing that the weak Byzantine defenders would be worn out before he ran out of troops. Around this time, Mehmed had a final council with his senior officers. Here he encountered some resistance; one of his Viziers, the veteran Halil Pasha, who had always disapproved of Mehmed's plans to conquer the city, now admonished him to abandon the siege in the face of recent adversity. Halil was overruled by Zaganos Pasha, who insisted on an immediate attack, an advice which the Sultan was glad to follow. Suspected of having been bribed by the Byzantines, Halil Pasha was put to death later that year.[29]

On May 22, 1453, the moon, symbol of Constantinople, rose in dark eclipse, fulfilling a prophecy on the city's demise. Four days later, the whole city was blotted out by a thick fog, a condition unknown in that part of the world in May. When the fog lifted that evening, a strange light was seen playing about the dome of the Hagia Sophia, and from the city walls lights were seen in the countryside to the west, far behind the Turkish camp. The light around the dome was interpreted by some as the Holy Spirit departing from the Cathedral, while there was a distant hope that the lights were the campfires of the troops of John Hunyadi who had come to relieve the city.[30]


[edit] Final assault
On May 28, as the Ottoman army prepared for the final assault, large-scale religious processions were held in the city. In the evening a last solemn ceremony was held in the Hagia Sophia, in which the Emperor and representatives of both the Latin and Greek church partook, together with nobility from both sides.[31] Shortly after midnight the attack began. The first wave of attackers, the azabs (auxiliaries), were poorly trained and equipped, and were meant only to kill as many defenders as possible. The second assault, consisting largely of Anatolians, focused on a section of the Blachernae walls in the northwest part of the city, which had been partially damaged by the cannon. This section of the walls had been built much more recently, in the eleventh century, and was much weaker; the crusaders in 1204 had broken through the walls there. The Ottoman attackers also managed to break through, but were just as quickly pushed back out by the defenders. The Christians also managed for a time to hold off the third attack by the Sultan's elite Janissaries, but the Genoese general in charge of the land troops,[1][20][19] Giovanni Giustiniani, was grievously wounded during the attack, and his evacuation from the ramparts caused a panic in the ranks of the defenders.[32] Giustiniani was carried to Chios, where he succumbed to his wounds a few days later.

With Giustiniani's Genoese troops retreating into the city and towards the harbour, Constantine and his men, now left to their own devices, kept fighting and managed to hold off the attackers for a while. At this point, some historians suggest that the Kerkoporta gate in the Blachernae section had been left unlocked, and the Ottomans soon discovered this mistake.[33] The Ottomans rushed in. Around the same time, the defenders were being overwhelmed at several points in Constantine's section. When Turkish flags were seen flying above the Kerkoporta, a panic ensued and the defense collapsed. It is said that Constantine, throwing aside his purple regalia, led the final charge against the oncoming Ottomans, dying in the ensuing battle in the streets like his soldiers, although his ultimate fate remains unknown.[34]


[edit] Consequence

Mehmet II enters the fallen city by Fausto ZonaroAfter the initial assault, the Ottoman army fanned out along the main thoroughfare of the city, the Mese, past the great forums, and past the Church of the Holy Apostles, which Mehmet II wanted to provide a seat for his newly appointed patriarch which would help him better control his Christian subjects. Mehmet II had sent an advance guard to protect key buildings such as the Holy Apostles, as he did not wish to establish his new capital in a thoroughly devastated city.

The Army converged upon the Augusteum, the vast square that fronted the great church of Hagia Sophia whose bronze gates were barred by a huge throng of civilians inside the building, hoping for divine protection at this late hour. After the doors were breached, the troops separated the congregation according to what price they might bring on the slave markets. A few of the elderly and some infants were summarily slain with a commercial ruthlessness. Soldiers fought over the possession of richly clad senators or for the comely youth or maiden.

There are many legends in Greece surrounding the Fall of Constantinople. One of them holds that two priests saying divine liturgy over the crowd disappeared into the cathedral's walls as the first Turkish soldiers entered. According to the legend, the priests will appear again on the day Constantinople returns to Christian hands.[35] Another legend refers to the Marble King, Constantine XI, holding that, when the Ottomans entered the city, an angel rescued the emperor, turned him into marble and placed him in a cave under the earth near the Golden Gate, where he waits to be brought to life again (a variant of the sleeping hero legend).[36].[37]


Constantine XI: The last Byzantine emperorByzantine historian George Sphrantzes was in the city, and witnessed to the fall of Constantinople. He later recalled in his chronicle about the fall of the city, what happened at the end of the third day of the conquest:

On the third day after the fall of our city, the sultan celebrated his victory with a great, joyful triumph. He issued a proclamation: the citizens of all ages who had managed to escape detection were to leave their hiding places throughout the city and come out into the open, as they were remain free and no question would be asked. He further declared the restoration of houses and property to those who had abandoned our city before the siege, if they returned home, they would be treated according to their rank and religion, as if nothing had changed.[38]

Far from being in its heyday, Constantinople was severely depopulated for years following the depredations from the bubonic plague and especially from the disaster of the Fourth Crusade inflicted on it by the Christian army two centuries before. Therefore, the city in 1453 was a series of walled villages separated by vast fields encircled in whole by the fourth century Theodosian walls. When the Ottoman troops first broke through the defenses, many of the leading citizens of these little townlets submitted their surrender to Mehmet's generals.[7] These villages, specifically along the land walls, were allowed to keep their citizens and churches and were protected by Mehmet's special contingents of Janissaries. It was these people who formed what the Ottomans called a Millet, or self governing community in the multi-national empire of what would become Ottoman Istanbul.

In Mehmed's view, he was the successor to the Roman Emperor. He named himself "Kayzer-i Rum", the Roman Caesar, but he was nicknamed "the Conqueror". Constantinople became the new capital of the Ottoman Empire. Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque, although the Greek Orthodox Church remained intact, and Gennadius Scholarius was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople.


The "Church of the Holy Wisdom", or Hagia Sofia, was converted into a mosqueMany Greeks fled the city and found refuge in the Latin West, bringing with them knowledge and documents from the Greco-Roman tradition that further propelled the Renaissance, although the influx of Greek scholars into the West began much earlier, especially in the Northern Italian city-states which had started welcoming scholars in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The chancellor of Florence Coluccio Salutati began this cultural exchange in 1396 by inviting a Byzantine Scholar to lecture at the University of Florence. It was the Italians' hunger for Latin Classics and a command of the Greek Language that fueled the Renaissance. Those Greeks who stayed behind in Constantinople were mostly confined to the Phanar and Galata districts. The Phanariots, as they were called, provided many capable advisers to the Ottoman sultans, but were seen as traitors by many Greeks.

The Morean (Peloponnesian) fortress of Mystras, where Constantine's brothers Thomas and Demetrius ruled, constantly in conflict with each other and knowing that Mehmed would eventually invade them as well, held out until 1460. Long before the fall of Constantinople, Demetrius had fought for the throne with Thomas, Constantine, and their other brothers John and Theodore.[39] Thomas escaped to Rome when the Ottomans invaded Morea while Demetrius expected to rule a puppet state, but instead was imprisoned and remained there for the rest of his life. In Rome, Thomas and his family received some monetary support from the Pope and other western rulers as Byzantine emperor in exile, until 1503. In 1461 the independent Byzantine state in Trebizond fell to Mehmed.[40]

Scholars consider the Fall of Constantinople as a key event ending the Middle Ages and starting the Renaissance because of the end of the old religious order in Europe and the use of cannon and gunpowder. The fall of Constantinople and general encroachment of the Turks in that region also severed the main overland trade link between Europe and Asia, and as a result more Europeans began to seriously consider the possibility of reaching Asia by sea.[41]


[edit] See also
Military history of the Ottoman Empire Portal
Byzantine-Ottoman wars
Great Turkish Bombard
Greek fire
Byzantine navy
Walls of Constantinople
Loukas Notaras
Sophia Paleologue
Critoboulos of Imbros
Laonicus Chalcondyles
George Sphrantzes
Istanbul (etymology)
Mehmet II
Kuwae

2007-11-08 11:34:52 by Jacob Dahlen

Chicago, IL, Oct. 5, 2011—Catholic Theological Union (CTU), the largest Roman Catholic graduate school of theology and ministry in the United ...

if the Mormon Church is false, then why would Father Joseph Vajda, a Roman Catholic Dominican monk, successfully complete a master's thesis at the University of California, Berkeley, which shows that this LDS doctrine of human exaltation is consistent with early Christian teachings?

The work in question is Jordan Vajda, OP, "Partakers of the Divine Nature": A Comparative Analysis of the Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization, master's thesis, Graduate Theological Union at the University of California, Berkeley, 1998, published under the same title as Occasional Paper No. 3 by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (Provo, Utah, 2002).

In this work, Father Vajda notes that the writings of the early Church fathers clearly express a belief in the divine potential of human beings - that we can become "gods" through the grace of Christ and partake in the divine nature.

LOL-- Cuz it's true.

Romans 8:17....
We're God's children, and therefore joint-heirs with Jesus to all Father has (is?)

Paul clearly felt we were literally God's children.... dunno what the big deal is when we LDS agree....

2007-12-12 12:45:54 by notoriousnicholas

Price: $12.00

Here's an authoritative source that disagrees.

The website "GodWeb" says, "There are three main branches of Christianity: the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the Protestant."

This website is maintained by Reverend Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian minister. He is a graduate of Princeton University and Union Theological Seminary. He has led churches in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and has served as a chaplain at Princeton. He is the author of numerous articles and books including God and Science (John Knox / Westminster Press, 1986) and Faith, Science and the Future (CrossCurrents Press, 2007). He has taught and lectured at Princeton, Columbia, Yale Divinity School, Union Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, and others. He is Executive Director of the Association for Religion and Intellectual Life, an interfaith organization that publishes CrossCurrents, an academic quarterly and is President of the Society for the Arts, Religion and Contemporary Culture. Rev. Henderson is a founding member of CIE/ the Consultation on Interfaith Education.

The website is located at: http://www.godweb.org/christianswhere.ht m
This quote comes from an article entitled “The Christian Family Tree,” written by The Rev. Epke VanderBerg, Protestant minister, member of the Episcopal family and of the Grand Rapids Interfaith Dialogue Association

“The four oldest Christian families are the following: the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox tradition, the Western CATHOLIC (emphasis added) tradition and the Anglican tradition.”

Chris/CJ isn't going to like this, but I don't care. This is for the people who think Webster's Dictionary's definition of Catholics being Christians is one of Satan's lies, and who think that the rest of Christianity magically happened without Catholicism being established first.

The Protestant signatories to the document "Catholics and Evangelicals Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium" (numbering AT LEAST 22 million people!) included:

- Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries
- Dr. Kent Hill, Eastern Nazarene College (Churches of the Nazarene)
- Dr. Richard Land and Dr. Larry Lewis of the Southern Baptist Convention (!!)
- Dr. Jesse Miranda of the Assemblies of God
- Brian O'Connell, World Evangelical Fellowship
- Dr. John White of Geneva College and the National Association of Evangelicals

... and it was endorsed by a boatload of Protestant seminaries in addition to Bill Bright, of Campus Crusade for Christ So I think this represents quite a large chunk of the "Christendom" they so often think do not recognize Catholics as Christian. Here’s the link.

2009-04-28 07:30:37 by Dedicated Secularist

Price: $12.00

Abrahamic conceptions of God
Judaism, Christianity and Islam see God as a being who created the world and who rules over the universe. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal and unable to be changed by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.
In the Abrahamic traditions there are many differences in how these properties are expressed. The importance placed upon those properties is often debated by each group. In the past, as well as modern times people have suggested each group is speaking of a different god, or that each individual human has his own personal conception of God; thus God can only be approximately known.
God in Judaism
Mainstream Orthodox Judaism teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. They teach that God is the creator of both, but is himself neither. They believe that there are two aspects of God: God himself, who in the end is unknowable, and the revealed aspect of God, his "light", which created the universe, preserves the universe, and interacts with mankind in a personal way. Over time, this view evolved into the belief that all of creation and all of existence was in fact God itself, and that we as humanity are unaware of our own inherent godliness and are grappling to come to terms with it. The standing view in Hasidism, currently, is that there is nothing in existence other than God - all being is God.
God in Christianity
Within Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single being that exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a perichoresis of three persons (personae, prosopa): Father (the Source, the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos or Word, human as Jesus of Nazareth); and the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete or advocate). Some people have illustrated this concept by saying that the Father, Son and Spirit are one yet distinct, in the same way that ice, steam and water are one, yet distinctly different from each other. Since the 4th Century AD, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons", all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases", share a single divine essence, being, or nature. Following Thomas Aquinas and others, the Son is described as eternally begotten by the Father. This generation does not imply a beginning for the Son or an inferior relationship with the Father. The Son is the perfect image of his Father, and is consubstantial with him. The Son returns that love, and that union between the two is the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Again, the Holy Spirit is consubstantial and co-equal with the Father and the Son. Thus God contemplates and loves himself, enjoying infinite and perfect beatitude within himself. This relationship between the other two persons is called procession. It should be noted that although the theology of the Trinity is accepted in most churches, there are theological differences, notably between Catholic and Orthodox thought on the procession of the Holy Spirit (see filioque). Many Christian communions do not accept the Trinitarian doctrine, at least not in its traditional form. Notable dissenting groups include the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Unitarians, Arians, and Adoptionists.
Islamic concept
Allah (Arabic: الله‎ allāh) is the Arabic word for "God", and is used by Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians and Jews and Mizrahi Jews alike. Muslims consider God to be perfect, unique, eternal, self-sufficient, omnipotent and omniscient. He is said not to resemble any of his creations in any way. The Qur'an describes God as being fully aware of everything that happens in the universe, including private thoughts and feelings.
Muslims are not iconodules and this extends to all religious aspects (including any iconographic depiction other than in writing) so that it does not lead to idolatry. Instead, they focus on his 99 "names" that are stated in the Qur'an, the holy book of the Muslims. Nearly one third of the book is used describing God's attributes and actions. Also, "hadith qudsi" are special recorded sayings of Muhammad to Muslims where he quotes what God has taught him.
Bahá'í concept
Bahá'ís believe in a single, imperishable God, the creator of all things, including all the creatures and forces in the universe.[1] God is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty."[2] Though inaccessible directly, God is nevertheless seen as conscious of his creation, with a mind, will and purpose. Bahá'ís believe that God expresses this will at all times and in many ways, including through a series of divine messengers referred to as Manifestations of God or sometimes divine educator

Probably because some people have different religions(as Buddhist and Hindu)(I REALLY didnt understand your question XP)

2009-03-25 19:09:06 by Morshidi S

IT IS said that some Bible texts offer proof in support of the Trinity. However, when reading such texts, we should keep in mind that the Biblical and historical evidence does not support the Trinity.
Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses.
Three in One
THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such “proof texts” but also admits: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19.”
In those verses the three “persons” are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” First Corinthians 12:4-6 says: “There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all.” And Matthew 28:19 reads: “Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one.
This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, “proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor.”
Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): “We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature.” And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.”
When Jesus was baptized, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus “saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him.” (Matthew 3:16) This, however, does not say that the three are one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numerous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named together, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God’s spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time. This being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been one with the holy spirit?
Another reference that speaks of the three together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 John 5:7. Scholars acknowledge, however, that these words were not originally in the Bible but were added much later. Most modern translations rightly omit this spurious verse.
Other “proof texts” deal only with the relationship between two—the Father and Jesus. Let us consider some of them.
“I and the Father Are One”
THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being “one” with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one.” Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.
At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: “I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.
Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argu

1 John 5:7, as u stated, was not in the original text.

Job 13:8 says, Will you accept His PERSON? will you contend for God?
It doesn't say persons!

Deuteronomy 4:35: To you it was showed, that you might know that the Lord He is God; there is none else beside Him.

Isaiah 37:16: O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that dwells between the cherubims, You are the God, even You ALONE, of all the kingdoms of the earth: You have made heaven and earth.

Isaiah 46:5: To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal, and compare Me, that we may be like?

Hosea 13:4: Yet I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but Me: for there is no savior beside Me.

John 14:9: .......he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.......

Galatians 3:20........God is ONE.

2009-03-11 04:21:27 by Emma