literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

http://onefineart.com/en/artists/lina_murr_nehme/index.shtml

Preface Preface to '1453: MAHOMET II IMPOSES THE ORTHODOX
SCHISM'

Scholarios took part in the Council of Florence in which he called upon the
Orthodox to embrace the Union of the Churches. A little time after his
return to Constantinople, however, he retracted and claimed that the
conflict between the two Churches was so serious that Christ was against
the unity of the Christians, that is, against the only thing that could save
Constantinople from the Turkish invasion.

Scholarios revealed his true motivations by accepting the position of
Patriarch offered him by the Turkish Sultan, his expensive gifts and a full
exemption from the taxes he levied on the Christians. The chronicler of
Muhammad II wrote, He made him Patriarch and High Priest of the
Christians, and gave him, among many other rights and privileges, the
rule of the Church and all its power and authority.

Afterwards, Afterwards, the Sultan convened a synod to “elect” him, and
he solemnly gave him the Patriarchal Staff and Pallium.

He also appointed him Ethnarch.

The Ethnarch is a ruler who represents the invader, and it is in this
capacity that Scholarios helped the Ottomans to impose, upon the people
he had sold, the myth of a legal Orthodox schism.

To justify himself, he claimed that pressures had been exerted in Florence
that rendered the decrees of the Council void, since the Westerners had
made their offer of military assistance conditional upon the cessation of
the Schism.

If that were true, what would there be to say about the pressures exerted
on the Synod that elected him under the patronage of a Sultan who
resorted to murder when he was crossed? Such an election is null and
void from the Orthodox point of view: a Moslem does not have the right to
convene a synod. Much less can he name the Patriarch.

His propaganda claimed that the Byzantines were happy to be governed
by a man of their nation. To realize what the situation really was, one
must imagine the same misfortunes falling upon Rome, which resembles
the Constantinople of 1453 in the abundance of her churches, in her
beauty, in the number of her holy relics, in the scorn in which she holds
her Anointed One and his display of pageantry, and in her certainty of
being superior, as a Christian city, to all the other cities in the world.

Let us now imagine an Oriental dictator conquering Rome after an
atrocious massacre. Let us imagine his tanks entering Saint Peter’s
Basilica, blazing a bloody path amidst the crowds of faithful seeking
sanctuary in it. Let us imagine this dictator then entering and climbing up
on the papal altar, like an idol on its pedestal, while on his orders a
proclamation is read, transforming Saint Peter’s Basilica into a temple of
his religion. Let us imagine him executing all the notables of Rome who
would have been hostile to him, and thereupon imposing the chief of the
collaborators as Pope upon the Christians. Let us then imagine him
convening a conclave composed of the few Cardinals he left alive, in
order to confirm his nomination by “electing” this collaborator. Let us
imagine his bestowing upon him the Pallium, giving him valuable gifts,
exempting him from the taxes he would levy on the other Christians, then
appointing him also President of the Italian Republic in order to be able to
control the population more effectively.

Let us furthermore imagine the feelings of the Romans with respect to this
instrument of the occupant, and we will realize how the average
Christians of Constantinople regarded Scholarios.

It is unfortunate that their version of the facts was not written—or if it
was, it has not reached us, because the only Patriarchs accepted by the
Ottomans were those who repressed the freedom of expression. Hence,
the truth of what the eyewitnesses really felt, died with them. And out of
ignorance, we, the Orthodox, have been repeating through the centuries
the version the Sultans wished us to repeat: that the Catholic West was
apostate; that the Council of Florence was not valid because the Byzantine
participants had betrayed the Orthodox dogma; that Emperor John VIII
had acted there under pressure—and therefore, that Scholarios’
annulment of the Union decree was legal.

The truth is far more honourable for us.

In the Council of Florence, the Orthodox refused to add the Filioque to the
Creed, refused to modify Saint Basil’s liturgy, refused to use unleavened
bread for the Liturgy, refused to authorize the Pope to appoint the
Patriarch of Constantinople, refused even to allow the Patriarch’s election
to be held outside of Constantinople. Moreover, they did not make one
single dogmatic renunciation: they united themselves with the Latins only
after the Latins had conceded that the Holy Spirit has a single principle,
the Father.

However they did abandon pride in Florence, by accepting the Pope’s
primacy. But they were far from doing that because they were subjected
to pressure. They were, in fact, subjected to an opposite pressure, since
the Pope was at the time in a position of extreme weakness. Italian
armies were waging war on him in the field, and a Republic had been
proclaimed in Rome. He was a refugee in Florence, and the rich Italian
merchants despised him. At the same time, the King of France was waging
a theological war against him through the Council of Basel. The aim of
this war was the final destruction of Papal power.

The military and financial interests of Emperor John VIII should have
prompted him to abandon the Pope and make an agreement with the
Council of Basel in order to please the King of France and obtain his
military assistance. By refusing to prostitute himself, he saved the Church
from a new Western schism and enhanced the prestige of the Pope in the
West forever.

This act of heroism proves that the Council of Florence was completely
free and disinterested. This is the prime condition for a Council to be
ecumenical and moved by the Holy Spirit.

The other two conditions are that it include the most important
personalities of the two Churches and that they submit themselves to the
texts of the Bible and of the ancient Fathers of the Church. If such was the
case, then the Union of the Churches promulgated by the Council of
Florence, would be irrevocable as far as the Orthodox are concerned, and
the existence of the schism would be illegal.

The time has come to see what really happened by confronting the
numbers, the texts and the deeds and to rehabilitate the victims of
Constantinople by exposing the true faces of their executioners and of
those who betrayed them.

However, let it be clearly understood that, by accusing personalities of the
past, my book does not intend to attack in any way the Pope, or the
present Catholic or Orthodox Patriarchs or Bishops, who are the
victims—and not the authors—of this historical lie imposed by the
Ottomans. As a Greek Orthodox residing in Beirut, I am on the contrary
proud of my Archbishop, Elias Audi, and of the head of my Church,
Ignatios Hazim, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, who contradicted
Scholarios by declaring in 1983 in the Cathedral of Our Lady of Paris, “The
disagreement between the Orthodox and the Catholics is not dogmatic…
We are capable of uniting with Rome because we are stubbornly faithful to
our roots.”

Had the Hierarchy of Constantinople been composed of men like these at
this fateful moment, they would have risen against the Sultan, refusing to
flee or become his instruments when he was enslaving their people and
transforming their churches into mosques. He would therefore have been
forced, either to kill them, or to leave their Church alone.

In both cases, he would not have been able to impose such a flagrant lie
on the Orthodox of the whole world.

Text of the cover:

“The disagreement between the Orthodox and the Catholics is not
dogmatic... We are capable of uniting with Rome because we are
stubbornly faithful to our roots.”

Thus spoke, in June 1983, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch,
Ignatios IV Hazim, in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris.

Thus also spoke the Orthodox who, in 1439, had put an end to the Schism
after interminable discussions with the Catholics at the Council of
Florence.

At this Council, the scholarly George Scholarios had called upon them to
embrace the Union of the Churches. A short time after his return to
Constantinople, however, he retracted and claimed that the causes of the
Schism were so grievous that Christ did not want the unity of the
Christians, that is, the only thing that could save Constantinople from the
Turkish invasion.

After the fall of Constantinople, Scholarios revealed his true motives by
accepting the position of Patriarch offered him by the Turkish Sultan, his
expensive gifts and a full exemption from the taxes he levied on the
Christians. And he helped the Ottomans to impose on the Orthodox the
myth of a legal Schism.

From the Orthodox point of view, a Moslem cannot convoke a synod to
elect a Patriarch, nor choose that Patriarch, especially if there is a
legitimate one. And the decree of such an “Antipatriarch” certainly cannot
prevail against that of a Council which included the heads of the two
Churches. The Council of Florence is therefore still valid from the
Orthodox point of view.

People say that History repeats itself. It is all the more true, when it
comes to the tragic story of the fall of Constantinople…

Get your own free IRC Chat room