Orthodoxy and the Crusades

In 1099 the Franks (Al-Franj in the Arabic) invaded he lands of the Seljuk Turks after receiving a request from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios Komnenos to return lost lands to the Christians. 90 before this time, the Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim Bi-Amir Allah of Egypt had ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. His reign was a great change from that of the previous Conquerors such as the Caliph Omar who had taken it in 634 and respected the freedom of Religion.

This event helped spark the crusades, leading to a flood of successive armies of Western Christians heading to the Holy Land with the view of reclaiming the city of Jerusalem for Christian. This brought about a problem for the local Christian residents; they had lived with the Muslim conquerors for centuries now but now became the subject of suspicion due this onslaught and threat from their fellow religionists. The Greek and Syriac Communities were expelled from Aleppo and other cities for fear of betrayal though as we will see, the Christians of the Levant had as much to fear as the Muslims did.

In November of that year the Crusaders took Jerusalem and killed all inside.

Raymond of Aguilers, a Chronicler of the Franks described the events:

“Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one’s way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted … in the temple and the porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed it was a just and splendid judgement of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.”

This is supported by the Damascene Chronicler Ibn al-Qalanisi’s account:

“The Franks stormed the town and gained possession of it. A number of the townsfolk fled to the sanctuary and a great host were killed. The Jews assembled in the synagogue, and the Franks burned it over their heads. The sanctuary was surrendered to them on guarantee of safety on 22 Sha’ban [14 July] of this year, and they destroyed the shrines and the tomb of Abraham”

From then on, things got worse for the Oriental community and other Orthodox. Again, Ibn al-Qalanisi explains:

“One of the first measures taken by the Franj was to expel from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre all the priests of the Oriental Rites - Greeks, Georgians, Armenians, Copts and Syrians - who used to officiate jointly, in accordance with an old tradition respected by all previous conquerors. Dumbfounded by their degree of fanaticism, the dignitaries of the Oriental Christian communities decided to resist. They refused to tell the occupiers where they had hidden the True Cross, on which Christ died… But the invaders were not impressed. They arrested the priests who had been entrusted with custody of the Cross and tortured them to make them reveal the secret. Thus did the Franj manage to forcibly deprive the Christians of the Holy City wherein lay their most precious relics.”

Over the next 70 years the same cycle continued of Frankish raids on cities and both Frank and Muslim accusing the Orthodox community of collaboration with their opponents. In the North, there was also the issue of Latin mistrust for the Byzantines and their Sympathisers.

The most shocking example was to come through the actions of Prince Reynald of Chantillon, Frankish prince of Antioch. After torturing the Latin patriarch of Antioch into financing his military the young Prince decided to invade the Orthodox Kingdom of Cyprus in 1156. After murdering a vast number of the population and plundering the entire Island he committed a heinous act. Amin Maalouf explains:

“Before departing with booty; Reynald ordered all the Greek Priests and Monks assembled; he then had their noses cut off before sending them, thus mutilated, to Constantinople.”

Around this time in Egypt, the situation of the Copts was improving. A General of the Damascene Sultan Nur-Ad-Din called Salah-Ud-Din Ayyubi had seized power and eventually united the Islamic world. His general view of the Christians of the Levant was far more lenient than others and he was known for his generosity and trust (Many of his own advisors called him a gullible fool, since he almost bankrupted the palace treasury). Amongst his closest advisors were Copts, who he also hired to help build palaces and fortresses across Egypt.

In 1187 he won a decisive victory over King Guy of Jerusalem and arrived at the gates of the city. By this time the Oriental Community in Frankish Jerusalem had already warmed to him, as is described by the Chroniclers in his forces who said:

“One of the Sultan’s chief advisors was an Orthodox Priest by the name of Yusuf Batit. It was he who took charge of contacts with the Franj, as well as with the Oriental Christian communities. Shortly before the siege began, the Orthodox clerics promised Batit that they would throw open the gates of the city of the occidentals held out too long.”

And so Jerusalem fell, Saladin invited the Armenian and Greek Patriarchs back into the city, which was followed by the moving of the Latin patriarchate to Acre. After an agreement with the Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelos, Saladin returned the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Which he had turned into a Mosque) back to the Christians. This was the first time that they had been welcomed back since 1099. The Armenians were also given an Equal status in the city to the Greeks.

———

As for the Armenians, they also faced oppression but not on such a scale, yet it had a far longer lasting effect on the culture.

Robert Thomson explains it better than I ever could:
http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/crusades/cr06.pdf

The books this extract is from is absolutely brilliant for the whole topic of the Crusades through the eyes of the Oriental and Byzantine communities. I would recommend it as well as Aamin Maalouf’s ‘The Crusades through Arab eyes’ which deals with the Syriac view well.

Exploring the origins of British Christianity Conference. 14/07/2012 (Part 1)

I had been looking forward to attending this conference for a long time, as it tackled that rare topic of British Christianity, something which a British convert to Orthodoxy will always sense a lack of in Orthodoxy, with its culturally foreign nature and constant struggles with Ethnophyletism. The conference had been Organised by Angelos Scott Stanway, a member of the British Navy and convert to the Greek Church. He had work exceedingly hard to prepare this event and dedicated much of his off-ship time to it.


After the introduction, Fr Chrysostom from Poole started the conference with a powerful talk on how 1066 destroyed a Cohesive and adventured nation. He looked at the structure of the politics and faith of the pre-Norman British Isles, explaining how the faith was orthodox with some indigenous elements.


He then looked at the links between the British isles and the East, including the Roman Empire, Egypt and the Holy Land. This finished by looking at the death of the indigenous Church after the Council of Synod of Whitby and final end of this Church in Scotland when its Liturgical and hierarchy fell under Norman Reforms.


Following this, we had a discussion session with Fr John Nankivell as to the definition and influence of the Indigenous Church of pre-Norman Britain and the influence of Eastern Christian thought on the Church there.

The next Lecture which caught my interest was that of Professor Paul Cavill of the University of Nottingham. He looked at Veneration of the Cross in Early British Christianity. This used archaeological sources such as the Coppergate helmet and Benty Grange Helmet to see how Christian Crosses replaced Pagan imagery on Military arms in order to invoke God's help on Christian armies of this time. This was fascinated as it showed the importance of the faith to the Saxon Kings of this time and vitality of a prayer based life, trusting in God for victory and prosperity in their kingdoms.


It compared this and collaborated the evidence to Constantine's Dream, where the cross was invoked to bring him victory at Milvern bridge, looking at the similarities of this story to Oswald's veneration of the cross in his victory in the battle of Hatfield-Chase. The talk as summarised by explaining the historical evidence for this veneration and the use of lines, showing a distinct tradition of the use of cross and its direct replacing of Pagan venerations in the Pre-Norman mindset.

After Lunch Fr Andrew Phillips led a fascinating talk which started with the line “The Centre of the Church is in Asia, Not Europe...” and caught the attention of everyone there. It focussed on the Eastern and especially Egyptian influence on the austere Monastic practices of Southern Ireland as well as the existence of an organised hierarchical and Liturgical traditions in the indigenous Church, unlike what is commonly suggested by those claiming some kind of new age 'Celtic Christianity'.  This is a common problem with Pseudo-historians, who claim some kind of almost post-modern Pagan form of Christianity existed in the Romano-Celtic British isles, when the evidence of a structured Christianity, as with any part of the Church.


He also looked at the links to the immense Ecumenical and International scope of the Church with Bishops and Monks known to have been in the isles from Armenia, Egypt, Syria, Greece and across the Eastern world including King Alfred's famous Alms giving to Christians in India. This came with the message that “there was no place for nationalism in the Early Church,” granting a stark difference to the Christianity we see in many nations today. My favourite point made was at the end when Fr Andrew pointed out what the British Church had given to the rest of the world, he did this by showing how Yury Dolgoruky, founder of Moscow, was in fact the Grantson of Harold Godwinson, the Last pre-Norman King of Britain. This gave a light hearted end to what was a deep and highly detailed talk.

Filioque, False History and Florentine Politics

So, I was reading an Article on Catholic Answers (Original is here: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-we-counter-the-charge-that-the-addition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration) the other day on the catholic response to the accusation of Filioque as Heresy. It blew me away, not because it was profound, intellectually stimulating or even correct but the pure fact that it lacked historical foundation, any concept the Church History and also goes completely against the commandment "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" since it is quite simply full of innacuracies designed to make an unjustifiable point.

The question asked is asking how Roman Christians should reply to accusations of heresy over the Filioque, and answer should of course be "Ignore it, we are not part of their Church" since Rome was part of the Mutual excommunication of 1054. The person answering the question instead decides to manipulate history, which I see as quite shocking and somewhat inappropriate, especially for a man of the cloth.

He quotes Ephesus and the condemnation of all that change the Creed and the acceptence of the post-Nicean changes through the discussions at The Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Seen by Oriental Orthodox as the Last Ecumenical Council.) This is all fine in my books, they have explained that at an Ecumenical Council the Creed can be changed, since the Council works in the Spirit and if God wishes the Creed Changed, we do not argue. With this in mind, the writer tries to justify Filioque by saying "it was formed at  an Ecumenical Council... in florence, 400 years after the Schism!" Then, BOOM! All forms of issue emerge.

Quote "The Council of Florence could add "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession."

Point 1)
Filioque did not enter the Creed through Florence, it was entered into the Latin version of the Creed, since they had decided to change it for themselves only, at the Council of Toledo in 589. This is when when the Western Churches had a Non-Ecumenical Council to discuss not Ecumenical matters rather than big deals LIKE CREEDS. They decided at this point to add 'Filioque' without any discussion with the other Apostolic Patriarchs. Such a thing was seen at the time as completely unacceptable as Rome Demonstrated by labelling the Second council of Ephesus, to which the Bishop of Rome was not invited, as "A council of Robbers". 100 Years  before the Council of Toledo, during the Rule of Leo I of Rome, he denounced the filioque and conmemned anyone using this heretical Christology in the Creed. Even at that point Rome saw changing the Creed without proper Ecumenical discussion as heresy.

400 years after Rome had added this to the Creed in the West, Leo III, Pope of Rome showed a great stance against it. He condenmed the Franks from reciting this addition to the Creed and Ordered the Orthodox Creed to be written on silver tablets in their Churches so that they could not change it after his rule, saying "I, Leo, put here for love and protection of orthodox faith." This demonstraction shows that even 400 years after Toledo, Rome condemned anyone from adding this due to it not being seen as 'Orthodox' (In this context meaning 'Correct belief') Church practice.

Well before the Council in Florence there was upheaval against the use of Filioque in the West, it was not discussed Ecumenically at a council and was only adopted in the West amongst some groups. This change was never given to anywhere outside of the Roman See since it was not seen as valid, since this new heretical claim (The Spirit coming from the Son as well as the father) had not been cleared with the rest of the Church outside of Barbarian Spain and France. This is the reason for the controversy above all, since Rome had shocked the Church and claimed it could make changes to the Theological views of the Church without debating this with Eastern Bishops who, at the time, were renowned for their Theological knowledge far more than any 6th Century Western Scholar. They had effectively claimed supremacy and the right to change doctrine, which to a Modern Roman Christian is not something strange but was a shocking thing to suggest in the Pre-Schism Church.

Point 2) Was Florence an Ecumenical Council?

This is an interesting point, argued that Filioque was OK since it was accepted 1000 years later and under heavy pressure by Rome. The article fails to mention the reason for the Eastrn Bishops attending. They had made a deal with Rome for Military assistance in exchance for accepting Roman Rule. Yes, that is right.. Blackmail. Rome had long decided to let Constantinople fall if they did not come under Rome's rule and because of their eventual decision not to cave in, it did fall to the Muslims.

Under various bleeding messages and political threats by the Byzantine Emperor, many of the Greeks accepted to give Rome rule over their Churches. it was only Only St. Mark of Ephesus that rejected the union for the Greek party. The Russians, after discovering that the Byzantine Emperor and Rome were seeking this for purely political reasons, angrily rejected the union and removed any Bishops in their See that accepted it.

Florence is not seen in the East as an Ecumenical Council since it was purely political. The only reason for Orthodox Bishops attending was to kneel to Rome so that they would give the Emperor enough Soldiers to save the City. The article says that "The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it." This is a very simplistic analysis, the reality of it is that  Rome arrogantly told them to accept heretical Changes (As mentioned in point 1, these were not Ecumenical) in exchange for their survival much as the Arabs told Christians in the middle ages to convert to Islam or die. I am sorry for that bluntness but that is the extent and historical matter of it.  Political threats and blackmail under pain of Death do not equate to an Ecumenical Council in my books and should not in the mind of any Christian.

Conclusion.

In Conclusion, the Filioque has never been accepted as a Church teaching in the East and, as I have shown, was not added in the same manner as any Credal or Doctrinal point accepted by the Church before the 1054 schism. The Orthodox Church sees it as heretical since it was added without the authority of the Whole Church and made unheard of changes the doctine of the trinity without any prior discussion in an Ecumenical setting. To lie and simplify the history of this in order to claim that it was not a point of issue in the west or seen as scandal in the Early Church then deny any pressure during florence, is extremely offensive to anyone with basil knowledge of history.

Could you imagine if a Muslim scholar wrote that "Many Christian knights freely converted to Islam in the Crusades, then changed their mind"? Roman Catholics would be up in arms and pointing out the warping of History. Please think about the implications of the lies spread by articles such as these, since historical knowledge is the key to understanding historical issues. Lying to justify something considered questionable for 1500 years does not show anything but lack of knowledge and will to decieve.