With the Pope in Turkey I thought it would be interesting to do some background history on Turkey considering that Constantinople, now Istanbul, was once the capital of the Holy Roman Empire and subsequently became the capital of the Byzantine Empire. There is of course a rich Catholic history in this area filled with both glories and scandals.
I will discuss one of the low points.
The above picture is the infamous sack of Constantinople. Now I am not sure why so many of the Orthodox are still upset about this sack in the first place. I don’t know much of the history behind it other than that it dates back to 1204 and the times of the Fourth Crusade. Maybe it was filled with something unpleasant and left at the gates of Constantinople as an insult or something. Perhaps some mischievous Knight, like some kid on Halloween, filled it with manure and set it on fire. I can see how the gate guard might have been quite mad when he stomped the fire out, but this is quite a grudge to carry on for so long.
Pope John Paul II apologized about the events surround the sack in May 2001 so can’t we all just get along?
23 comments
Thank you! I needed that! Badly!
I’ve been praying for the safety of His Holiness for a couple of weeks now and with jaw firmly rested on palm of right hand I was heading out to do a little prospecting this evening to see where I shall be visiting the next four or more days.
Nothing but fear seemed to be before me; two things, fear, trepidation and a woeful foreboding of some tragedy; three things, fear, trepidation, a woeful foreboding of some tragedy, and perhaps a bit of humor.
Now I’m ready to prospect with a brighter attitude, after I post the Knights of Columbus prayer for the Pope’s safety on my blog.
Ummm … I don’t know if this is part of the gag, but Constantinople was never capital of the Holy Roman Empire. It was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire which later became known as the Byzantine Empire after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
It’s all very well to joke, but the Sack of Constantinople was a great atrocity, and very harmful in its effects. It typifies (to the Orthodox mind) Roman malice.
It should be taken seriously.
It should be taken seriously.
Both/and not either/or.
Well of course the historical event should be taken seriously.
However, the sack joke is still hysterically funny.
Rock on Jeff.
How come folks never seem to be upset about the innumerable “Sacks of Rome?”
“Sacks” in days of yore were as commonplace as corner store robberies today. Because that’s where the money was.
There should be a requirement that one must have a sense of humor before getting a license to drive the internet.
Were they going to leave it by the gates, light it, then run away to a safe distance, & laugh at the ensuing commotion?
On the sacking, from the account of Nicetas Chroniates:
“How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men ! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot ! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places ! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Antichrist, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect.”
In 2004, Pope John Paul said, “In particular, we cannot forget what happened in the month of April 1204,” the Pope said, in reference to the sacking of Constantinople by crusaders. “How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust.”
I guess it’s easy for some NOT to share any pain or disgust, but rather to find humor in this tragedy where even nuns were pulled from their monasteries and raped by crusaders.
“…so can’t we all just get along?”
And the way to “get along” is to make it a joke? I can assure the Jester and all readers that if their sisters were raped, and the Eucharist in their parishes was desecrated, I would forgive the assailants.
But I would never, ever find humor in it.
Someone needs to take a Humor 101 class.
i support fr. richard. my first impulse was to giggle, but then i thought about the actual history. i confess i really know nothing specifically about the sack of constantinople, but i know enough of history to guess that it was likely horrific. and if his holiness was apologizing for it 700+ years later, then it’s probably a good idea to stop for a moment & consider what it truly meant. would/should we be giggling about the nazi atrocities now or even 100 years from now? i think not.
I thought it was only slightly amusing, and poorly timed. Now is a time for supporting and building up our relationship with the Orthodox. It was very distatesful to see such lighthearted disparagement of our brothers and sisters during the exact time our Pope is putting his very life on the line in order to build up the Body of Christ. Poorly thought out and especially irresponsible considering the popularity this blog enjoys and therefore its ability to shape, even slightly, public opinion about the visit between Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew.
For the record,
Rome was not involved in the sack of Constantinople. Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, engineered that little fiasco entirely for the greater glory of Venice. The entire 4th Crusade doing the bidding of Venice. Money being the issue as in most things. The Crusaders owed and Dandolo offered them debt relief.
Having misspent many LIRR commuting hours reading various books, some on the Crusades, I want to coment on the Byzantines’ actions throughout the Crusades.
Fact is the Byzantine emperors ‘used’ the Crusaders to fight Turks, and ‘stabbed the western yokels’ in their collective backs whenever it suited them.
The sack of Constantinople that should be lamented took place in 1453, when the Turk did exponentially more evil and horribly defiled the city, its churches and its inhabitants. Now the city is 99% pagan, and the Hagia Sofia is a filthy mosque.
Of note: the Crusaders took the place with much fewer men and much more quickly than did the Sultan, probably because Venicians and other western crusaders comprised over half of the 1453 defensive forces.
So, don’t lament the Crusaders one-time sack and immediate ransom of the effete and corrupt Byzantines while ignoring the fact that the murderous Turk apostacized and destroyed the once-great Christian city.
If you have time to misspend reading, try Liutprand’s narrative of his embassy to the Byzantines. It’s a good overview of corruption and effeminacy. Where did you think the adjective ‘byzantine’ came from?
“..and the Hagia Sofia is a filthy mosque.”
The Hagia Sofia is a MUSEUM currently, not a mosque. It is used to preserve Christian and Muslim art.
Liutprand of Cremona. HA. No credible historian takes his ranting seriously. The man barely spoke Latin, much less Greek.
One should also remember the charge of effeminacy came from a Frankish barbarian who ate with his hands, washed far less than once a year and whose overlord was illiterate and thought himself the successor of the C�sars (yeah, as much as Mehmet the Conquerer was a successor of the C�sars).
Effeminacy. Pfft. Barbarians have ever laid this charge at the feet of the civilised.
While we’re at it, corruption? A charge of corruption from a Latin churchman whose church openly bought and sold bishophrics is a hoot. The same church that later produced the papal pornocracy. Ha. A bit like the British after the Opium War, calling the Chinese immoral and barbaric.
Don’t forget Liutprand was particularly annoyed because Byzantine customs officials confiscated his rather large stash of silk, which he’d attempted to smuggle out of Byzantine territory (for lucrative sale at home) without paying the appropriate taxes and duties.
Bear these things in mind when one reads Liutprand’s bitchy account.
Inferno XV–Bingo on Liutprand, especially the silk imbroglio. Not exactly a disinterested observer. At the very least, the Byzantine side of things should be read–namely Anna Comnena, whose father Alexius I was basileus when the Crusades began.
And as to backstabbing, the Crusaders were no slouch in that department–Bohemund broke his sworn oath to turn over the city of Antioch to the Byzantines, instead setting himself up as king. Yes, Alexius probably pulled a fast one on the rescue expedition to free Bohemund after the Turks captured him, but he certainly had reason by that point.
Well, I’m glad to see that atrocities and great crimes can’t be joked about.
The Byzantines never trusted the Crusaders anyhow – and with an excellent reason. They were beaten in 1071 at Manzikert, and sent out a cry for help to the West. TWENTY-FIVE (25) years later a Crusade was sent – to Palestine. They would have been better placed in Asia Minor.
In fairness to Urban II, who incited the First Crusade, the “backing the Byzantines” would have been one heckuva sell to make. Little love remained after Photius and the Schism of 1054.
God bless,
Delta
P.S. Re: “There should be a requirement that one must have a sense of humor before getting a license to drive the internet.”
Try joking about the “Blood Libel” to a Jew. See if he thinks it funny.
It was clever and funny. The rest of you should get a life already!
AuntieD,
Pope Innocent III who launched the 4th Crusade didn’t find the sacking of the city amusing:
“You vowed to liberate the Holy Land but you rashly turned away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians� The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs”.
Pope John Paul II didn’t find it a source of amusement:
“How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust.”
I dunno? If these popes were still alive, perhaps you’d tell them to “get a life” ??
I am tired of reading about the sack of Constantinople as some sort of Roman Catholic atrocity instigated at the behest of the Pope or a doge or anyone else from the west. This is simply false. Anyone who actually has read the source documents extant would realize that the crusaders were merely used as a tool by one Byzantine tyrant to usurp another ruler. The sack occurred because the tyrant, Alexis IV, refused to honor his word to the crusaders to supply them with arms, funds, men and supplies.
You don’t have to accept my word on it. If anyone would actually want to learn for themselves what happened in the Fourth Crusade, here is a link: http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/primarysourcesfourthcrusade.html
and
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/vryan_crusades_may05.asp
The sack was wrong, it was brutal and it is a mark of shame for all Christians, but one needs to put aside the polemics and be honest about what happened.
They filled it with manure all right–the manure of Islam.
all this talk about sacks and violins! it’s shocking.
Comments are closed.