<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Constantinople</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/constantinople/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/constantinople/</link>
	<description>Unity in charity, diversity in truth</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:46:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tobias Petrus</title>
		<link>http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/constantinople/#comment-3159</link>
		<dc:creator>Tobias Petrus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/constantinople/#comment-3159</guid>
		<description>So first the Byzantines go into schism, claiming to be the "New Rome."  They are Caesaro-Papists.  Then they fall to the Turkish Sultan, who actually strengthens the schism by marginalizing and/or persecuting those Byzantines who'd actually tried to live up to the re-union of the Council of Ferrara.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;At about the same time, the Russian Czar expelled Cardinal Isidore, the Metropolitan of Kiev and Moscow, who also had fostered union with Rome (hence his cardinalate).  This czar claims that Moscow (!) is now the Third Rome and that he is the legitimate successor to the Eastern Caesars (hence his title "czar").  But the same tragedy follows schism in Russia.  After centuries of caesaro-papism, that country falls to the Bolsheviks.  Like the Turks in Constantinople, the Bolsheviks in the Eastern Bloc also foster the schism at the expense of Catholics.  When the Soviets conquered eastern Poland with Nazi help, they shut down the Ukrainian Catholic Church and tried to force everyone there to be "orthodox."  In Romania, the commies there gave all the Uniate churches over to the schismatics.  Now what should that tell you?  The "orthodox" make much of their suffering at the hands of the Mohammedan and the Bolshevik, and many, many were in fact martyred.  But when push came to shove, both of these anti-Christ political forces preferred schism to Catholicism.  Interesting . . . the logical fruits of caesaro-papism?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So first the Byzantines go into schism, claiming to be the &#8220;New Rome.&#8221;  They are Caesaro-Papists.  Then they fall to the Turkish Sultan, who actually strengthens the schism by marginalizing and/or persecuting those Byzantines who&#8217;d actually tried to live up to the re-union of the Council of Ferrara.  </p>
<p>At about the same time, the Russian Czar expelled Cardinal Isidore, the Metropolitan of Kiev and Moscow, who also had fostered union with Rome (hence his cardinalate).  This czar claims that Moscow (!) is now the Third Rome and that he is the legitimate successor to the Eastern Caesars (hence his title &#8220;czar&#8221;).  But the same tragedy follows schism in Russia.  After centuries of caesaro-papism, that country falls to the Bolsheviks.  Like the Turks in Constantinople, the Bolsheviks in the Eastern Bloc also foster the schism at the expense of Catholics.  When the Soviets conquered eastern Poland with Nazi help, they shut down the Ukrainian Catholic Church and tried to force everyone there to be &#8220;orthodox.&#8221;  In Romania, the commies there gave all the Uniate churches over to the schismatics.  Now what should that tell you?  The &#8220;orthodox&#8221; make much of their suffering at the hands of the Mohammedan and the Bolshevik, and many, many were in fact martyred.  But when push came to shove, both of these anti-Christ political forces preferred schism to Catholicism.  Interesting . . . the logical fruits of caesaro-papism?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.555 seconds -->
