MP is against Constantinople’s attempts to intervene in other Orthodox Churches’ affairs

It is a common myth that few, if any, clerics fought the nationalization of their Church, or, so to speak, "stood up" against Peter or his successors. Now, it is not the job of the Church to "stand up" to monarchs unless they publicly preach heresy, which Peter did not. However, the historical acts of St. Mitrophan of Voronezh are instructive and, curiously, universally left out of mainstream works of Russian history, and he appears nowhere in major biographies of Peter.

St. Mitrophan was born in 1623, and, as he reached adulthood, was drawn to a life in the Church as a monastic. He was an extraordinary scholar, and excelled in debate with the Old Ritual in the diocese he was assigned, the newly created diocese of Voronezh, which happened to be dead in the middle of much Old Ritual agitation after the "dual crown" of Peter and Ivan. Once it was clear that Peter was Tsar, he invited the increasingly famous bishop to Petersburg. Upon seeing the palace on his way, the bishop noticed that it was adorned with pagan statues. St. Mitrophan ordered the boat to turn away, and the saint publicly rebuked the Tsar. Peter's response was not to imprison the great man, nor to humiliate him, but to remove the statues in deference to the Church, and in fact, admitting his embarrassment. St. Mitrophan died a natural death in 1703, and his incorrupt relics were unearthed in 1821. Simply, the reason this story is deliberately left out of all accounts of Peter's reign is that it flies in the face of the "scholarly consensus" on the Church, Peter and Russian royalism in general.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/third_rome_m_johnson.htm

"I understand that at one time there was a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople who resided in Rome."

There was a Latin patriarch of Constantinople installed after the rape of the City by the soldiers of the 4th Crusade. In a gesture of brotherly love, the soldiers of the Pope even set a prostitute on the Patriarchial Throne and bowed to her. In any event, after the fall of the Latins some years later, the "Latin Patriarch" fled to Rome. Whether Rome continued after his death to appoint a successor or successors I don't know. If they did, they stopped a very, very long time ago. By the way, to its credit, Rome formally apologized for the 4th Crusade's sack of the City.

Nothing really new here, except that the MP is fairly healthy again. The EP has not been really helpful to the cause of Orthodox unity since the patriarchate of Meletius (of sorrowful memory), who foisted the New Calendar on the Church, and worse, broke the canonical unity of the Church in North America by establishing the Greek Archdiocese.

(And no, I'm not an Old Calendarist--I just messing with the calendar without complete concensus was a lousy idea. Personally, I like the Coptic proposal to restore the unity of all Christian confessions' calendars by returning to the exact terms mandated by the Council of Nicaea for the Paschalion, and using the most astronomically accurate calendar as the basis the fixed feasts and for the computations of the date of Pascha--that would now be the civil calenda. It would restore the spirit of the decision to adopt the Julian calendar = civil calendar, back in the days of the Empire, because it was the civil calendar.)

In a gesture of brotherly love, the soldiers of the Pope even set a prostitute on the Patriarchial Throne and bowed to her

Sorry for the late response, K, but I felt one point needed to be clarified here. The phrase "soldiers of the Pope" implies that the Crusaders acted on His Holiness's behest and his approval. I do not know if that is the meaning you intended, but this was manifestly not the case. Here is what Innocent III wrote to the Marquis of Montferrat and the Counts of Flanders, Blois and St. Pol in June of 1203 after their attack on Zara.

None of you should therefore dare to assume that it is permissible for you to seize or to plunder the land of the Greeks, even though the latter may be disobedient to the Apostolic See, or on the grounds that the Emperor of Constantinople has deposed and even blinded his brother and usurped the imperial throne. For though this same emperor and the men entrusted to his rule may have sinned, both in these and in other matters, it is not for you to judge their faults, nor have you assumed the sign of the cross to punish this injury; rather you specifically pledged your self to the duty of avenging the insult to the cross.

After Innocent's orders were defied and the holy city was sacked, here is what His Holiness had to say when he heard the news in a reprimand of his legate:

We were not a little astonished and disturbed to bear that you and our beloved son the Cardinal Priest of the Title of St. Praxida and Legate of the Apostolic See, in fear of the looming perils of the Holy Land, have left the province of Jerusalem (which, at this point is in such great need) and that you have gone by ship to Constantinople. And now we see that what we dreaded has occurred and what we feared has come to pass....
How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, whose swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, are now dripping with Christian blood they have spared neither age nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics....

The same Innocent apparently was the one that set up the Latin Patriarchate. Of that I do not know the history, but it is fair to say that if the Pontiff's words had been heeded in the first place, there would have been no sack.

Sorry for the late response, K, but I felt one point needed to be clarified here. The phrase "soldiers of the Pope" implies that the Crusaders acted on His Holiness's behest and his approval.

Its true innocent was unhappy but keep in mind he did un-excommunicate these folks after he'd excommunicated them following Zara. Further he didn't re-excommunicate them after constantinople. Further note that the Venice Bishops hold much of the responsibility. First hand accounts state that they preached it was a good act to sack the greeks who were 'dogs worse than Jews' and before the sack they pre-forgave any sins the crusaders might commit.

Following all this the churches throughout southern italy were lavish in stolen loot from Constantinople and in fact is still the largest collection of Byzantine works. St mark's Basilica still is adorned by the Horses stolen during the sack. There is a reason JPII apologized for the sack.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.