Pope Innocent III - The Crusades and His "AGENDA" ???

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Pope Innocent III - The Crusades and His "AGENDA" ???

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

Reconciliation, Towards Unity: JOINT STATEMENT BY POPE, ORTHODOX PRELATE (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

PAPAL APOLOGY TO GREEK ORTHODOX (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

"Enemy" Churches Praying Together: Pope and Orthodox Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

Read What Christodoulos Says to John Paul II (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Reflections on the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and Lesser-Known Byzantine Atrocities (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

Greek Atrocities Against the Latins (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

Tit for tat eh? (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, Jun 06
From: Matthew Tan Yew Hock MatthewTan

One cannot help but to conclude that an anti-Catholic like Mr. Yip is never able to give fair comment, not only on Catholic news services, and not only on Catholic teachings, but also on historical events connected with the Catholic Church and the Pope.
-
Again and again, it has been proven to him that the Ecumenical Councils recognised the primacy of juridiction of the Pope, where the Pope was the head of the Church just as Peter was the Chief of the Apostles. If fact, the Pope had the final say over Ecumencial Councils, with the power to ratify or revoke any Council decrees. The Pope also had real power to install and depose Bishops, including the Bishops of the East, and to reinstate unjustly dethroned Bishops.
--
Also, is anti-Catholic Mr. Yip trying to give us his private definition of "infallibility" again, and not the definition of Vatican I and II ? Lamentable distortion of Catholic doctrine !
Infallible does not mean impeccable; it does not mean sinless and holy and righteous. Mr. Yip is playing game here. I would say Mr. Yip is playing with "hell" fire.
We see here perhaps Mr. Yip is making his assertion that he is justified before God by "faith alone" - no matter what he does, what he says, and what he writes. Mr. Yip is "once-justified, forever justified".
-
The article just posted by anti-Catholic Mr. Yip is good for illustration. He relied on the following two sources for his wayward charges:
http:\\www.ccel.org\C C E L\S\SCHAFF\HISTORY\5_CH07.HTM
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm
In neither of the two documents cited can one ever arrive at the absurd conclusion that "The sacking was not just some aberration of the crusaders, a fluke of history. It was on Innocent III's agenda to subject Constantinople to Latin ecclesiastical rule."
Innocent III's "ON AGENDA". "Not a fluke of history". This implies that the Pope premeditated the Sake of Constantinople, planned for it, and ordered it to be carried out.
Please, let Mr. Yip substantiate his accusation. Or retract, or clarify what he meant here.
All can be gathered from the two said documentations is that, after the Sake of the city, the Pope proceeded to bring Constantinople under Rome's jurisdiction - a reunion of the East and West under one shepherd, the Pope - which was what any Pope would do. The Popes of the Ecumenical Councils of Lyon and Florence, as well as of the first seven Ecumenical Councils did exactly that.
Without the Popes, the Eastern Church was never able to convoke any Ecumenical Councils. Without the Popes, the Protestants were never able to convoke any Ecumenical Councils -- not even their own kind of Ecumencial Councils.
This is the TRUTH.