Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
@Kamani...Finally, someone with some sense and a grasp of logic. What does the Orthodox faith of Byzantium have to do with the accomplishments or lack of them of the Russians who were converted by them?
As two of my academic degrees were in European History and I have been reading about it since probably before the poster upthread was born, and I've also taken innumerable courses in Christian theology, I will try to provide some background and a few links should anyone actually be interested in actual history and facts.
This "argument", such as it is, seems to rest on the fact that there is something unique to Christian Orthodoxy in contrast to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism that adversely affects intellectual and economic development. This shows an absolute lack of understanding of the history of the countries involved and of the theology of the three branches of Christianity.
I'll first address the history. The Eastern Roman Empire...Byzantium...lasted for a thousand years after the fall of Rome.The westerners during the Dark Ages were barbarians in comparison. Indeed, The Emperors of Constantinople were content to concede all of it to the barbarians except for Italy.
Should anyone wish to educate themselves, there are innumerable works in Italian about the Byzantines, but I will list only those in English:
This is an extraordinary effort...dozens of podcasts about Byzantium. Great for long car trips. You have to start with episode one unless you’re already familiar with the history.
http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2012/05/
This online book provides excellent information about the Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade . As an ancillary benefit, it highlights the extraordinary civilization of this Orthodox Christian empire.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kk...onepage&q=sack of constantinople 1203&f=false
This helpful book examines the economics of Byzantium…
http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/books-in-print/the-economic-history-of-byzantium
Now, it is true that the fortunes of the Greeks changed with the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
This is an exhaustive work detailing the fall and the effects:
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1101http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/
As a result of conquest and occupation, their history changed drastically. It's true that they did not participate in the Renaissance or The Enlightenment. That affected their development in contrast to that of the West. Those are the vicissitudes and tragedies of fate. It has nothing to do with the value or lack of it of their religion.
The development of the Renaissance in Italy is a vast subject, much too complicated to discuss in this type of thread. Let it suffice to say that there were numerous influences, from memories and knowledge and artifacts still present within Italy, to contact with Byzantium through trade during the 1200s and 1300s and continuing after the Fall of Constantinople, to contact with the Muslim Caliphates, to the mindset of the Italians themselves, in my opinion.
Moving on to the "Slavic" countries of eastern Europe, their development or lack of development is also the result of the myriad migrations, invasions, influences or lack of influences of their own particular history. To attribute all of it to the religion they happen to share with the Byzantines is simplistic reasoning of the worst kind. Plus, I don't know how it has escaped the attention of some posters that some Slavs are Catholic (the Poles) and some Slavs are Orthodox (the Russians).
Turning to the theology, there are far fewer differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism than there are between either of them and Protestantism. Indeed, the only major difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism concerns the primacy of the Papacy. (There are other minor theological differences, but I will not bore everyone by discussing them.) In the days when more people were more concerned about these things, a Catholic out of reach of a Catholic Church could attend Mass and receive Communion from an Orthodox priest. They are within the Apostolic Succession despite the differences in ritual and language and they can validly administer the sacraments. That is decidedly not the case with the Protestant sects, not even the Anglican and Lutheran churches, which are also very similar in terms of theology.
Given the discussions up post about the Renaissance in Italy there should not be any doubt that there is no conflict between this theology and the development of trade, commerce, etc. For goodness' sakes, the Italians dominated trade and commerce in the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance, with the Tuscans inventing bookkeeping and banking.
And now I've wasted too much time on this...people who try to make one to one correspondences between religion and development or between genetics and development understand neither genetics, nor religion, nor history.
Ah well, more people for the ignore pile. Pretty soon there will be more in it than out of it.
As two of my academic degrees were in European History and I have been reading about it since probably before the poster upthread was born, and I've also taken innumerable courses in Christian theology, I will try to provide some background and a few links should anyone actually be interested in actual history and facts.
This "argument", such as it is, seems to rest on the fact that there is something unique to Christian Orthodoxy in contrast to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism that adversely affects intellectual and economic development. This shows an absolute lack of understanding of the history of the countries involved and of the theology of the three branches of Christianity.
I'll first address the history. The Eastern Roman Empire...Byzantium...lasted for a thousand years after the fall of Rome.The westerners during the Dark Ages were barbarians in comparison. Indeed, The Emperors of Constantinople were content to concede all of it to the barbarians except for Italy.
Should anyone wish to educate themselves, there are innumerable works in Italian about the Byzantines, but I will list only those in English:
This is an extraordinary effort...dozens of podcasts about Byzantium. Great for long car trips. You have to start with episode one unless you’re already familiar with the history.
http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2012/05/
This online book provides excellent information about the Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade . As an ancillary benefit, it highlights the extraordinary civilization of this Orthodox Christian empire.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kk...onepage&q=sack of constantinople 1203&f=false
This helpful book examines the economics of Byzantium…
http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/books-in-print/the-economic-history-of-byzantium
Now, it is true that the fortunes of the Greeks changed with the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
This is an exhaustive work detailing the fall and the effects:
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1101http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/
As a result of conquest and occupation, their history changed drastically. It's true that they did not participate in the Renaissance or The Enlightenment. That affected their development in contrast to that of the West. Those are the vicissitudes and tragedies of fate. It has nothing to do with the value or lack of it of their religion.
The development of the Renaissance in Italy is a vast subject, much too complicated to discuss in this type of thread. Let it suffice to say that there were numerous influences, from memories and knowledge and artifacts still present within Italy, to contact with Byzantium through trade during the 1200s and 1300s and continuing after the Fall of Constantinople, to contact with the Muslim Caliphates, to the mindset of the Italians themselves, in my opinion.
Moving on to the "Slavic" countries of eastern Europe, their development or lack of development is also the result of the myriad migrations, invasions, influences or lack of influences of their own particular history. To attribute all of it to the religion they happen to share with the Byzantines is simplistic reasoning of the worst kind. Plus, I don't know how it has escaped the attention of some posters that some Slavs are Catholic (the Poles) and some Slavs are Orthodox (the Russians).
Turning to the theology, there are far fewer differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism than there are between either of them and Protestantism. Indeed, the only major difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism concerns the primacy of the Papacy. (There are other minor theological differences, but I will not bore everyone by discussing them.) In the days when more people were more concerned about these things, a Catholic out of reach of a Catholic Church could attend Mass and receive Communion from an Orthodox priest. They are within the Apostolic Succession despite the differences in ritual and language and they can validly administer the sacraments. That is decidedly not the case with the Protestant sects, not even the Anglican and Lutheran churches, which are also very similar in terms of theology.
Given the discussions up post about the Renaissance in Italy there should not be any doubt that there is no conflict between this theology and the development of trade, commerce, etc. For goodness' sakes, the Italians dominated trade and commerce in the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance, with the Tuscans inventing bookkeeping and banking.
And now I've wasted too much time on this...people who try to make one to one correspondences between religion and development or between genetics and development understand neither genetics, nor religion, nor history.
Ah well, more people for the ignore pile. Pretty soon there will be more in it than out of it.