OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 07:04:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Episcopal Church ousts 61 clergy  (Read 5789 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tallitot
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« on: May 28, 2009, 06:30:24 AM »

"FRESNO, Calif. - National leaders of the Episcopal Church have ousted 61 clergy who aligned with a former bishop in California when he broke with the national church in a dispute over the Bible and homosexuality"...
Full story:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30970998/
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 06:30:56 AM by Tallitot » Logged

Proverbs 22:7
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2009, 07:07:52 AM »

I am cradle Orthodox but my father and all of his family were Episcopalian and I went to episcopalian schools for day school and prep school.
This is all very sad. I wish they would all "come home" to Orthodoxy..
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,928


« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2009, 09:22:04 AM »

What a dreadful situation in that a carnality disapproved of in scripture becomes a dogma. It is most likely the ousted clerics were not unloving and discerned properly between natural dispositions of individuals as opposed to approving of carnality that often literally leads to illness and death. Bogus sentimentality posing as "love" does not bear out in reality; if it was real then why are the only truly safe blood donations are those that are provided by an an individual who at least keeps the physical requirements(barring certain physical accidents, like stepping on a addicts discarded syringe) of the 10 commandments?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 09:28:52 AM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2009, 12:26:56 PM »

This is really something of a non-news item. I've seen one response suggesting that the action was necessary for the rump diocese to function, because otherwise they could not achieve a quorum in the diocesan convention.
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,279



« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2009, 12:36:50 PM »

At least the hierarchy of the ECUSA is being true to itself and ousting these clergy members.  Can there be any doubt now that the current ECUSA and its leaders are nothing more than opponents of traditional Christianity where any dissent with its hierarchs and defense of confessional faith will not be tolerated?  All this does is confirm what many already know. 
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2009, 02:14:42 PM »

Part of the issue these days is whether there even IS a hierarchy. There seem to be three different theories running around: the federal/monarchic model beloved of the main offices, what I suppose could be called the "confederate" model that the departing dioceses are acting out, and a middle position which closer to the latter model but which is much more negative about schism in practice.

As far as doubt is concerned, I haven't doubted in years; as I said, this isn't really a significant action.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 02:16:08 PM by Keble » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2009, 07:55:47 PM »

This is all very sad. I wish they would all "come home" to Orthodoxy..

I mean no disrespect to you, but why would EO be "home"?
 Undecided

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,194


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2009, 10:22:59 PM »

This is all very sad. I wish they would all "come home" to Orthodoxy..

I mean no disrespect to you, but why would EO be "home"?
 Undecided

You don't really want this question to be answered, do you?
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,642


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2009, 06:00:28 AM »

This is all very sad. I wish they would all "come home" to Orthodoxy..

I mean no disrespect to you, but why would EO be "home"?
 Undecided

You don't really want this question to be answered, do you?

:sound of can of worms being opened:
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2009, 09:18:25 AM »

This is all very sad. I wish they would all "come home" to Orthodoxy..

I mean no disrespect to you, but why would EO be "home"?
 Undecided

You don't really want this question to be answered, do you?

Not particularly.   Undecided  But that's because it is a claim that I have seen many many times over the years by both EO and RC.  Often the concept shows up when an Episcopalian/Anglican "crosses the Tiber/Bosporus" with a air of "one more for my side"; not all are like that, but some.  An EO gentleman who understands this once compared it to "spiking the ball" after a touchdown.

As I have written here before.  If I should ever find it needful to leave the Anglican Communion and become EO, it would not be "Coming Home" because I have never lived there.  Home for me as a Christian is as an Anglican. I do know a great deal about WRO, before anyone brings it up, and those are thin on the ground and in some places looked down on as 'not really Orthodox".

I apologize for any offense that I might unintentionally have caused in this post.

Ebor (depressed)
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2009, 02:43:35 PM »

This is all very sad. I wish they would all "come home" to Orthodoxy..

I mean no disrespect to you, but why would EO be "home"?
 Undecided

You don't really want this question to be answered, do you?

Not particularly.   Undecided  But that's because it is a claim that I have seen many many times over the years by both EO and RC.  Often the concept shows up when an Episcopalian/Anglican "crosses the Tiber/Bosporus" with a air of "one more for my side"; not all are like that, but some.  An EO gentleman who understands this once compared it to "spiking the ball" after a touchdown.

As I have written here before.  If I should ever find it needful to leave the Anglican Communion and become EO, it would not be "Coming Home" because I have never lived there.  Home for me as a Christian is as an Anglican. I do know a great deal about WRO, before anyone brings it up, and those are thin on the ground and in some places looked down on as 'not really Orthodox".

I apologize for any offense that I might unintentionally have caused in this post.

Ebor (depressed)

Coming home refers to the Church of England returning to Orthodoxy as it was before the Great Schism. St. Augustine of Canterbury, St. Theodore of Tarsus, and St. Laurence of Canterbury who were all Archbishops of Canterbury were all Orthodox. In fact, St. Theodore was from Anatolia which was part of the Byzantine Empire and now modern day Turkey.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2009, 02:46:44 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2009, 02:50:30 PM »

Excuse me , were we united with this heretics (anglicans) ? All i knew about is catholic - orthodox union as one Church .
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2009, 10:43:49 PM »

Coming home refers to the Church of England returning to Orthodoxy as it was before the Great Schism. St. Augustine of Canterbury, St. Theodore of Tarsus, and St. Laurence of Canterbury who were all Archbishops of Canterbury were all Orthodox. In fact, St. Theodore was from Anatolia which was part of the Byzantine Empire and now modern day Turkey.

How do you mean that Christians in England and the British Isles were "Orthodox" prior to 1054?  They did not have a liturgy that was Byzantine.  Their Archbishops got their palls from the Bishop of Rome.  They were Christian and in that time there was Christendom in its multiple varieties spread out across a large area.

St. Augustine and St. Laurence were sent by Rome as was St. Theodore. That the latter was from Tarsus does not mean that he brought Byzantine customs or practices to the British Isles.  He came only a few years after the Synod at Whitby which addressed conflicts in practice between the Celtic and Roman rites and customs.  He spent years on bringing about one ecclesiastical body out of the various Churches that existed and that English Church derived its orders and rites from Rome, not Constantinople.

With respect,

Ebor


Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2009, 10:48:47 PM »

Excuse me , were we united with this heretics (anglicans) ? All i knew about is catholic - orthodox union as one Church .

The Anglican Church began when the Church of England broke with the Bishop of Rome in 1534.  Therefore it did not exist per se prior to the schism in 1054. 

Sigh on the 'this heretics'  Sad

With respect

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2009, 11:14:34 PM »

Coming home refers to the Church of England returning to Orthodoxy as it was before the Great Schism. St. Augustine of Canterbury, St. Theodore of Tarsus, and St. Laurence of Canterbury who were all Archbishops of Canterbury were all Orthodox. In fact, St. Theodore was from Anatolia which was part of the Byzantine Empire and now modern day Turkey.

How do you mean that Christians in England and the British Isles were "Orthodox" prior to 1054?  They did not have a liturgy that was Byzantine.  Their Archbishops got their palls from the Bishop of Rome.  They were Christian and in that time there was Christendom in its multiple varieties spread out across a large area.

St. Augustine and St. Laurence were sent by Rome as was St. Theodore. That the latter was from Tarsus does not mean that he brought Byzantine customs or practices to the British Isles.  He came only a few years after the Synod at Whitby which addressed conflicts in practice between the Celtic and Roman rites and customs.  He spent years on bringing about one ecclesiastical body out of the various Churches that existed and that English Church derived its orders and rites from Rome, not Constantinople.

With respect,

Ebor




They were Orthodox because they confessed the Orthodox Faith.  In a tradition in which as long as you use the Book of COMMON Prayer, your Faith doesn't have to be held in common, it might be an alien concept of different rites for the same Faith.

We would commune (actually we do) St. Augustine of Canterbury, St. Theodore of Tarsus, and St. Laurence of Canterbury.  The Anglicans would too, but these saints would refuse their communion.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2009, 11:16:00 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2009, 01:55:11 AM »

Telling the Anglicans to "come home" would mean coming back to their proper patriarch, and that certainly ain't the Patriarch of Constantinople. Or has the EP lately even further expanded his papal pretensions?  Wink
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2009, 02:04:15 AM »

This parody has been spreading around the web lately:



It certainly seems to apply to those running the show in the ECUSA right now, though there remain a good number of resisters to the heterodoxy Bp. Jefferts-Schori and company are promoting.

It doesn't look good, though, as more of these resisters leave for the Continuing alphabet soup or to other communions, while Jim McGreevy types join up because of recent developments in the ECUSA.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2009, 03:38:17 AM »

Telling the Anglicans to "come home" would mean coming back to their proper patriarch, and that certainly ain't the Patriarch of Constantinople. Or has the EP lately even further expanded his papal pretensions?  Wink

No, proper patriarch means an Orthodox one.  A heretical one with the proper title wouldn't be an improvement, as that is sort of the problem with the present Archbishop of Cantebury.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
rwprof
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA now, Antiochian originally
Posts: 294



« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2009, 09:05:50 AM »

Telling the Anglicans to "come home" would mean coming back to their proper patriarch, and that certainly ain't the Patriarch of Constantinople. Or has the EP lately even further expanded his papal pretensions?  Wink

Henry VIII?

Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2009, 04:39:31 PM »

They were Orthodox because they confessed the Orthodox Faith.  In a tradition in which as long as you use the Book of COMMON Prayer, your Faith doesn't have to be held in common, it might be an alien concept of different rites for the same Faith.

One might as well say that they were "Roman Catholic" because they looked to Rome and confessed the Catholic faith.  Nowadays "Orthodox" and "Catholic" have connotations that did not apply over 1000 years ago.  The Churches of the British Isles were Christian and they were "western" not "eastern", but Christian. 

Have you ever read much of the Book of Common Prayer?  I am familiar with different rites, I assure you. 


Quote
We would commune (actually we do) St. Augustine of Canterbury, St. Theodore of Tarsus, and St. Laurence of Canterbury.  The Anglicans would too, but these saints would refuse their communion.

One does not know how the saints now in glory would respond with the charity of God to those who are still striving.  Undecided

Have you had bad experiences with persons who were Anglican that you seem to have such animosity or have you studied the Anglican Communion beyond what makes headlines in the  news?

Repectfully,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2009, 04:50:46 PM »

This parody has been spreading around the web lately:

<picture removed to save bandwidth>   

It certainly seems to apply to those running the show in the ECUSA right now, though there remain a good number of resisters to the heterodoxy Bp. Jefferts-Schori and company are promoting.

As you wrote it is a parody and frankly a rather offensive one.   Sad  I have never seen the Presiding Bishop say anything that crude.  My Church is having a great deal going on that many who are outside many not know about.  Making fun of others doesn't help either.   As a point of detail the lady's name is not hyphenated. 

Sigh


Quote
It doesn't look good, though, as more of these resisters leave for the Continuing alphabet soup or to other communions, while Jim McGreevy types join up because of recent developments in the ECUSA.

And what of all the ones who don't make the news, who don't end up in the blogo-sphere because they are faithful and doing their best?


There are real human beings in ECUSA, not 2 dimensional targets for other's darts and jabs.
 Sad

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
SbdcnDavid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 65


« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2009, 01:13:06 AM »



How do you mean that Christians in England and the British Isles were "Orthodox" prior to 1054?  They did not have a liturgy that was Byzantine.  Their Archbishops got their palls from the Bishop of Rome.  They were Christian and in that time there was Christendom in its multiple varieties spread out across a large area.

St. Augustine and St. Laurence were sent by Rome as was St. Theodore. That the latter was from Tarsus does not mean that he brought Byzantine customs or practices to the British Isles.  He came only a few years after the Synod at Whitby which addressed conflicts in practice between the Celtic and Roman rites and customs.  He spent years on bringing about one ecclesiastical body out of the various Churches that existed and that English Church derived its orders and rites from Rome, not Constantinople.

With respect,

Ebor


What does which Patriarchate the bishops and priests of the English church derived their orders from have to do with anything?  The Bishops of Rome (with the exception of the monothelite Honorius), were Orthodox until 1009 or 1014, when they were removed from the Diptychs of the Great Church of Constantinople for adding the filioque to the Creed, which date is unclear, it may have been the election encyclical of Pope Sergius IV (1009), but certainly the coronation liturgy for the German Emperor Henry II included the filioque (1014)).  (As an aside, I would note that the canonist Nikon of the Black Mountain recommended receiving Franks by baptism in 1033.)

There is a strong case that the Church in the British Isles remained Orthodox until 1066 (and diocese by diocese until the forcible replacement of English or Celtic bishop with Norman bishops).  The coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the heretical interpolation.  Saxon nobles who fled the Norman conquest mostly went to Kiev or Constantinople.  Indeed Harold's daughter married Prince Vladimir Monomach of Kiev.  The English Church was, moreover out of communion with Rome at the time of the mutual anathemas in 1054 over an investiture issue, so that the William had a Papal order to reduce the English Church to papal juridsiction.

Some Orthodox traditionalists commemorate Harold Godwinson as the King-Martyr Harold, Last Orthodox King of England.

A similar, but weaker, case can be made for a lingering of Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia into the 1070's on the basis that the filioque was not used in the Creed there until then.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #22 on: May 31, 2009, 08:35:41 AM »

Diptychs, schmiptychs. Home is where you were raised, where you came from. A pre-1054 church is nobody's home, not here. It's a fantasy church for us anyway.
Logged
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2009, 08:48:49 AM »

 We're the true church.

No, we're the true church.

You're a heretic.

No, you're a heretic.


We give our verbal and mental assent to the correct 4th century interpretation of Jesus.

No, we give our mental and verbal assent to the right ideas about who we think Jesus was.


Guess what...God's right, we're all wrong. Despite the fact, God has a way of breaking through to us fully, even with all of our imperfect forms of representing and explaining God.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,551


« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2009, 08:52:57 AM »

Diptychs, schmiptychs. Home is where you were raised, where you came from. A pre-1054 church is nobody's home, not here. It's a fantasy church for us anyway.

Well written
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2009, 10:26:29 AM »

They were Orthodox because they confessed the Orthodox Faith.  In a tradition in which as long as you use the Book of COMMON Prayer, your Faith doesn't have to be held in common, it might be an alien concept of different rites for the same Faith.

One might as well say that they were "Roman Catholic" because they looked to Rome and confessed the Catholic faith.  Nowadays "Orthodox" and "Catholic" have connotations that did not apply over 1000 years ago.  The Churches of the British Isles were Christian and they were "western" not "eastern", but Christian. 

And Anglo-Saxon, before them Celtic, after them Norman.  Your point?

As someone  posted above, this was not the issue: the Celts had various contacts with the Christians of the East (many which came to the British Isles), and the Anglo-Saxon's ended up in Constantinople and Kiev when fleeing the Normans (ironic, as the Normans came from the same background as the Rus who ruled Kiev).  "Roman Catholicism" didn't come really until Anselm took Canteburry, and it was imported (won't even go into what St. Augustine did).


Quote
Have you ever read much of the Book of Common Prayer?  I am familiar with different rites, I assure you.


yes, several versions, and some in some languages:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/

Including the WRO Missal.

(I haven't had the opportunity to see the Vatican's Anglican Usage version).

Which is perhaps why you are bringing up "the Churches of the British Isles were Christian and they were "western" not "eastern", but Christian," the squeemishness about Orthodox who aren't Eastern.  It is amazing, we are supposed to be the ethnic ones, but this persistence that one has to chose a Western heterodox church if one is Western...must stem for this dogma of "the Catholic Church in England," "branch theory" and other nonsense.


Quote
We would commune (actually we do) St. Augustine of Canterbury, St. Theodore of Tarsus, and St. Laurence of Canterbury.  The Anglicans would too, but these saints would refuse their communion.

Quote
One does not know how the saints now in glory would respond with the charity of God to those who are still striving.  Undecided

Yes, that's one of the Protestant dogmas I think Cramner, Cromwell and Edward adopted.  We do know.  I won't feign ignorance on the matter.

Charity never extended to communing with heresy, as St. Maximos the Confessor demonstrated "if the whole universe were to commune with you, I alone would not commune with you."


Quote
Have you had bad experiences with persons who were Anglican that you seem to have such animosity or have you studied the Anglican Communion beyond what makes headlines in the  news?

I don't know if you would say bad: I remember going to an Anglican Church for all the Holy Week Services, all impeccable.  The only problem was the sermon preached by a priest living with his homosexual lover in the rectory, the congregation being 80% gay (one woman, daughter of a priest, said she didn't bring her son to church until he showed definite heterosexual leanings), chating with them about their "wedding rings" etc... after service.  I've also known plenty of those fleeing the Anglican church, including Bp. Tikhon and my pastor, who said that when the realization come over him that he was shielding his children from his own church (of which he was a priest) it knew it was time to go.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2009, 10:30:24 AM »

Diptychs, schmiptychs. Home is where you were raised, where you came from. A pre-1054 church is nobody's home, not here. It's a fantasy church for us anyway.


Denial of a disfunctional home is never pretty, even uglier than the disfunction.  The branch theory church is a fantasy church for us, as it is for the saints.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2009, 11:29:31 AM »

There is a strong case that the Church in the British Isles remained Orthodox until 1066 (and diocese by diocese until the forcible replacement of English or Celtic bishop with Norman bishops).  The coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the heretical interpolation.  Saxon nobles who fled the Norman conquest mostly went to Kiev or Constantinople.  Indeed Harold's daughter married Prince Vladimir Monomach of Kiev.  The English Church was, moreover out of communion with Rome at the time of the mutual anathemas in 1054 over an investiture issue, so that the William had a Papal order to reduce the English Church to papal juridsiction.

Some Orthodox traditionalists commemorate Harold Godwinson as the King-Martyr Harold, Last Orthodox King of England.

A similar, but weaker, case can be made for a lingering of Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia into the 1070's on the basis that the filioque was not used in the Creed there until then.

There have been previous discussions on this subject here on the forum before. Perhaps one of the moderators could move this to one of those threads that it might not be off topic.  Would you please give your views and sources on Anglo-Saxon history?  Thank you in advance.

I am quite aware also of a by-no-means universal claim that Harald Godwinson was a "martyr" and "Orthodox".  Earl Godwin and his sons Harold and Tostig were major players in the attempt to gain power and land.  Harald was not fighting for religion, but for power and it wasn't just against William of Normandy.  He became king over one with a better claim Edgar the Atheling.  He and his forces drove off an attempted invasion at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire on September 25, 1066 then marched down Sussex to meet the Normans on October 14.   There are primary source documents from the time such as the several manuscripts of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles  as well as some of the Norse sagas such as the Heimskringla

Would you then define "Orthodox" by the absence of the filioque? 

Many of those who fled went to Scotland and some, such as Edgar Atheling returned later in life.  In the case of Constantinople, historically fighting men from the northern areas went to join the Varangian Guard which is also attested to in the sagas. It was for pay and if they survived, they went back home.  The earliest man to do so is Bolli Bollason whose story in in the Laxdaela Saga  Links may be found in the earlier threads, but I can post them again if it is wanted.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2009, 01:46:53 PM »

We're the true church.

No, we're the true church.

You're a heretic.

No, you're a heretic.


We give our verbal and mental assent to the correct 4th century interpretation of Jesus.

No, we give our mental and verbal assent to the right ideas about who we think Jesus was.

I decided not to be a heretic this week. A couple of hours ago, at Divine Liturgy, I said the Credo without the filioque. Next week, back to normal...  Wink
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2009, 01:51:07 PM »

Which is perhaps why you are bringing up "the Churches of the British Isles were Christian and they were "western" not "eastern", but Christian," the squeemishness about Orthodox who aren't Eastern.  It is amazing, we are supposed to be the ethnic ones, but this persistence that one has to chose a Western heterodox church if one is Western...must stem for this dogma of "the Catholic Church in England," "branch theory" and other nonsense.

Have you considered for a moment that perhaps Ebor DOESN'T consider the Western Church "heterodox"?
Why would someone of a Western theological orientation want to join a tradition foreign to his understanding?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2009, 02:17:45 PM »

There have been previous discussions on this subject here on the forum before. Perhaps one of the moderators could move this to one of those threads that it might not be off topic.  Would you please give your views and sources on Anglo-Saxon history?  Thank you in advance.

I am quite aware also of a by-no-means universal claim that Harald Godwinson was a "martyr" and "Orthodox".  Earl Godwin and his sons Harold and Tostig were major players in the attempt to gain power and land.  Harald was not fighting for religion, but for power and it wasn't just against William of Normandy.  He became king over one with a better claim Edgar the Atheling.  He and his forces drove off an attempted invasion at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire on September 25, 1066 then marched down Sussex to meet the Normans on October 14.   There are primary source documents from the time such as the several manuscripts of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles  as well as some of the Norse sagas such as the Heimskringla

Would you then define "Orthodox" by the absence of the filioque? 

Many of those who fled went to Scotland and some, such as Edgar Atheling returned later in life.  In the case of Constantinople, historically fighting men from the northern areas went to join the Varangian Guard which is also attested to in the sagas. It was for pay and if they survived, they went back home.  The earliest man to do so is Bolli Bollason whose story in in the Laxdaela Saga  Links may be found in the earlier threads, but I can post them again if it is wanted.

Ebor

Agreed---it is confusing a dynastic/power dispute for a religious one.
Logged
SbdcnDavid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 65


« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2009, 03:34:58 PM »

There is a strong case that the Church in the British Isles remained Orthodox until 1066 (and diocese by diocese until the forcible replacement of English or Celtic bishop with Norman bishops).  The coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the heretical interpolation.  Saxon nobles who fled the Norman conquest mostly went to Kiev or Constantinople.  Indeed Harold's daughter married Prince Vladimir Monomach of Kiev.  The English Church was, moreover out of communion with Rome at the time of the mutual anathemas in 1054 over an investiture issue, so that the William had a Papal order to reduce the English Church to papal juridsiction.

Some Orthodox traditionalists commemorate Harold Godwinson as the King-Martyr Harold, Last Orthodox King of England.

A similar, but weaker, case can be made for a lingering of Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia into the 1070's on the basis that the filioque was not used in the Creed there until then.

There have been previous discussions on this subject here on the forum before. Perhaps one of the moderators could move this to one of those threads that it might not be off topic.  Would you please give your views and sources on Anglo-Saxon history?  Thank you in advance.

I am quite aware also of a by-no-means universal claim that Harald Godwinson was a "martyr" and "Orthodox".  Earl Godwin and his sons Harold and Tostig were major players in the attempt to gain power and land.  Harald was not fighting for religion, but for power and it wasn't just against William of Normandy.  He became king over one with a better claim Edgar the Atheling.  He and his forces drove off an attempted invasion at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire on September 25, 1066 then marched down Sussex to meet the Normans on October 14.   There are primary source documents from the time such as the several manuscripts of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles  as well as some of the Norse sagas such as the Heimskringla

Would you then define "Orthodox" by the absence of the filioque? 

Many of those who fled went to Scotland and some, such as Edgar Atheling returned later in life.  In the case of Constantinople, historically fighting men from the northern areas went to join the Varangian Guard which is also attested to in the sagas. It was for pay and if they survived, they went back home.  The earliest man to do so is Bolli Bollason whose story in in the Laxdaela Saga  Links may be found in the earlier threads, but I can post them again if it is wanted.

Ebor



I'm afraid I was reporting a case made by others, most especially Old Calendarists and the more monarchists wing of the Russian Synod, so you'll have to inquire of them about their sources.  There are a number of sites online that make the argument, so a Google search should suffice. 

On the other hand, I am very much of the opinion (shared, I believe, by Archimandrite Daniel Griffith, the senior priest of our Archdiocese, to whom I am indebted for the views of Nikon of the Black Mountain, which he reported in an unpublished paper on the reception of converts into Holy Orthodoxy) that the schism is properly dated earlier than the mutual anathemas of 1054.   It is well known that one of the issues of Cardinal Humbert's embassy was the restoration of Rome to the Diptychs of Contantinople, meaning that Rome was absent from the Diptychs, meaning that the Bishops of Rome were not regarded as Orthodox.

I do not regard the absence of the filioque as a definition of Orthodoxy:  that would be absurd, as both Nestorians and monophysites say the Creed in its original version.  Rather, the triadological heresy of the filioque and the ecclesiological heresy of the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome were the two live issues which separated the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church. Yes, in 1054, the tit-for-tat "use azymes", "use leaven bread" edicts were central, but the different usages regarding the bread of oblation had not provoked a schism down the centuries in which they had existed.

On both issues, the English Church, prior to the Norman Conquest was on the side of the Orthodox:  the filioque was not used, and plainly the universal ordinary jurisidiction of the Roman Papacy was not acknowledged, as, had it been, there would have been no breach in communion over an investiture issue.

This may all seem very far from the main topic of the present thread, but I'm not sure it is.  There is a strain in Anglican apologetics that very much argues (wrongly after the Conquest) that the English Church was always distinct from the Church of Rome.  Are the ousted ECUSA clergy some of the last Anglo-Catholics to have remained in ECUSA, or are they Prayerbook Society types?

Either way, the historical argumentation is an 'extra' evangelistic tool we Orthodox can  use vis-a-vis (ex-)Anglicans.
Logged
Tallitot
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2009, 05:18:07 PM »

There is a strong case that the Church in the British Isles remained Orthodox until 1066 (and diocese by diocese until the forcible replacement of English or Celtic bishop with Norman bishops).  The coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the heretical interpolation.  Saxon nobles who fled the Norman conquest mostly went to Kiev or Constantinople.  Indeed Harold's daughter married Prince Vladimir Monomach of Kiev.  The English Church was, moreover out of communion with Rome at the time of the mutual anathemas in 1054 over an investiture issue, so that the William had a Papal order to reduce the English Church to papal juridsiction.

Some Orthodox traditionalists commemorate Harold Godwinson as the King-Martyr Harold, Last Orthodox King of England.

A similar, but weaker, case can be made for a lingering of Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia into the 1070's on the basis that the filioque was not used in the Creed there until then.

There have been previous discussions on this subject here on the forum before. Perhaps one of the moderators could move this to one of those threads that it might not be off topic.  Would you please give your views and sources on Anglo-Saxon history?  Thank you in advance.

I am quite aware also of a by-no-means universal claim that Harald Godwinson was a "martyr" and "Orthodox".  Earl Godwin and his sons Harold and Tostig were major players in the attempt to gain power and land.  Harald was not fighting for religion, but for power and it wasn't just against William of Normandy.  He became king over one with a better claim Edgar the Atheling.  He and his forces drove off an attempted invasion at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire on September 25, 1066 then marched down Sussex to meet the Normans on October 14.   There are primary source documents from the time such as the several manuscripts of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles  as well as some of the Norse sagas such as the Heimskringla

Would you then define "Orthodox" by the absence of the filioque? 

Many of those who fled went to Scotland and some, such as Edgar Atheling returned later in life.  In the case of Constantinople, historically fighting men from the northern areas went to join the Varangian Guard which is also attested to in the sagas. It was for pay and if they survived, they went back home.  The earliest man to do so is Bolli Bollason whose story in in the Laxdaela Saga  Links may be found in the earlier threads, but I can post them again if it is wanted.

Ebor



I'm afraid I was reporting a case made by others, most especially Old Calendarists and the more monarchists wing of the Russian Synod, so you'll have to inquire of them about their sources.  There are a number of sites online that make the argument, so a Google search should suffice. 

On the other hand, I am very much of the opinion (shared, I believe, by Archimandrite Daniel Griffith, the senior priest of our Archdiocese, to whom I am indebted for the views of Nikon of the Black Mountain, which he reported in an unpublished paper on the reception of converts into Holy Orthodoxy) that the schism is properly dated earlier than the mutual anathemas of 1054.   It is well known that one of the issues of Cardinal Humbert's embassy was the restoration of Rome to the Diptychs of Contantinople, meaning that Rome was absent from the Diptychs, meaning that the Bishops of Rome were not regarded as Orthodox.

I do not regard the absence of the filioque as a definition of Orthodoxy:  that would be absurd, as both Nestorians and monophysites say the Creed in its original version.  Rather, the triadological heresy of the filioque and the ecclesiological heresy of the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome were the two live issues which separated the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church. Yes, in 1054, the tit-for-tat "use azymes", "use leaven bread" edicts were central, but the different usages regarding the bread of oblation had not provoked a schism down the centuries in which they had existed.

On both issues, the English Church, prior to the Norman Conquest was on the side of the Orthodox:  the filioque was not used, and plainly the universal ordinary jurisidiction of the Roman Papacy was not acknowledged, as, had it been, there would have been no breach in communion over an investiture issue.

This may all seem very far from the main topic of the present thread, but I'm not sure it is.  There is a strain in Anglican apologetics that very much argues (wrongly after the Conquest) that the English Church was always distinct from the Church of Rome.  Are the ousted ECUSA clergy some of the last Anglo-Catholics to have remained in ECUSA, or are they Prayerbook Society types?
Either way, the historical argumentation is an 'extra' evangelistic tool we Orthodox can  use vis-a-vis (ex-)Anglicans.

My hunch would be Prayer Book SOciety types...many Anglo-Catholics are quite liberal. Especially in the South, the low-church charismatic types tend to be conservate, the more liturgical, liberal.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2009, 06:51:51 PM »

My father was episcopalian . he quit going to church when the episcopalian church started ordaining women but he never converted to my mother and my Orthodoxy. he was very anglo-catholic and when he was at Oxford University was a member of the St. Sergius Society of Bishop Ware fame.
I never asked him if he thought the Church of England had been Orthodox and when it stopped being Orthodox.
The epsicopalian churches in this small southern city are snake belly low with the one "broad" church parish being considered low in a "high church" area like Chicago.
I attended episcopalian schools for day school and prep school and I grew up loving sung morning and evening prayer.
It hurts me to watch the episcopalian church crash and burn. I do wish they would "come home" to Orthodoxy.It doesn't happen much here because of the ethnic club foolisness.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2009, 09:52:16 PM »

I'm afraid I was reporting a case made by others, most especially Old Calendarists and the more monarchists wing of the Russian Synod, so you'll have to inquire of them about their sources.  There are a number of sites online that make the argument, so a Google search should suffice. 

But you are the one asserting that these ideas are correct. Why not provide some sources to support your statement, please?

I know of some sites and their general lack of reliable sources. I have read some that I have found. I have, as well, done my own reading and research on Anglo Saxon England.   I will state that there are errors and mis-interpretations on some of the sites to which I think you are referring.  If you are interested we can discuss them here or in an already existing thread on the subject. 

You stated above that the claim that England was "Orthodox" is true. But have you looked into the data and reasoning?  Why do you believe that this idea that you have heard is true?  On what basis can you make that judgment, please?  Real history is not a matter of faith but of finding the truth from good sources, and accepting the truth and reality even if one does not agree with it.    Just because a group or person says something that one likes, that does not necessarily mean that it is true. 
 

Quote
On the other hand, I am very much of the opinion (shared, I believe, by Archimandrite Daniel Griffith, the senior priest of our Archdiocese, to whom I am indebted for the views of Nikon of the Black Mountain, which he reported in an unpublished paper on the reception of converts into Holy Orthodoxy) that the schism is properly dated earlier than the mutual anathemas of 1054.   It is well known that one of the issues of Cardinal Humbert's embassy was the restoration of Rome to the Diptychs of Contantinople, meaning that Rome was absent from the Diptychs, meaning that the Bishops of Rome were not regarded as Orthodox.

That is some interesting information.  It is unfortunate that the Archimandrite's paper is unpublished.  It is always good to learn new things.  Do you know if it will ever be made available for scholars?

Quote
I do not regard the absence of the filioque as a definition of Orthodoxy:  that would be absurd, as both Nestorians and monophysites say the Creed in its original version.  Rather, the triadological heresy of the filioque and the ecclesiological heresy of the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome were the two live issues which separated the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church. Yes, in 1054, the tit-for-tat "use azymes", "use leaven bread" edicts were central, but the different usages regarding the bread of oblation had not provoked a schism down the centuries in which they had existed.

On both issues, the English Church, prior to the Norman Conquest was on the side of the Orthodox:  the filioque was not used, and plainly the universal ordinary jurisidiction of the Roman Papacy was not acknowledged, as, had it been, there would have been no breach in communion over an investiture issue.

How do you know this for yourself, please?  Can you explain the investiture issue here?  Who was involved?  I think I know what it is, but if possible could you please provide some details of the case to which you are referring? I would not want to make an assumption of what you mean.  History has real people and dates and actions and knowing those specifics helps in both furthering knowledge and clarifying points in discussions.

Quote
This may all seem very far from the main topic of the present thread, but I'm not sure it is.  There is a strain in Anglican apologetics that very much argues (wrongly after the Conquest) that the English Church was always distinct from the Church of Rome. 

I am not one of those and I am looking at this from the viewpoint of history not apologetics.  It is clear from reading the primary sources such as Bede and the A S Chronicles and more that the first Christians in Britain came with the Roman legions (St. Alban the proto-martyr); that St. Patrick was a Roman-Briton who was eventually sent by Rome to Ireland; that St. Augustine was sent to King Aethelbert of Kent to convert him to Christianity and that the king had a Christian wife, Bertha, the daughter of the king of Paris; that the Synod of Whitby was called in 664 by Abbess Hilda to decide whether the Celtic or Roman practices were to be used, just to name a few instances.

Quote
Are the ousted ECUSA clergy some of the last Anglo-Catholics to have remained in ECUSA, or are they Prayerbook Society types?

I do not know myself.  I do not live anywhere near that diocese nor know any of the clergy personally.  It would take research to find out.

Quote
Either way, the historical argumentation is an 'extra' evangelistic tool we Orthodox can  use vis-a-vis (ex-)Anglicans.

But a "historical" argument that is based on bad information, or misinterpretation or in some cases errors would not be a good or truthful "tool".  I have in the past thought that this line was intended to get converts from the Anglicans. Your statement would seem to confirm that. 

As a person with knowledge of the period and place, I have to say that the argument and claim did not convince me. Not because of stubbornness (I hope) but because I found errors and statements about some of the people that I knew weren't true.
 Undecided

Please believe me that I do not intend to offend you or upset you when I ask for you to give information as to what you mean or where you got your ideas.  In the limited means of internet posting, I believe that as much good information and solid data as can be gotten is vital to help people understand each other's ideas and arguments.  Even if two parties do not agree, discussions can be helpful in refining ones points and arguments as well. 

Sincerely,

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2009, 09:58:14 PM »

My father was episcopalian . he quit going to church when the episcopalian church started ordaining women but he never converted to my mother and my Orthodoxy. he was very anglo-catholic and when he was at Oxford University was a member of the St. Sergius Society of Bishop Ware fame.
I never asked him if he thought the Church of England had been Orthodox and when it stopped being Orthodox.
The epsicopalian churches in this small southern city are snake belly low with the one "broad" church parish being considered low in a "high church" area like Chicago.
I attended episcopalian schools for day school and prep school and I grew up loving sung morning and evening prayer.
It hurts me to watch the episcopalian church crash and burn. I do wish they would "come home" to Orthodoxy.It doesn't happen much here because of the ethnic club foolisness.

Thank you for giving some of your background, SDMPNS.  Smiley  It is painful to be in a Church with so much turmoil. Having it show up in the news and used by others to take pot-shots isn't any fun either.

Just telling someone that your Church is their "home" doesn't take the other person's beliefs and spiritual life into account as being a unique individual.  EO is "home" for you.  How would you seriously address a person who was not "at home" in EO but found it alien and was unable to worship in that situation? 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I assure you.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2009, 11:51:01 PM »

Which is perhaps why you are bringing up "the Churches of the British Isles were Christian and they were "western" not "eastern", but Christian," the squeemishness about Orthodox who aren't Eastern.  It is amazing, we are supposed to be the ethnic ones, but this persistence that one has to chose a Western heterodox church if one is Western...must stem for this dogma of "the Catholic Church in England," "branch theory" and other nonsense.

Have you considered for a moment that perhaps Ebor DOESN'T consider the Western Church "heterodox"?

No, not for a moment, because I am quite sure he doesn't consider the non-Orthodox Western churches heterodox.  Your point?

Quote
Why would someone of a Western theological orientation want to join a tradition foreign to his understanding?
Truth.

Culture will give you diffent emphasizies perhaps, and different rites, but different theologies, no.  WRO doesn't break Lex orandi, lex credendi, something that cannot be said with the "sui juris" rites and perhaps even the Anglican usage (not having seen it, I can't say).

Back when Rome was Orthodox, she was still in the West.  The insertion of the Filioque didn't cause an earthquake that moved her there, it just cut her off from the Orthodox Catholic East and her Orthodox Catholic past.

Where did St. Jerome translate the Vulgate?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2009, 11:54:31 PM »

There have been previous discussions on this subject here on the forum before. Perhaps one of the moderators could move this to one of those threads that it might not be off topic.  Would you please give your views and sources on Anglo-Saxon history?  Thank you in advance.

I am quite aware also of a by-no-means universal claim that Harald Godwinson was a "martyr" and "Orthodox".  Earl Godwin and his sons Harold and Tostig were major players in the attempt to gain power and land.  Harald was not fighting for religion, but for power and it wasn't just against William of Normandy.  He became king over one with a better claim Edgar the Atheling.  He and his forces drove off an attempted invasion at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire on September 25, 1066 then marched down Sussex to meet the Normans on October 14.   There are primary source documents from the time such as the several manuscripts of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles  as well as some of the Norse sagas such as the Heimskringla

Would you then define "Orthodox" by the absence of the filioque? 

Many of those who fled went to Scotland and some, such as Edgar Atheling returned later in life.  In the case of Constantinople, historically fighting men from the northern areas went to join the Varangian Guard which is also attested to in the sagas. It was for pay and if they survived, they went back home.  The earliest man to do so is Bolli Bollason whose story in in the Laxdaela Saga  Links may be found in the earlier threads, but I can post them again if it is wanted.

Ebor

Agreed---it is confusing a dynastic/power dispute for a religious one.

Sort of like the "Glorious Revolution?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2009, 05:40:53 AM »

Denial of a disfunctional home is never pretty, even uglier than the disfunction.  The branch theory church is a fantasy church for us, as it is for the saints.

Don't bait me. You know I'm not happy with what is going on in my church. ANd however dispunctional it is, home is still home.
Logged
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2009, 05:53:17 AM »

Ebor...I can see how my comment could be hurtful to you and I do apologize. I can remember a time when the Episcopal church was closer to Orthodoxy than it is now. I remember being told that if there was not an Orthodox church close by that one could attend an Episcopal Church/ I was never given a hard time for attending episcopalian schools by any Orthodox clergy who knew.
When I say "come home" I honestly do believe that Orthodoxy is home as England was once Orthodox.
I know a few Orthodox Christians who do not attend Church. A few because of the ,as I put it, ethnic club foolishness and other for various reasons.A local Episcopalian church has quite a few Greek names in its membership list.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 7,045



« Reply #40 on: June 01, 2009, 07:04:40 AM »

A similar, but weaker, case can be made for a lingering of Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia into the 1070's on the basis that the filioque was not used in the Creed there until then.
Do you have any sources for this? I'd definitely like read more about Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #41 on: June 01, 2009, 07:52:12 AM »

Denial of a disfunctional home is never pretty, even uglier than the disfunction.  The branch theory church is a fantasy church for us, as it is for the saints.

Don't bait me.

I'm not.


Quote
You know I'm not happy with what is going on in my church.

Act on that feeling. Or rather, bring it to its logical conclusion.

Quote
ANd however dispunctional it is, home is still home.


Home may be home, but when it's burning down, time to move.

Diptychs, schmiptychs. Home is where you were raised, where you came from. A pre-1054 church is nobody's home, not here. It's a fantasy church for us anyway.


Quote
Schofield ultimately was removed as head of the diocese and barred from performing any religious rites. He maintains he is an Anglican bishop under the worldwide church.

It seems the good bishop is in a fantasy church too.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 08:15:21 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2009, 11:24:24 AM »

Ebor...I can see how my comment could be hurtful to you and I do apologize. I can remember a time when the Episcopal church was closer to Orthodoxy than it is now. I remember being told that if there was not an Orthodox church close by that one could attend an Episcopal Church/ I was never given a hard time for attending episcopalian schools by any Orthodox clergy who knew.

Thank you for your gracious response.

Quote
When I say "come home" I honestly do believe that Orthodoxy is home as England was once Orthodox.

Well, I do not mean to be difficult but I would like to ask you the same questions that I have asked others, if that's OK.

What do you mean by "Orthodox"?  How does that relate to the way "Orthodox" as in EO/OO is used today and why do you believe that England had that umm affiliation.  On what do you base your opinion please?  Did someone tell you this?  Did you read something? 

Quote
I know a few Orthodox Christians who do not attend Church. A few because of the ,as I put it, ethnic club foolishness and other for various reasons.A local Episcopalian church has quite a few Greek names in its membership list.

Well, perhaps they are at least attending services sometimes, which is better then not at all.  Smiley

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
SbdcnDavid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 65


« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2009, 12:38:36 PM »

Since Ebor insists, I would point him to the site http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/hp.php, which posts extensive excerpts from the book Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition.

For Alpo, the only source I can point to is very thin:  in his book Saints of England's Golden Age, Vladimir Moss, proposes a calendar of Western Orthodox saints with a focus on Britain.  Besides proposing the veneration of Ethelric, Bishop of Durham as a hieromartyr with the preculiar title "Last English Orthodox Hierarch", he proposes the veneration as hieromartyrs of several bishops in Scandinavia who reposed after the conventional date of the Western schism:  Eskil, Bishop of Strangnas (in Sweden) and David of Munkthorp who both of whom reposed in 1080.

Moss also authored a small book The Fall of Orthodox England, which can be downloaded from his website (Okay Ebor, do a Google search, I'm not going back to find you that URL) which has as its twin purposes the setting down of the history of the Norman Conquest from the point of view of ecclesiastical and spiritual history, and the making of the case for the sanctity of various figures (notably Harold Godwinson) on the Saxon side.  It has footnotes.

Ebor asks if I regard the argumentation as 'true'.  Historical interpretation is always a mix of fact and opinion.  I am inclined to be of the opinion that England (and Britain in general) remained Orthodox until the Norman conquest.  I have given the reasons why:  on the live issues theological and ecclesiological that provoked the Latin schism from the Church, Saxon England stood with the Orthodox.  Ebor's contrary position seems to be based on the misdefinition of the division between Orthodox and Latin based solely on jurisdiction of patriarchates, and a different opinion about the import of various medieval sources about connections between England and the Roman Empire.  (By your leave, the Empire with its capital at Constantinople was the Roman Empire, that's what they called themselves, and the refusal by Charlemagne or later-day Western scholares to recognize that St. Constantine move the capital doesn't change the fact and make it a different "Greek" or "Byzantine" Empire.)
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #44 on: June 01, 2009, 03:28:12 PM »

Act on that feeling. Or rather, bring it to its logical conclusion.

Well, this goes back to something I said some time ago: Orthodoxy is, in those terms, exile. You've changed the tune, because the rhetoric of "come home" has failed. It's not true; it's just a sales pitch.

Quote
Quote
Schofield ultimately was removed as head of the diocese and barred from performing any religious rites. He maintains he is an Anglican bishop under the worldwide church.

It seems the good bishop is in a fantasy church too.

Schofield's position is about as anomalous as that of any number of traditionalist or genuine or old calendarist bishops in Orthodoxy. If you want "diptychs" there are other Anglican churches which recognize him as a bishop.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.168 seconds with 72 queries.