OK, so here it is another week and we have yet another off-the-wall topic: whether or not England was Orthodox in 1066
. I'm not going to go into the arguments here; go read the other thread if you really must know.Why
there is an argument at all is pretty easy to figure out. For the most part, this is a convert issue; it allows American and English converts-- especially Anglican converts-- to indulge in the fantasy that they are somehow recovering a lost past. (It also seems to allow some Russians/Russophiles to indulge in the "Russia invented everything" shtick, from what I can see. Presumably there is a Greek version too.)
But then we go off into all these other arguments-- labor pains, the epyclesis (or lack thereof), trans/cons, and so forth. Too much of the time it seems to me that this "discussion" is far too deadly serious (and at least in the "trans/cons" discussion, the "why worry?" position seems to be gaining support).
To me this is one of the most off-putting aspects of Orthodoxy. People argue vituperatively over every little thing, glossing over the viciousness of the discussion by saying "we must believe The Truth(tm)!" And if that isn't good enough, they turn their credulity up to eleven and dig out (or make up) a lot of tendentious "tradition" which seems to consist of anything they can find some fruitcake to say long enough ago.
On a bad day, it makes Orthodoxy look more like "right squabble" than "right belief". At least in the Episcopal Church the things we are fighting over are worth fighting over.