OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 09:31:08 AM *
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 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is your view of Charlemagne?  (Read 9540 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« on: September 12, 2009, 10:58:55 PM »

He is credited by many for saving the west, or at least rebuilding it. He is a saint in the Catholic Church. What is the Orthodox view on him? As it was pre-schism, could he be considered Orthodox?
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2009, 11:05:16 PM »

AFAIK, he was against veneration of Holy Icons... otherwise, perhaps he was an OK guy as far as the Orthodox Chruch is concerned. Why the question?
Logged

Love never fails.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2009, 11:44:09 PM »

His wife was the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor so they must not have had too much of a problem with him despite his iconoclasm and his later insistence on the "filioque."

Having said that, Charlemagne's reforms ushered in the first of Renaissances in the middle ages.  In many ways he was a saviour of western european civilization which was being overrun by threats from the Vikings and the Moors in Spain.  The famous Pirene thesis suggests that without Mohammed and the Moorish invasion of Spain, Charlemagne would never have been as important as he is now in the history of Western Europe.
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
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2009, 12:22:36 AM »

AFAIK, he was against veneration of Holy Icons... otherwise, perhaps he was an OK guy as far as the Orthodox Chruch is concerned. Why the question?

I'm reading a book about him and wondered...

How harshly did he enforce iconoclasm? I know he really pushed for the filioque. I don't think he was ever a saint in the East as in the west. Correct?
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2009, 09:59:04 AM »

I liked his name a lot and used to make fun of it during History lessons last year. Cheesy Tongue

I don't think that the Orthodox show him that much respect...on the contrary...
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2009, 11:38:11 AM »

His wife was the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor so they must not have had too much of a problem with him despite his iconoclasm and his later insistence on the "filioque."

I would not place too much importance on this. After all, the Byzantine Emperors, and other Christian rulers, also married their kinfolk to the Ottoman Sultans for reasons of state, starting with Theodora Cantacuzene to Orhan I. Bulgarian Czar Ivan Shishman also married his sister Maria to Murad I (Orhan's son), whose son Beyazid I married lots of Christian princesses (Angelina of Byzantium, Olivera of Serbia, and Maria of Greece). Mehmed II (the Conqueror of Constantinople) had many wives, many of Christian descent: "Valide Sultan Amina Gul-Bahar, a Greek Orthodox woman of noble birth from the village of Douvera, Trabzon, who died in 1492, the mother of Bayezid II, and Gevher Sultana; Gulshah Hatun; Sitti Mukrime Hatun; Hatun Çiçek; Helene Hatun, who died in 1481, daughter of Demetrios II Palaiologos, the Despot of Morea; briefly Anna Hatun, the daughter of the Emperor of Trebizond; and Hatun Alexias, a Byzantine princess." (Wiki)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 11:39:05 AM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2009, 11:50:15 AM »

Gotta love my 43-greats granddad Charlemagne*... Wink


* (according to ancestry.com and the Mormon records at least)
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2009, 02:03:10 PM »

AFAIK, he was against veneration of Holy Icons... otherwise, perhaps he was an OK guy as far as the Orthodox Chruch is concerned. Why the question?

I'm reading a book about him and wondered...

How harshly did he enforce iconoclasm? I know he really pushed for the filioque. I don't think he was ever a saint in the East as in the west. Correct?

IMHO he was a barbarian who knew very little about the finer points of theology.  But that is only my opinion.  Perhaps you need to do some more  research or someone better versed in this part of Western history could help you out.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2009, 04:22:45 PM »

An usurper.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2009, 05:09:15 PM »

An usurper.

So true. In addition, there were so many rulers of so many nationalities that yearned for the glory and power of the Roman Caesar (later Byzantine Emperor): German, Russian, Bulgarian, and even Ottoman.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2009, 09:20:12 PM »

Gotta love my 43-greats granddad Charlemagne*... Wink


* (according to ancestry.com and the Mormon records at least)

seriously?  Shocked
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2009, 06:35:08 PM »

An usurper.
Awww.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2009, 06:51:48 PM »

Gotta love my 43-greats granddad Charlemagne*... Wink


* (according to ancestry.com and the Mormon records at least)

seriously?  Shocked

Yeah
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,089


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2009, 07:13:02 PM »

An usurper.

Agreed.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2009, 07:31:57 PM »

An usurper.
Don't hate. Appreciate.  Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2009, 09:38:13 PM »

Well, he did save the west from its POLITICAL chaos....or the Franko-German west anyway. also, wouldn't his 'Holy Roman Empire' have been Orthodox, as a Christian Empire?
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2009, 03:16:49 PM »

Gotta love my 43-greats granddad Charlemagne*... Wink


* (according to ancestry.com and the Mormon records at least)

Ha! We are cousins, Father! I am also a direct descendant.

How can one not like one of the Nine Worthies? He wasn't called Carolus Magnus for nothing.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2009, 03:20:34 PM »

An usurper.

Like many of your own Eastern emperors...

Hmm, what was the usual practice? Oh, yes, gouge out the eyes of the current occupant of the imperial throne and send him packing.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2009, 03:20:56 PM by lubeltri » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2009, 07:17:21 PM »

An usurper.

Like many of your own Eastern emperors...

Hmm, what was the usual practice? Oh, yes, gouge out the eyes of the current occupant of the imperial throne and send him packing.
[/quote]
What was the Roman Catholic Papal practice? Oh yes- invent lies like the "Donation of Constantine".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2009, 03:06:20 AM »

"Of all previous attempts to unite Europe, the Europe of Charlemagne was the first example of a perverted Europe...it was the first failure of all the attempts to build a Europe dominated by one people or one empire. The Europe of Charles V, that of Napoleon and that of Hitler, were in fact anti-Europes." - Jacques Le Goff, French medieval historian

"Thus, the old pagan Imperial Roman idea will be restored. The dictator Karl the Tall (Charlemagne) tried to do it over 1200 years ago, renewing Roman paganism and rejecting the Church in order to do so. There came after him, and imitating him, all manner of other tyrants and atheists, Napoleon and Hitler standing out among the more recent of them."
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/sovietu.htm

"One of the first historians in this field writing some eighty years ago, the American Charles Haskins, wrote of the 'renaissance' (= rebirth) of Western Europe in the twelfth century. However, as is clear from what we have written so far, more recent historians have preferred to write of the 'birth' of Western Europe at this time. Moreover, they date it back to the second half of the eleventh century, ultimately tracing the roots of this ideology to Charlemagne.

For instance, the French historian Le Goff describes the characteristics of this birth. He speaks of 'dolorisation', the invention of a religion of suffering and pietism, 'the Jesus cult'. This we can see in the humanistic cult of the crucifixion of a man, human nature, 'Jesus', portrayed as a mere suffering human-being. Beloved of the Western Middle Ages, this cult has recently made its appearance in the film of Mel Gibson. This dwells the whole time on the violence and suffering of the Crucifixion, spending only two minutes on the Resurrection. An Orthodox film would have divided its time into two, half on the Crucifixion, half on the Resurrection, half on the human, half on the divine. The same 'Jesus cult' is beloved of modern-day Evangelicals. The French scholar Le Goff goes on to point out the further developments from this pietism of humanism and from there the exaggerated cult of the Virgin, called Mariolatry."

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/anappeal.htm
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
MLPB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 69


« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2009, 05:43:52 PM »

Gotta love my 43-greats granddad Charlemagne*... Wink


* (according to ancestry.com and the Mormon records at least)

seriously?  Shocked

Yeah
A few years back there was an article in The Atlantic (I think - maybe The Smithsonian?) by some mathematicians who did some statistical work on genealogy.  They concluded that it is a statistical near certainty that any European alive about 1000 years ago who has any living descendants today is an ancestor of all people of European descent alive today.  They pointed out that since Charlemagne lived 1200 years ago and has known descendants, he is an ancestor of all people of European descent alive today.  So the interesting question is not, "Whether we are descended from Charlemagne?" but, "How are we descended from Charlemagne?"

On a side note, Mohammad had a descendant who is known to have married into what became Spanish royalty and has known descendants alive today - so we are all descendants of Mohammad, too.  Allah Akbar!  God is Great!
Logged
Byzantine2008
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 280



« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2009, 05:49:54 PM »

A barbarian!  Cool

Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!
MLPB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 69


« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2009, 05:57:11 PM »

An usurper.

Like many of your own Eastern emperors...

Hmm, what was the usual practice? Oh, yes, gouge out the eyes of the current occupant of the imperial throne and send him packing.
What was the Roman Catholic Papal practice? Oh yes- invent lies like the "Donation of Constantine".
[/quote]A gouge here, a lie there, a usurpation every so many years!!!  C'mon folks warts abound throughout history.

The Tudors had a terrible claim on the Throne of England - absent military might.  Ditto for Napoleon.  Aside from the Act of Settlement ban on Catholics the throne of Great Britain is better claimed by the House of Bavaria and thereafter Liechtenstein through a daughter of Charles I rather than the current occupant through the daughter if James I.  Let's not even start talking about Ivan Grosny!  How about - was Paul really the son of Peter II - NOT LIKELY!  So the later Romanovs were descended from minor German nobles plus a soupcon of commoner!  Yet they were truly Emperors.

All of which is SO WHAT!!  If every victor, idiot, knave, apostate, knoodle-on-the-side and outright myth is considered you begin to see the fraud that is monarchy - eastern, western, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.  Power, power, power...   Enjoy the show and don't take it all so seriously.  Sheesh
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2009, 06:05:23 PM »

Holy Roman Emperor.  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2009, 01:46:22 AM »

An usurper.

Like many of your own Eastern emperors...

Hmm, what was the usual practice? Oh, yes, gouge out the eyes of the current occupant of the imperial throne and send him packing.

I think you are referring here to one incident where Michael Palealogus gouged out the eyes of the young John IV.  Sure, that was the usual practice.  If you can find other examples, then we can establish a pattern or a usual practice. Until then, read a history book and get versed in a few things. I recommend, for byzantine history, anything by the late and great scholar, Sir Steven Runciman.
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
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,923



« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2009, 10:19:46 AM »

I normally haven't heard a very positive take on Charlemagne in the Orthodox Church.

This is mostly due to his insistence on the insertion of the Filioque into the Creed. As well as his iconoclasm...

Funny thing... My dad (who is still a Protestant) said that in seminary, his teacher always said the Holy Roman Empire was 'Not very Holy, certainly wasn't Roman, and wasn't much of an Empire either'. I don't know how true that statement is, but I always chuckled at it...

I've also not heard positive opinions on William the Conqueror and the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Mainly because people I've spoken to see the British Isles as being Orthodox prior to the conquest of the British Isles in 1066.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 10:21:14 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2009, 10:39:42 AM »

When I visited a monastery last week, a monk friend of mine who knows of my "lineage" took me to a cd player and played the Acclamations of Charlemagne from the Chant Wars CD. lol
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 10:40:42 AM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2009, 10:41:43 AM »

Gotta love my 43-greats granddad Charlemagne*... Wink


* (according to ancestry.com and the Mormon records at least)

Ha! We are cousins, Father! I am also a direct descendant.

How can one not like one of the Nine Worthies? He wasn't called Carolus Magnus for nothing.

Can you PM me your chart? I can send you mine, and we can see how we are related.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2009, 10:46:00 AM »

Gotta love my 43-greats granddad Charlemagne*... Wink


* (according to ancestry.com and the Mormon records at least)

Ha! We are cousins, Father! I am also a direct descendant.

How can one not like one of the Nine Worthies? He wasn't called Carolus Magnus for nothing.

Can you PM me your chart? I can send you mine, and we can see how we are related.


I too am the 43-greats grandson of Charlemagne!  No joke!
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 10:46:34 AM by GregoryLA » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2009, 10:50:43 AM »

He is a saint in the Catholic Church.

Is he?

Quote
Charlemagne himself was accorded sainthood inside the Holy Roman Empire after the twelfth century. His canonisation by Antipope Paschal III, to gain the favour of Frederick Barbarossa in 1165, was never recognised by the Holy See, which annulled all of Paschal's ordinances at the Third Lateran Council in 1179. However, he has been acknowledged as cultus confirmed.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

Cultus confirmed? What does it really mean?
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2009, 11:13:59 AM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2009, 11:24:38 AM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2009, 11:48:46 AM »

Indeed.  You won't get an argument from me!
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Twenty Nine
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 190



« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2009, 12:57:25 PM »

Quote
I too am the 43-greats grandson of Charlemagne!  No joke!

Perhaps Charlemagne was really Adam.  Smiley
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. - Philippians 4:8
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2009, 01:28:58 PM »

Gotta love my 43-greats granddad Charlemagne*... Wink


* (according to ancestry.com and the Mormon records at least)

Ha! We are cousins, Father! I am also a direct descendant.

How can one not like one of the Nine Worthies? He wasn't called Carolus Magnus for nothing.

Can you PM me your chart? I can send you mine, and we can see how we are related.


I too am the 43-greats grandson of Charlemagne!  No joke!

That sounds about my relation to Charlemagne as well.....seems like we are all cousins!
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
MLPB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 69


« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2009, 03:21:51 PM »

Here is a cite to The Atlantic article that shows we are all descendants of Charlemagne if we are of European extraction.  SO - no more nasty comments about GGGGGGGGGG.... Grandpa unless it's really deserved!   Grin
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/olson
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #36 on: October 21, 2009, 03:41:45 PM »

Here is a cite to The Atlantic article that shows we are all descendants of Charlemagne if we are of European extraction.  SO - no more nasty comments about GGGGGGGGGG.... Grandpa unless it's really deserved!   Grin
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/olson

This would also make everyone related to Caesar as well.....with connections to most ancient dynasties.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 03:43:02 PM by Ukiemeister » Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2009, 05:21:52 PM »

What is my view of Charlemagne... about the same as my view of St. Constantine (Pagan Convert, not completely converted but necessary for a far greater good).
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #38 on: October 21, 2009, 05:24:59 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2009, 06:08:54 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.
Oh the heresy of organism....  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2009, 10:32:13 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.
Oh the heresy of organism....  Grin

LOL, yeah, it wasn't so much the other stuff that condemned him, but the ORGAN, not the bloody ORGAN! lol
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2009, 10:35:49 PM »

Quote
What is your view of Charlemagne

Cool name. Not that I'd name my kids after him or anything. He seems to get some people riled up.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 10:36:07 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2009, 11:45:53 PM »

  If you can find other examples, then we can establish a pattern or a usual practice. Until then, read a history book and get versed in a few things. I recommend, for byzantine history, anything by the late and great scholar, Sir Steven Runciman.

Nice condescension, Scamandrius, but I have read Steven Runciman along with other eminent Byzantinists, including Michael Angold, Warren Treadgold, Deno John Geanakoplos, Donald Nicol, and others.

I was fortunate to have a Byzantine specialist (a Romanian Orthodox, BTW) in my history department, and I took several courses in Byzantine history.

Ritual blinding was a common way in Byzantium to dispatch political or religious opponents from the 8th to the 13th centuries. And Michael VIII was not the only one to do it, as you claim.

Here is a link to an abstract of an paper on the practice of ritual blinding in Byzantium. Alas, it is not available for free, and I do not have an electronic copy at hand.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r8l60rh351228316/fulltext.pdf?page=1
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2009, 12:51:11 PM »

Here is a cite to The Atlantic article that shows we are all descendants of Charlemagne if we are of European extraction.  SO - no more nasty comments about GGGGGGGGGG.... Grandpa unless it's really deserved!   Grin
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/olson

This would also make everyone related to Caesar as well.....with connections to most ancient dynasties.
So that's why so many people are the reincarnation of Cleopatra!
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2009, 10:38:24 PM »

  If you can find other examples, then we can establish a pattern or a usual practice. Until then, read a history book and get versed in a few things. I recommend, for byzantine history, anything by the late and great scholar, Sir Steven Runciman.

Nice condescension, Scamandrius, but I have read Steven Runciman along with other eminent Byzantinists, including Michael Angold, Warren Treadgold, Deno John Geanakoplos, Donald Nicol, and others.

I was fortunate to have a Byzantine specialist (a Romanian Orthodox, BTW) in my history department, and I took several courses in Byzantine history.

Ritual blinding was a common way in Byzantium to dispatch political or religious opponents from the 8th to the 13th centuries. And Michael VIII was not the only one to do it, as you claim.

Here is a link to an abstract of an paper on the practice of ritual blinding in Byzantium. Alas, it is not available for free, and I do not have an electronic copy at hand.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r8l60rh351228316/fulltext.pdf?page=1

Lubeltri, I couldn't access the article either without paying for it.  Anyway, if you can supply me with the information of the journal it is published in (if possible), I can get it via interlibrary loan.  Also, tonight I was doing some reading and (re)discovered that the Empress Irene, who ruled during the Iconoclastic controversy, blinded the young emperor for whom she was acting as regent.  Unfortunately, it went too far and it ended up killing him.  So, I guess two examples does establish a pattern.  My apologies to you for my errors and misconceptions.   We need to get more Byzantine history discussions going on this board.  You in?
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
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2009, 12:24:38 AM »

Definitely, Scamandrius.  Smiley

BTW, I wasn't trying to criticize the emperors of Byzantium at all.* History shows that rulers of other empires had no problem just killing their rivals. Blinding was actually a more merciful way to get the job done.

And, of course, most of the emperors didn't do any blindings of rivals.

*In fact, I would rather have the imperial court of Byzantium ruling over me than most "civilized" governments today.

I was mad about Byzantium as a 12-year-old. I smile when I see old photos of me carrying books by Runciman and John Julius Norwich around at family parties.

It was this early and enduring interest that (almost) led me into the Orthodox Church, but has still kept me quite friendly to Her. Smiley
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 12:32:14 AM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #46 on: October 23, 2009, 12:30:15 AM »

The paper: Documenta Ophthalmologica 81: 133-144, 1992.

A fascinating read.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2009, 12:58:22 AM »

Quote
In fact, I would rather have the imperial court of Byzantium ruling over me than most "civilized" governments today.

Even though they'd eliminate tens of thousands of their own citizens at a time? And that was the saintly ones (Theodosius, Justinian)
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #48 on: October 23, 2009, 01:24:51 AM »

Quote
In fact, I would rather have the imperial court of Byzantium ruling over me than most "civilized" governments today.

Even though they'd eliminate tens of thousands of their own citizens at a time? And that was the saintly ones (Theodosius, Justinian)

Well, I mark the beginning of Byzantium with Heraclius.  Wink
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #49 on: October 23, 2009, 04:23:25 AM »

In fact, I would rather have the imperial court of Byzantium ruling over me than most "civilized" governments today.

Such words warm the cockles of me heart!
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2009, 05:04:55 AM »

My feelings about Charlemagne, although I haven't studied too much about him, are negative.  This is due primarily by two matters I do know about his rein.  When referring to him as a "userper," above, I believe the use of this characterization is due to his having taken the Western remnants of the (East) Roman Empire, from "New Rome," or the Byzantine Empire.  Very much a part of that process was his imposition upon the Pope of Rome, of the Filioque into the Symbol of Faith, the Creed (as noted in Reply #38 by scamandrius), which as we all know, popes had not agreed with for more than 200 years, and which led to the Great Schism of Christ's Holy Church in 1054 (which wasn't finalized until 1204). 

Today's revisionist historians of Europe, who spin their history by ignoring Byzantine contributions and influence, date European history from 800, the year which is held to have commenced his "Holy Roman Empire."
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2009, 09:14:28 AM »

Quote
In fact, I would rather have the imperial court of Byzantium ruling over me than most "civilized" governments today.

Even though they'd eliminate tens of thousands of their own citizens at a time? And that was the saintly ones (Theodosius, Justinian)

Well, I mark the beginning of Byzantium with Heraclius.  Wink

That's nice, since Byzantium is a made up place that never existed.

The Empire of the Romans in the East started with St. Constantine.

An usurper.

So true. In addition, there were so many rulers of so many nationalities that yearned for the glory and power of the Roman Caesar (later Byzantine Emperor βασιλεύς τῶν Ῥωμαίων Emperor of the Romans): German, Russian, Bulgarian, and even Ottoman.

Fixed that for you.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 09:31:07 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
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2009, 01:43:51 PM »


That's nice, since Byzantium is a made up place that never existed.

The Empire of the Romans in the East started with St. Constantine.

Must you be so petty? Nobody here is denying that Byzantium is the continuance of the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. But historical distinctions must be made for clarity's sake. I was referring to the Christian, Greek-speaking empire centered around the former town of Byzantium which as the centuries passed grew into a civilization of quite a different character than the Latin Rome of antiquity. THAT Rome, I would not wish to live under. Byzantium was the greatest imperium that has ever existed.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2009, 01:49:16 PM »

Quote
That's nice, since Byzantium is a made up place that never existed.

I love when people get all riled up over this issue. It reminds me of how I found this forum 7 years ago. At the time the forum was called Byzantines.net or something like that. Someone over at Monachos.net posted a link to it, and another person got riled up about the name. I personally didn't see the problem, came over to check the site out, and have stuck around ever since. Byzantine, Eastern Roman, Roman, Greek, whatever. Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #54 on: October 23, 2009, 04:07:39 PM »

Some stinky, Cabot goat cheese would go well with Charlemagne, eh?  (Humor to dampen the impending flames.)
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #55 on: October 23, 2009, 04:10:13 PM »

How come no one gets riled up by the term "mediaeval" which was invented in the 18th century as clearly an insult to those people living in between the Roman Empire and the Renaissance?  Unless all those people just walked around saying to themselves, "Can't wait to get out of these Middle Ages and into the Renaissance!"  Cheesy
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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 23, 2009, 09:28:51 PM »

Must you be so petty? Nobody here is denying that Byzantium is the continuance of the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. But historical distinctions must be made for clarity's sake. I was referring to the Christian, Greek-speaking empire centered around the former town of Byzantium which as the centuries passed grew into a civilization of quite a different character than the Latin Rome of antiquity. THAT Rome, I would not wish to live under. Byzantium was the greatest imperium that has ever existed.
Lubeltri,
Byzantium ceased to exist when it was made the Capital of the Empire. It became "Constantinople, the New Rome". To continue to call it Byzantium is like calling Washington DC "That Swamp On The Potomac". It is revisionist.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #57 on: October 23, 2009, 09:46:43 PM »

From now on, I'm calling Washington DC 'that swamp on the Potomac'.
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #58 on: October 23, 2009, 11:04:20 PM »

For those who don't like the term Byzantium... if you are consistent, shouldn't you also reject the name "Orthodox Church"? After all, the ancient Church was called the "Catholic Church".
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 11:04:57 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #59 on: October 24, 2009, 12:01:32 AM »

For those who don't like the term Byzantium... if you are consistent, shouldn't you also reject the name "Orthodox Church"? After all, the ancient Church was called the "Catholic Church".

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The Orthodox One.

The term Orthodox is nearly as ancient, although usually applied to the word "Faith" than to the world "Church."  The term predates the Fourth Council, and I believe the Third Council.  Beyond that, I don't recall its first attested usage.  But quite ancient.
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
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #60 on: October 24, 2009, 12:04:47 AM »

From now on, I'm calling Washington DC 'that swamp on the Potomac'.

LOL.  That's a present reality.  Like the "Big Stink" on Lake Michigan, but it's not from the onions.
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 #61 on: October 24, 2009, 12:14:11 AM »

Must you be so petty? Nobody here is denying that Byzantium is the continuance of the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. But historical distinctions must be made for clarity's sake. I was referring to the Christian, Greek-speaking empire centered around the former town of Byzantium which as the centuries passed grew into a civilization of quite a different character than the Latin Rome of antiquity. THAT Rome, I would not wish to live under. Byzantium was the greatest imperium that has ever existed.
Lubeltri,
Byzantium ceased to exist when it was made the Capital of the Empire. It became "Constantinople, the New Rome". To continue to call it Byzantium is like calling Washington DC "That Swamp On The Potomac". It is revisionist.

The name "Byzantine Empire" is used by historians to make an important distinction between the Latin empire of antiquity centered on Rome (in the country now known as Italy) and the medieval Greek empire settled on Constantinople (anciently known as Byzantium).

Even Greek and Orthodox historians use this term. It is not in origin derogatory (unlike "Gothic" or "medieval"). Remember, before we Westerners started using "Byzantine Empire" regularly, we called it the "Greek Empire."

And, to be honest, it is a pretty reasonable choice, considering the new capital of the empire WAS Byzantium. The empire no longer had any control of the city of Rome or its surrounding area, and no longer spoke the language of Rome, Latin.

Imagine that the United States of America moves its capital from Washington, DC, to Manila, Philippines, eventually losing almost all of its territory in North America, and the the government and people are now Spanish-language instead of English. This situation lasts for centuries. Sure, it's still "America," but wouldn't it be advisable for historians to make a name distinction to avoid confusion?

If you aren't happy with the name, come up with one you like that seems more reasonable. But simply calling it the "Roman Empire" isn't helpful. The Rome-centered empire of A.D. 200 was quite different than the Constantinople-centered empire of A.D. 1025.

I personally like the common practice of "Roman Empire" until Constantine, "Eastern Roman Empire" until Heraclius, and then "Byzantine Empire" after that.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2009, 12:32:01 AM »

Quote
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The Orthodox One. The term Orthodox is nearly as ancient, although usually applied to the word "Faith" than to the world "Church."  The term predates the Fourth Council, and I believe the Third Council.  Beyond that, I don't recall its first attested usage.  But quite ancient.

I don't dispute it being a term used in the ancient Church, and I believe it goes back at least as far as the time of St. Athanasius (Discourses Against the Arians, 3; History of the Arians, 8; etc.). Nonetheless, as far as I know, "Orthodox Church" is a relatively new term. Even inscriptions that I've seen on Orthodox buildings from the 20th century have the term Catholic on them in naming their Church (for a fictitious example, "St. Mark's Greek Orthodox Catholic Church").
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,440


« Reply #63 on: October 24, 2009, 02:28:14 AM »

When I visited a monastery last week, a monk friend of mine who knows of my "lineage" took me to a cd player and played the Acclamations of Charlemagne from the Chant Wars CD. lol

Acclamations?  I have the CD and think it is called the Lament on the death of Charlemagne.  Anyways, I think it is the best track on the CD.  Quite a great pickup at Borders a few years ago.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #64 on: October 17, 2012, 03:44:14 PM »

When I visited a monastery last week, a monk friend of mine who knows of my "lineage" took me to a cd player and played the Acclamations of Charlemagne from the Chant Wars CD. lol

I love that part of the CD.

Vita et vitoria, Father. (Although, since you are clergy and not an emperor, you like St. Leo III probably only get vita, but in the spiritual sence we'll add the vitoria.)
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,486


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #65 on: October 17, 2012, 03:45:50 PM »

When I visited a monastery last week, a monk friend of mine who knows of my "lineage" took me to a cd player and played the Acclamations of Charlemagne from the Chant Wars CD. lol

I love that part of the CD.

Vita et vitoria, Father. (Although, since you are clergy and not an emperor, you like St. Leo III probably only get vita, but in the spiritual sence we'll add the vitoria.)

Thrice the earth went around the sun and now finally a bump.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2012, 03:45:57 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #66 on: October 17, 2012, 03:49:07 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2012, 03:50:06 PM »

When I visited a monastery last week, a monk friend of mine who knows of my "lineage" took me to a cd player and played the Acclamations of Charlemagne from the Chant Wars CD. lol

I love that part of the CD.

Vita et vitoria, Father. (Although, since you are clergy and not an emperor, you like St. Leo III probably only get vita, but in the spiritual sence we'll add the vitoria.)

Thrice the earth went around the sun and now finally a bump.

That's nothing. Asteriktos and Severian resurrect threads far deader.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2012, 03:55:28 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

His wife was the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor so they must not have had too much of a problem with him despite his iconoclasm and his later insistence on the "filioque."

Having said that, Charlemagne's reforms ushered in the first of Renaissances in the middle ages.  In many ways he was a saviour of western european civilization which was being overrun by threats from the Vikings and the Moors in Spain.  The famous Pirene thesis suggests that without Mohammed and the Moorish invasion of Spain, Charlemagne would never have been as important as he is now in the history of Western Europe.

There is a bit of cultural bias here which is indeed part of the current historiography but is an evolving position.  The Vikings spread commerce, trade, and technology across Europe, some historians even argue that the Vikings were the cause of the movements towards the Renaissance and not the Western Revival under Charlemagne.  Further the Moors in Spain had one of the most technologically and culturally sophisticated societies in the entire world! Western Civilization greatly borrows from their interactions with the Muslim world in general, and with the Moors in Spain in particular.  Sometimes in our narratives, to the victor goes the spoils, and so we sometimes tend to vilify or ignore the complexities of our histories and realities to simplify the claims of unilateral triumph or victory.

Just food for thought Smiley

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #69 on: October 17, 2012, 04:01:25 PM »

When it comes to history, you will find all sorts of new opinions and theories and even new facts. This happens primarily because history PhD students are always scrambling to come up with ideas for their theses that have not been written before. Sometimes they have mental breakdowns and write about aliens. Then they go on the History Channel as "experts."
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #70 on: October 17, 2012, 04:35:46 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

When it comes to history, you will find all sorts of new opinions and theories and even new facts. This happens primarily because history PhD students are always scrambling to come up with ideas for their theses that have not been written before. Sometimes they have mental breakdowns and write about aliens. Then they go on the History Channel as "experts."

That is true, and I haven't watched the History Channel in 15 years because its become nothing but a pseudo-academic TMZ.  However, troll around JSTOR or even to a lesser extend EBSCO-HOST and there are some GOOD and substantive additions and revisions to the historiography which are quite apt Smiley

The facts of history do not change, our interpretation of the meaning, impact, and function of these events shifts and changes with the ebb and flow of our own contemporary realities.  It is a fact of history that the Vikings spread trade and commerce across Europe as they navigated all the rivers and ended up from the North Sea to the Black Sea.  It is a fact that the Moorish kingdoms in Spain had one of the most advanced civilizations in world history, even in some aspects comparable to our own modern world.  How these realities impacted the development of history is open for debate, as is the impact and significance of Emperor Charlemagne.  I think my point is just to reiterate that history is very complicated, and in our analyses we need to be increasingly inclusive.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #71 on: October 17, 2012, 04:41:38 PM »

When I traveled in more academic circles as a historian, I used to ponder on the non-existence of facts. Perhaps it's a philosphical thing, and I don't have a philosophical mind. But facts actually do change, or so it seems to me. It may be just that the interpretation of events is labeled a fact, and this changes. Which, in a way, means that the facts, that is what happened, is often obscured. The historical record is, after all, only that which managed to be written down or left behind--all in all a very small part of what took place at the time.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #72 on: October 17, 2012, 04:47:10 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

When I traveled in more academic circles as a historian, I used to ponder on the non-existence of facts. Perhaps it's a philosphical thing, and I don't have a philosophical mind. But facts actually do change, or so it seems to me. It may be just that the interpretation of events is labeled a fact, and this changes. Which, in a way, means that the facts, that is what happened, is often obscured. The historical record is, after all, only that which managed to be written down or left behind--all in all a very small part of what took place at the time.

You misunderstood what I meant.  I didn't mean our recollections of the facts, but the events themselves.  The past does not change, it already happened.  How we interpret and reflect on those factual events is what is always evolving, always changing, as it should.

We can debate what we think are the facts, but the facts themselves, however accurate our assertions of them are, remain factual.  Personally, I believe academic history to be as creative as novels and short stories, and further, I think there is often more truth in myth than supposed fact, that is, there is usually more truth and impact in what people think rather than what is or isn't real. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #73 on: October 17, 2012, 05:49:20 PM »

I see you Easterners have a lot of nasty things to say about my grandson Karolus Magnus who consolidated what was left of the  Western Roman Empire, united the Franks, subdued pagan barbarian Saxons, Bavarians and Vikings, pushed the Muslims further away from Spain and became the first crowned Emperor in the West in four centuries by a Pope on Christmas Day creating an enormous significance creating the Carolinian Renaissance and considered by some "Pater Europae" (The Father of Europe) and true protector of the Catholic Church. He created the world's first real Catholic Monarchy in the West and was considered Basileus by Constantinople.

Why would you Orthodox call him things like "usurper"?

He was one of Christianity's greatest champions.

Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #74 on: October 17, 2012, 07:35:28 PM »

I see you Easterners have a lot of nasty things to say about my grandson Karolus Magnus who consolidated what was left of the  Western Roman Empire, united the Franks, subdued pagan barbarian Saxons, Bavarians and Vikings, pushed the Muslims further away from Spain and became the first crowned Emperor in the West in four centuries by a Pope on Christmas Day creating an enormous significance creating the Carolinian Renaissance and considered by some "Pater Europae" (The Father of Europe) and true protector of the Catholic Church. He created the world's first real Catholic Monarchy in the West and was considered Basileus by Constantinople.

Why would you Orthodox call him things like "usurper"?

He was one of Christianity's greatest champions.



Empress of the Romans.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #75 on: October 17, 2012, 08:25:56 PM »

I see you Easterners have a lot of nasty things to say about my grandson Karolus Magnus who consolidated what was left of the  Western Roman Empire, united the Franks, subdued pagan barbarian Saxons, Bavarians and Vikings, pushed the Muslims further away from Spain and became the first crowned Emperor in the West in four centuries by a Pope on Christmas Day creating an enormous significance creating the Carolinian Renaissance and considered by some "Pater Europae" (The Father of Europe) and true protector of the Catholic Church. He created the world's first real Catholic Monarchy in the West and was considered Basileus by Constantinople.

Why would you Orthodox call him things like "usurper"?

He was one of Christianity's greatest champions.



Empress of the Romans.
Come again?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #76 on: October 17, 2012, 08:28:53 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #77 on: October 17, 2012, 08:32:08 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?
wow...
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #78 on: October 17, 2012, 08:39:03 PM »

Come again?

Irene of Athens was Empress of the Romans when Leo crowned Charles.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #79 on: October 17, 2012, 08:43:12 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?
wow...
Well, I'm probably off on that, I'll be honest, I'm still learning much of Orthodoxy's doctrine concerning marriage and divorce but this is what I've heard, that they allow a valid marriage to be terminated unlike the Latin Church which would never allow two people validly married to divorce.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #80 on: October 17, 2012, 08:46:22 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?
wow...
Well, I'm probably off on that, I'll be honest, I'm still learning much of Orthodoxy's doctrine concerning marriage and divorce but this is what I've heard, that they allow a valid marriage to be terminated unlike the Latin Church which would never allow two people validly married to divorce.
Yes, they allow for divorce, and I certainly disagree with that. But you have to understand that they don't think that divorce is a good thing.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #81 on: October 17, 2012, 08:47:43 PM »

Come again?

Irene of Athens was Empress of the Romans when Leo crowned Charles.
But Charlemagne was crowned by a pope, wouldn't that make his crown more legit from a Catholic standpoint?

This was years before the Great Schism BTW.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #82 on: October 17, 2012, 08:49:55 PM »

Come again?

Irene of Athens was Empress of the Romans when Leo crowned Charles.

You're talking to someone who thinks Ottoman Turks were descended from Mongols.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #83 on: October 17, 2012, 08:50:11 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?
wow...
Well, I'm probably off on that, I'll be honest, I'm still learning much of Orthodoxy's doctrine concerning marriage and divorce but this is what I've heard, that they allow a valid marriage to be terminated unlike the Latin Church which would never allow two people validly married to divorce.
Yes, they allow for divorce, and I certainly disagree with that. But you have to understand that they don't think that divorce is a good thing.
But it's not scriptural is it? I believe Jesus personally condemned the practice.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #84 on: October 17, 2012, 08:54:45 PM »

Come again?

Irene of Athens was Empress of the Romans when Leo crowned Charles.

You're talking to someone who thinks Ottoman Turks were descended from Mongols.
Not all of them.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #85 on: October 17, 2012, 08:59:18 PM »

But it's not scriptural is it? I believe Jesus personally condemned the practice.

Jesus said that Moses did it as a condescension to weakness, and should not happen. He also empowered the Church to take care of the flock as it thought best through God's grace and guidance.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #86 on: October 17, 2012, 09:01:30 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?
wow...
Well, I'm probably off on that, I'll be honest, I'm still learning much of Orthodoxy's doctrine concerning marriage and divorce but this is what I've heard, that they allow a valid marriage to be terminated unlike the Latin Church which would never allow two people validly married to divorce.
Yes, they allow for divorce, and I certainly disagree with that. But you have to understand that they don't think that divorce is a good thing.
But it's not scriptural is it? I believe Jesus personally condemned the practice.
I agree with you on that point, but I want to make clear one thing: The Orthodox do not believe that divorce is a good thing.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #87 on: October 17, 2012, 11:18:36 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?


No.

Besides that, the Eastern fathers are unamimous condemning remarriage (a second marriage) as bad, and third marriages as unrestrained fornication. There was a schism in the East when Leo the Wise (ironically named) wanted to marry three (or was it four) times. He didn't get what he wanted.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #88 on: October 17, 2012, 11:19:43 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?
wow...

I know. The ignorance is breathtaking, isn't it?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #89 on: October 17, 2012, 11:21:22 PM »

Come again?

Irene of Athens was Empress of the Romans when Leo crowned Charles.
But Charlemagne was crowned by a pope, wouldn't that make his crown more legit from a Catholic standpoint?

This was years before the Great Schism BTW.

Not from the POV of the Catholic bishops in Rome who wanted to get rid of St. Leo III--the reason he needed Charlemagne in the first place. Although St. Leo was not a puppet, but opposed him on filioque.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #90 on: October 18, 2012, 03:52:47 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?


No.

Besides that, the Eastern fathers are unamimous condemning remarriage (a second marriage) as bad, and third marriages as unrestrained fornication. There was a schism in the East when Leo the Wise (ironically named) wanted to marry three (or was it four) times. He didn't get what he wanted.
They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding. This is the confusion for me with Orthodoxy, of course the Latin Church allows annullments but first it investigates the first marriage to see if it was valid to begin with. But the Vatican never offically recognizes the termination of a valid marriage, it is a Sacrament that can't be undone.

There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #91 on: October 18, 2012, 04:01:11 PM »

Come again?

Irene of Athens was Empress of the Romans when Leo crowned Charles.
But Charlemagne was crowned by a pope, wouldn't that make his crown more legit from a Catholic standpoint?

This was years before the Great Schism BTW.

Not from the POV of the Catholic bishops in Rome who wanted to get rid of St. Leo III--the reason he needed Charlemagne in the first place. Although St. Leo was not a puppet, but opposed him on filioque.
Never the less he legitimized the Franks as the true protectors of the Church, regardless of a few disenfranchised bishops.

Interesting about his opposition of the filioque though.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #92 on: October 18, 2012, 04:07:16 PM »

Come again?

Irene of Athens was Empress of the Romans when Leo crowned Charles.
But Charlemagne was crowned by a pope, wouldn't that make his crown more legit from a Catholic standpoint?

This was years before the Great Schism BTW.

Not from the POV of the Catholic bishops in Rome who wanted to get rid of St. Leo III--the reason he needed Charlemagne in the first place. Although St. Leo was not a puppet, but opposed him on filioque.
Never the less he legitimized the Franks as the true protectors of the Church, regardless of a few disenfranchised bishops.

Interesting about his opposition of the filioque though.

Leo III recognized the danger posed by the filioque and had the creed inscribed on silver shields, in Latin and Greek, without it.
A few "Holy Roman Emperors" later and Henry II strong-armed Pope Benedict VIII into inserting the filioque. So much for "protectors of the Church."
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #93 on: October 18, 2012, 04:30:05 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?


No.

Besides that, the Eastern fathers are unamimous condemning remarriage (a second marriage) as bad, and third marriages as unrestrained fornication. There was a schism in the East when Leo the Wise (ironically named) wanted to marry three (or was it four) times. He didn't get what he wanted.
They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding. This is the confusion for me with Orthodoxy, of course the Latin Church allows annullments but first it investigates the first marriage to see if it was valid to begin with. But the Vatican never offically recognizes the termination of a valid marriage, it is a Sacrament that can't be undone.

There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

But then the East and West also differ on whether second marriages after the death of the first spouse are sinful. This, in the East, was considered to be bigamy, and those who contracted second marriages after the death of the first spouse were penanced accordingly (this is also why a priest cannot marry after the death of his first spouse, because this too is bigamy, and the canonical penance for bigamy in the case of an ordained man is for him to lose his Holy Orders).
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #94 on: October 18, 2012, 04:39:35 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #95 on: October 18, 2012, 04:59:15 PM »

They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding.

Think of it this way. Christ said 'do not put asunder'. But God also said "thou shalt not kill'. But what does the Roman Catholic Church do if a mass-murder (already convicted and serving his prison term) asks for baptism or (if he was already a member of the church before he committed his crimes) confession? You send a priest, accept his repentance, and grant him remission of sins. Same thing for a woman's who had an abortion. That doesn't mean RC's 'allow' murder or abortion. It means you allow people to repent of sin.

That is how Orthodoxy understands divorce. It's a sin. It's not allowed. But if the sin has already been committed, then you can repent of it and receive absolution. Subsequentally, as a concession to human weakness and to prevent the repentant sinner from entering into further sin, the Church may allow a second marriage ("better to marry than to burn").

Quote
There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

I know it gets simplified that way in modern textbooks, but Henry VIII never asked for a divorce. He asked for an annulment. He thought he had a valid case (based on the fact that his wife had been originally betrothed to his brother, and God's apparent judgment on that violation of the marriage canons in their failure to produce viable offspring), the Pope disagreed, possibly for valid canonical reasons, possibly because the wife in question also happened to be the sister of the King of Spain, the Pope's biggest royal ally of the time--but Henry assumed the latter and based his breaking the Church of England loose from Rome on Rome's playing politics with the canons.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,994


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #96 on: October 18, 2012, 07:21:10 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #97 on: October 18, 2012, 09:13:26 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?

I know what his name means in French. But we have two English names for him which are quite usable.

Why not Karl der Große or Karolus Magnus?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #98 on: October 18, 2012, 09:14:52 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?

I know what his name means in French. But we have two English names for him which are quite usable.

Why not Karl der Große or Karolus Magnus?

Or Great Chuck, for that matter?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #99 on: October 18, 2012, 09:18:35 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?

I know what his name means in French. But we have two English names for him which are quite usable.

Why not Karl der Große or Karolus Magnus?

Or Great Chuck, for that matter?

I feel a Chuck Norris deluge about to happen.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #100 on: October 18, 2012, 09:21:55 PM »

Chuck Norris didn't convert to the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church spent 2,000 years preparing for Chuck's reception.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #101 on: October 18, 2012, 09:25:34 PM »

Chuck Norris didn't convert to the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church spent 2,000 years preparing for Chuck's reception.

It's not too late, Chuck.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #102 on: October 22, 2012, 01:23:45 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?


No.

Besides that, the Eastern fathers are unamimous condemning remarriage (a second marriage) as bad, and third marriages as unrestrained fornication. There was a schism in the East when Leo the Wise (ironically named) wanted to marry three (or was it four) times. He didn't get what he wanted.
They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding. This is the confusion for me with Orthodoxy, of course the Latin Church allows annullments but first it investigates the first marriage to see if it was valid to begin with. But the Vatican never offically recognizes the termination of a valid marriage, it is a Sacrament that can't be undone.

There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

But then the East and West also differ on whether second marriages after the death of the first spouse are sinful. This, in the East, was considered to be bigamy, and those who contracted second marriages after the death of the first spouse were penanced accordingly (this is also why a priest cannot marry after the death of his first spouse, because this too is bigamy, and the canonical penance for bigamy in the case of an ordained man is for him to lose his Holy Orders).
Let me get this straight, you will allow divorce in the East because you view the first marriage as some kind of "mistake" or past sin that's forgiven but God forbid if your spouse dies and you decide to remarry later on the second marriage is considered " bigamy"? Am I reading this right? Because if I am, this is absolute lunacy. I can't believe this kind of thinking is in line with the EOC.

And we in the Latin Church don't worry about the death of any spouses of our priests since they don't have any, so we don't have any of those, ahem, "issues".
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #103 on: October 22, 2012, 01:57:23 PM »

They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding.

Think of it this way. Christ said 'do not put asunder'. But God also said "thou shalt not kill'. But what does the Roman Catholic Church do if a mass-murder (already convicted and serving his prison term) asks for baptism or (if he was already a member of the church before he committed his crimes) confession? You send a priest, accept his repentance, and grant him remission of sins. Same thing for a woman's who had an abortion. That doesn't mean RC's 'allow' murder or abortion. It means you allow people to repent of sin.

That is how Orthodoxy understands divorce. It's a sin. It's not allowed. But if the sin has already been committed, then you can repent of it and receive absolution. Subsequentally, as a concession to human weakness and to prevent the repentant sinner from entering into further sin, the Church may allow a second marriage ("better to marry than to burn").

Quote
There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

I know it gets simplified that way in modern textbooks, but Henry VIII never asked for a divorce. He asked for an annulment. He thought he had a valid case (based on the fact that his wife had been originally betrothed to his brother, and God's apparent judgment on that violation of the marriage canons in their failure to produce viable offspring), the Pope disagreed, possibly for valid canonical reasons, possibly because the wife in question also happened to be the sister of the King of Spain, the Pope's biggest royal ally of the time--but Henry assumed the latter and based his breaking the Church of England loose from Rome on Rome's playing politics with the canons.
Well regardless how "simplified" Henry's position was, he was wrong and had no right to use his throne to usurp the Pope and start his own heretical sect in England. If anyone had doubts to Henry's character we see his track record of numerous wives he took after he had his way in his new found "religion" in which they were successfully divorced, beheaded, died from labor complications ( Was this God's judgment too I presume?), divorced again, beheaded again, and finally one outlived this royal creature thank God.Two of his "ex" wives were first cousins, a few of them worked for the other in service, so this creep had them knocked off so he could get at them "legally" and he was also related to all of his wives in some way through the common ancestor of Edward the First, so he was incestuous on top of being an adulterer, murder, bigamist,heretic, glutton, fornicator on and on etc,etc. Everything about this man was wrong on so many levels and is historically one of the worst enemies of the Church there ever was. And like I mentioned, he was personally responsible for the murder for one of Englands greatest Saints in St Thomas More, who was also one of Henry's best friends at one time but wouldn't go along with this devils "agenda".
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #104 on: October 22, 2012, 02:37:32 PM »

Just as the Pope had no right to usurp the power of emperors. But maybe you don't agree.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #105 on: October 22, 2012, 03:06:21 PM »

Coming very late to this discussion, my view of Charles "the Great" is that he was the single biggest cause of the East-West schism. Enough said.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,486


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #106 on: October 22, 2012, 03:22:15 PM »

Everything about this man was wrong on so many levels and is historically one of the worst enemies of the Church there ever was.

Fidei Defensor , 'nuff said.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 03:25:41 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #107 on: October 22, 2012, 04:07:16 PM »

Everything about this man was wrong on so many levels and is historically one of the worst enemies of the Church there ever was.

Fidei Defensor , 'nuff said.
Like. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #108 on: October 22, 2012, 04:11:07 PM »

I think Charlemagne was pretty irrelevant to the great schism. By the time of the Ottonians, especially Otto II, things had progressed much better and the Holy Roman Empire was on the verge of bringing a Byzantine balance to the West, until Otto III's untimely death the the accession of northern European barbarians to the throne of St. Peter at Rome. Though they were a trend that started in Charlemagne's reign for reform and centralization, but I don't see how one can make a case for the Eastern Churches being in support of the Western status quo. Italy and Europe were two different worlds, and I don't get the impression the Eastern Churches considered the local churches outside Italy. There was also the dismal moral condition of Rome itself with both corrupt popes and a petty aristocracy. The emperor in Constantinople somehow expected everything to go well in the West--his way--without taking more than an adversarial interest in it, from time to time, when it suited him, when he thought of it at all. The shameful arrest and exile of St. Martin and the bizarre Council in Trullo set more of the tone for how the West thought of the East--as an opportunistic meddler. And they would reap what they sewed after the Gregorian Reformation.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #109 on: October 22, 2012, 04:33:25 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?


No.

Besides that, the Eastern fathers are unamimous condemning remarriage (a second marriage) as bad, and third marriages as unrestrained fornication. There was a schism in the East when Leo the Wise (ironically named) wanted to marry three (or was it four) times. He didn't get what he wanted.
They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding. This is the confusion for me with Orthodoxy, of course the Latin Church allows annullments but first it investigates the first marriage to see if it was valid to begin with. But the Vatican never offically recognizes the termination of a valid marriage, it is a Sacrament that can't be undone.

There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

But then the East and West also differ on whether second marriages after the death of the first spouse are sinful. This, in the East, was considered to be bigamy, and those who contracted second marriages after the death of the first spouse were penanced accordingly (this is also why a priest cannot marry after the death of his first spouse, because this too is bigamy, and the canonical penance for bigamy in the case of an ordained man is for him to lose his Holy Orders).
Let me get this straight, you will allow divorce in the East because you view the first marriage as some kind of "mistake" or past sin that's forgiven but God forbid if your spouse dies and you decide to remarry later on the second marriage is considered " bigamy"? Am I reading this right? Because if I am, this is absolute lunacy. I can't believe this kind of thinking is in line with the EOC.

And we in the Latin Church don't worry about the death of any spouses of our priests since they don't have any, so we don't have any of those, ahem, "issues".

Lol, you have plenty of married priests. The Vatican has allowed for the ordination of plenty of married Lutheran and Anglican converts, and it uses the same rules for them (i.e., remarriage is forbidden).

At any rate, no, you are not understanding correctly. In the case of bigamy and trigamy (after the death of a spouse), the penance would have been carried out, and the penitent would be received back into communion without needing to put away the second or third spouse. It was considered sinful to contract a second or third marriage but these would be tolerated out of economy. The same logic applies to divorce. It is sinful to divorce, and it is sinful to remarry, but the East is capable of taking a more flexible approach to both out of pastoral economy.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 04:34:53 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,994


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #110 on: October 22, 2012, 05:47:34 PM »

Just as the Pope had no right to usurp the power of emperors. But maybe you don't agree.

The power of the state should be superior to the power of the church? That's something I thought I'd never hear from a conservative.  Tongue
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #111 on: October 22, 2012, 05:51:44 PM »

Let me get this straight, you will allow divorce in the East because you view the first marriage as some kind of "mistake" or past sin that's forgiven

The first marriage is not seen as a mistake. It's the divorce that is the sin (or 'mistake' although only in the same sense that any sin is a 'mistake'). And like any other sin, it can be forgiven although the effect cannot necessarily be undone (you can be forgiven for murder, but it doesn't bring the victim back to life, you can be forgiven for adultery but that doesn't cure your VD, and you can be forgiven for divorce but that doesn't mean the destroyed relatioship can be miraculously resurrected or healed either.

Quote
but God forbid if your spouse dies and you decide to remarry later on the second marriage is considered " bigamy"? Am I reading this right? Because if I am, this is absolute lunacy. I can't believe this kind of thinking is in line with the EOC.

You were married once. If you get married again, whether the first wife is dead, divorced you, or still around, yes, that is literally 'bigamy' "two wives". In the first two cases, the Church may allow it as a concession to weakness, to prevent you from falling even further into sin, but a second marriage is still a second marriage.

And while you may have trouble believing it, this is not something "the EOC" came up with recently. The relevent canons--both on divorce and remarriage after the death of a spouse--are all from the Ecumenical Councils (not suggesting the West changed; I believe the West was always stricter about this than the East, but the West was in full communion with the East when the canons we still operate under were promulgated).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #112 on: October 22, 2012, 06:52:08 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?

I know what his name means in French. But we have two English names for him which are quite usable.

Why not Karl der Große or Karolus Magnus?

Or Great Chuck, for that matter?

I think that Peppermint Patty gave that one to Charlie Brown already, so we can't switch now, unfortunately.   
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #113 on: October 23, 2012, 01:28:44 PM »

Everything about this man was wrong on so many levels and is historically one of the worst enemies of the Church there ever was.

Fidei Defensor , 'nuff said.
Latae Sententiae.......right back at you. Wink
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #114 on: October 23, 2012, 01:33:41 PM »

Just as the Pope had no right to usurp the power of emperors. But maybe you don't agree.
Soo... this has what to do  with Henry the apostate/heretic?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #115 on: October 23, 2012, 01:40:43 PM »

Charlecrotte was one of the worst things to happen to Western Europe, if not the world.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #116 on: October 23, 2012, 02:59:33 PM »


Quote
There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

I know it gets simplified that way in modern textbooks, but Henry VIII never asked for a divorce. He asked for an annulment. He thought he had a valid case (based on the fact that his wife had been originally betrothed to his brother, and God's apparent judgment on that violation of the marriage canons in their failure to produce viable offspring), the Pope disagreed, possibly for valid canonical reasons, possibly because the wife in question also happened to be the sister of the King of Spain, the Pope's biggest royal ally of the time--but Henry assumed the latter and based his breaking the Church of England loose from Rome on Rome's playing politics with the canons.

It was more than that the elder brother Prince Arthur was betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, they had married on November 14, 1501 and the Prince of Wales did not die until April 2, 1502.  He was fifteen by the way and she was sixteen.  A special dispensation was obtained from the Bishop of Rome so that Henry who was now the heir to the throne could marry her which did not take place for 8 years due to things like negotiations about the dowry and other complications from Henry VII.

It was not "viable offspring" but male children.  That is one or more sons to continue the royal line.  This is not something that was new.  The need for a male heir was important in many situations.  Henry knew that he could produce sons since he'd had Henry Fitzroy,the first Duke of Richmond and Somerset by a mistress. And before anyone throws that against him, kings and nobles and popes and others have had mistresses and concubines and other encounters throughout history. It's what happened. 

So anyway, he had an illegitimate son, whom he tried to get decreed as his heir, but the young man died at 17.  His reasoning, and he had been educated for a career in the Church so he wasn't making things up, was that there must be something wrong with being married to his brother's wife and that's why God wasn't giving him any male children who survived.

Catherine was the aunt of Emperor Charles V who had Pope Clement VII as his prisoner following the Sack of Rome.  That was the connection and it wasn't a matter of alliance but of imprisonment.  Also as a side note Charles V also had mistresses and illegitimate offspring, just for information's sake. 

The point was "Who would rule?  An English king and parliament or a Spanish King/Emperor telling the Bishop of Rome what to do?" 

And by the way, as an example that I have mentioned in another thread in which the start of the Anglican Church was covered some time ago, Louis VII of France (1120-1180) was first married to Eleanor of Aquitaine. When she only bore him two daughters the marriage was annulled and he married Constance of Castille who also only had girls.  She died and Louis married a third time and finally got an heir, Phillip II.  Meanwhile Eleanor married Henry Plantagenet (Henry II of England) and had five sons and three daughters.

So this mindset was not something new. 

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.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #117 on: October 23, 2012, 05:12:34 PM »

" The first marriage is not seen as a mistake. It's the divorce that is the sin (or 'mistake' although only in the same sense that any sin is a 'mistake'). And like any other sin, it can be forgiven although the effect cannot necessarily be undone (you can be forgiven for murder, but it doesn't bring the victim back to life, you can be forgiven for adultery but that doesn't cure your VD, and you can be forgiven for divorce but that doesn't mean the destroyed relatioship can be miraculously resurrected or healed either."-witega


How can a (valid) divorce be defined as a "sin"? Is not the marriage ordained by God  thereby rendering it indissoluble at least while both spouses are living? How can man separate what God himself has joined? There can never be true absolute divorce in the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony.

From Catholic Encyclopedia;

"In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated."


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm



You do realize that Marriage is a Sacrament and Covenant binding.

As for the Bigamy thing, from what I've read, Rome permits valid marriages after the death of a wife but  bars against his receiving or exercising any ecclesiastical order or dignity. According to Canon Law.

Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,967


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #118 on: October 23, 2012, 07:00:45 PM »

Is not the marriage ordained by God thereby rendering it indissoluble at least while both spouses are living? How can man separate what God himself has joined? There can never be true absolute divorce in the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony.

You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Christ said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her’; and, ‘if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery’;

But you say, ‘If the church says to a wife, whatever relationship you had is Annulled (that is to say, was never a legtimate marriage),’ you no longer hold a man to do anything for his wife or to remain with her; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 07:01:45 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #119 on: October 23, 2012, 07:09:05 PM »

Is not the marriage ordained by God thereby rendering it indissoluble at least while both spouses are living? How can man separate what God himself has joined? There can never be true absolute divorce in the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony.

You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Christ said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her’; and, ‘if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery’;

But you say, ‘If the church says to a wife, whatever relationship you had is Annulled (that is to say, was never a legtimate marriage),’ you no longer hold a man to do anything for his wife or to remain with her; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.

If the "marriage" was never valid to begin with, then why would the Church ever recognize the "wife" to begin with?

There's no invalidating of anything here, you're not making sense.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,967


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #120 on: October 23, 2012, 09:50:41 PM »

If the "marriage" was never valid to begin with, then why would the Church ever recognize the "wife" to begin with?

You tell me.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #121 on: October 24, 2012, 01:12:10 AM »

" The first marriage is not seen as a mistake. It's the divorce that is the sin (or 'mistake' although only in the same sense that any sin is a 'mistake'). And like any other sin, it can be forgiven although the effect cannot necessarily be undone (you can be forgiven for murder, but it doesn't bring the victim back to life, you can be forgiven for adultery but that doesn't cure your VD, and you can be forgiven for divorce but that doesn't mean the destroyed relatioship can be miraculously resurrected or healed either."-witega


How can a (valid) divorce be defined as a "sin"?

I don't understand the phrasing of this question.
God said 'Do not murder', so murder is a sin.
God said 'Do not steal', so stealing is a sin.
Christ (God) said 'What God has joined together, let not man put asunder', so 'putting asunder' (divorce) is a sin.
Deeper theological reflections on why God commands/forbids this or that is not only possible but profitable, but at the simplest definitional level, if God says 'don't do it' and man does it (or attempts to do it) then it's a sin.

Quote
Is not the marriage ordained by God  thereby rendering it indissoluble at least while both spouses are living? How can man separate what God himself has joined?

Lots of things are 'ordained by God' that, in allowing us the exercise of free will, He allows us to break (to our own detriment). Baptism is a sacrament, a 'Covenant binding', which makes us part of the Bride of God. But if you reject your baptism, break the covenant, and go make yourself into an acolyte of Vishnu or your own pleasure, you will not have a part in the Bridal Feast come the last days. If God allows man to break his union with Him, if apostasy is possible, then why wouldn't man likewise be capable of breaking the union of marriage which is itself a type of that Divine Union?

(Indeed, Christ Himself does not say that man 'cannot' put asunder a marriage, He says 'do not'.)
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,486


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #122 on: October 24, 2012, 05:33:06 AM »

Doesn't annulment make the children begotten in marriage bastards?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #123 on: October 24, 2012, 09:51:05 AM »

Doesn't annulment make the children begotten in marriage bastards?

No, because a civil marriage still happened, even if it's determined that the marriage was never sacramental.
Logged
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #124 on: October 24, 2012, 10:14:03 AM »


And by the way, as an example that I have mentioned in another thread in which the start of the Anglican Church was covered some time ago [snip]

Thanks, Ebor.  Would you mind posting or PMing me a link to that thread?
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #125 on: October 24, 2012, 06:11:13 PM »


And by the way, as an example that I have mentioned in another thread in which the start of the Anglican Church was covered some time ago [snip]

Thanks, Ebor.  Would you mind posting or PMing me a link to that thread?

Here you go: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13426.0.html

Another member had asked for information to understand Anglicanism about five years ago and I and others gave him some history and there was some other discussion as well,

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.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #126 on: October 24, 2012, 07:19:20 PM »

Doesn't annulment make the children begotten in marriage bastards?

No, because a civil marriage still happened, even if it's determined that the marriage was never sacramental.

Many of the grounds for annulment of sacramental marriage would also be grounds for annulment of a civil marriage in most jurisdictions.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #127 on: October 24, 2012, 07:20:56 PM »

Is bastard a legal or religious title? Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 07:21:31 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #128 on: October 24, 2012, 07:25:29 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #129 on: October 24, 2012, 07:29:14 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 07:30:16 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #130 on: October 24, 2012, 07:33:30 PM »

Is bastard a legal or religious title?

It is certainly a legal category.

I was amused back in law school when I discovered a book entitled The Law of Bastardry. Presumably, it was about succession rights of illegitimate children back when such a concept was meaningful.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #131 on: October 24, 2012, 07:37:12 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
Why can't one marriage be recognized by the Church and state but in different ways.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #132 on: October 24, 2012, 07:53:57 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
Why can't one marriage be recognized by the Church and state but in different ways.

It can. But it doesn't have to. And these are two different meanings, not two ways to one meaning.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #133 on: October 24, 2012, 07:57:14 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
Why can't one marriage be recognized by the Church and state but in different ways.

It can. But it doesn't have to. And these are two different meanings, not two ways to one meaning.
Or perhaps two aspects of the same thing...
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #134 on: October 24, 2012, 08:03:13 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
Why can't one marriage be recognized by the Church and state but in different ways.

It can. But it doesn't have to. And these are two different meanings, not two ways to one meaning.
Or perhaps two aspects of the same thing...

That's what I do not agree with.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #135 on: October 24, 2012, 08:47:50 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
Why can't one marriage be recognized by the Church and state but in different ways.

It can. But it doesn't have to. And these are two different meanings, not two ways to one meaning.
Or perhaps two aspects of the same thing...

That's what I do not agree with.
I see
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 08:48:27 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #136 on: October 24, 2012, 09:09:29 PM »


Here you go: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13426.0.html

Another member had asked for information to understand Anglicanism about five years ago and I and others gave him some history and there was some other discussion as well,

Ebor

Thanks!
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #137 on: October 24, 2012, 10:18:10 PM »


Here you go: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13426.0.html

Another member had asked for information to understand Anglicanism about five years ago and I and others gave him some history and there was some other discussion as well,

Ebor

Thanks!

You're very welcome.  I'm glad to be of service.  Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions.

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.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 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 0.443 seconds with 165 queries.