OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 24, 2014, 09:36:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   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 8890 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,320


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« 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
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: 2,869



« 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
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: 35,633



« 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
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,320


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« 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
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
Dr., Rdr. Scamandrius to you :)
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,347



« 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
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,320


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,633



« 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
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: 35,633



« 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
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,320


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« 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
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,347


« 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: 7,959


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
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,973


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« 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

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi."
-G.T di Lampedusa

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


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: 7,959


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: 7,959


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: 7,959


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: 2,772


« 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
正義の剣
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: 2,772


« 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: 2,772


« 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: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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
正義の剣
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: 2,772


« 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: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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: 2,772


« 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: 6,835


"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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 2,772


« 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: 2,772


« 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.
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,320


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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: 7,959


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: 7,959


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: 7,959


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.
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 0.181 seconds with 72 queries.