OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 12:13:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Western post-1054 Orthodoxy  (Read 15755 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« on: January 17, 2004, 08:51:43 AM »

The mutual excommunication of 1054 is seen as the point when East & West split, but from what I've been told, there was heresy before that date, AND there were people in the West who did remain Orthodox for a period afterward. Could I have examples of post-1054 Western Orthodox countries? I'm told that England was Orthodox until 1066 (and that Harold, the king who died that year at Hastings is an Orthodox martyr) when William the Conqueror brought Roman Catholic clergy with him. How do we know England was still Orthodox and who else was after 1054?
Logged

NULL
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2004, 09:06:48 AM »

To be fair I would think we would have to look at the content of faith in various countries and people.

The West wasn't Orthodox one day and not Orthodox another. Most people didn't even know what had happened in Constantinople.

It's true that some English travelled to Constantinople after the Conquest and that there was an English church there.

What would be necessary would be to list those teachings and practices which might be considered un-Orthodox by 1054 and see which peoples in the West had not adopted them.

The Irish do not seem to have adopted the filioque until late for instance, and St Theodore, though he seems to have introduced the filioque did not accept the universal jurisidiction of the Pope.

So I don't think it's straightforward. Did those in the West who opposed the veneration of icons understand the veneration of icons for instance? On the one hand they were heretic iconoclasts, on the other hand perhaps they were judging something, idolatrous worship of images, which didn't exist in the East.

Even to be fair, did those in the West who taught that the christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon understand the issues in the East or the language that was used in the East.

So I am torn. On the one hand I want to push the presence of heretical thinking way back before 1054, on the other hand I want to ask questions about what was understood and meant in these controversies.

Whatever others say, Britain was more Orthodox and later than many other places. But even England was more influenced by the Frankish domination of the papacy on the continent than we might like. Fr John Romanides has written extensively on Britain and the Franks and Orthodoxy at www.romanity.org.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2004, 02:26:01 AM »

Quote
peterfarrington: Even to be fair, did those in the West who taught that the christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon understand the issues in the East or the language that was used in the East.

I don't think Chalcedon was ever as much of an obsession for Orthodox Christians as it is for Non-Chalcedonians.

It's not like missionaries travelled the West, spreading the "Good News" of the christology of Ibas and Theodoret.

Besides, Chalcedon did not authorize Nestorian christology.




 
« Last Edit: January 18, 2004, 02:28:09 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2004, 04:45:59 AM »

The West did consider that the Christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon. That's why so many of them schismed from Rome when it signed up to Constantinople II.

And it is you who seem obsessed by Chalcedon not me. Since it is more important to you that I 'accept' Chalcedon than confess the double consubstantiality of Christ.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2004, 09:09:21 PM »

[I'm told that England was Orthodox until 1066 (and that Harold, the king who died that year at Hastings is an Orthodox martyr) when William the Conqueror brought Roman Catholic clergy with him. How do we know England was still Orthodox and who else was after 1054?]

This is a frequently recurring topic it seems.  England was not Orthodox until 1066.  The Abps of Canterbury and York as well as the rest of the heirarchy and clergy of England were very much Roman Catholic being recognized in their respective offices by Rome.   They did have different liturgical usages such as that of Sarum or Hereford but these were just derivations of the Roman rite.  William didn't bring RC clergy with him but rather just brought more Norman clergy with him.  There were Normans in some ecclesiastical posts in England prior to 1066.

As for Harold Godwinsson being a martyr.......what EO church recognizes him as such?  The man was an oath breaker.  He had sworn upon Holy Scripture as well as relics of the saints that after Edward died he would not impede William in claiming the English throne.

[but from what I've been told, there was heresy before that date, AND there were people in the West who did remain Orthodox for a period afterward]

There was heresy before 1054 in both the East and the West to be sure.  I guess to answer your question I'd need to know what you mean by "Orthodox".  Do you mean reciting the Creed with the filioque?  Or that somewhere in the West people were celebrating the Divine Liturgy of St John.

[It's true that some English travelled to Constantinople after the Conquest and that there was an English church there.]

True some English did travel to New Rome and even fought for the emperor after the Conquest. In the same way after the fall of New Rome to the Turk some Byzantines traveled to Venice and took service with Western govt's.  Just because there was an English church in New Rome is it thought that they did the DL?  Rather they probably did whatever version of the Roman rite they'd followed in Jolly Old England.

Carpo-Rusyn

Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2004, 10:52:52 AM »

Quote
peterfarrington:
The West did consider that the Christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon. That's why so many of them schismed from Rome when it signed up to Constantinople II.

The West did NOT consider that the Nestorian Christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorized at Chalcedon.

How could it when the Chalcedonian Christology is clearly stated and Nestorius and his views roundly condemned?

What the West considered is that Ibas and Theodoret themselves had been found to be Orthodox, not their writings.

How many in the West temporarily "schismed" as a result of the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

Certainly not as many as did so in the East as a result of the Fourth, with apparent permanence.

Quote
peterfarrington: And it is you who seem obsessed by Chalcedon not me. Since it is more important to you that I 'accept' Chalcedon than confess the double consubstantiality of Christ.

I am not the one who introduced an off-handed criticism of Chalcedon into a discussion of post-Schism Orthodoxy in the West.

As I have said before, Christology is not all there is to Orthodox Christianity.

I am glad we apparently share the same Christology.

But OOs apparently reject the Church's charism of infallbility and her authority. Thus they reject the Council of Chalcedon and the ecumenical councils that followed it.

In that, how do they differ from the Nestorians, who refused to submit to Ephesus 431?

I don't see how one can get around that, no matter how much he may desire Christian unity.

« Last Edit: January 19, 2004, 11:20:27 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2004, 12:12:29 PM »

Sbdn Peter

I think if you'd mentioned Ibas or Theodoret to a pre-1066 Saxon priest or bishop they would've said "Who?".  

CR
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2004, 12:50:01 PM »

The West did NOT consider that the Nestorian Christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorized at Chalcedon.

How many in the West temporarily "schismed" as a result of the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

You need to read some more history Linus. Pelagius could only find two bishops who would consecrate him when he came back from Constantinople II. All the rest considered he had sold Ibas and Theodoret down the river.

Since it was the writings of these two which were condemned at Constantinople II it was these writings which Pelagius was considered wrongly to have abandoned. Some didn't commune with Rome until 150 years later. Ibas' letter and Theodoret's Christology was considered entirely Orthodox by many in the West.

Theodoret himself wrote to Pope Leo saying that his (Theodoret's) Christology had won the day at Chalcedon. The North African province and much of the West agreed.

Sorry for a few questions....

Which bits of Chalcedon do you consider infallible?

And how do you know Chalcedon is an ecumenical council?

Why do you not accept the 8th and 9th Eastern Orthodox ecumenical councils?

Why do you not accept the 1845 encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and bishops as authoritative, since that also was signed by all the patriarchs and many of the bishops?

Since the West do not accept the 8th ecumenical council as ecumenical, or indeed as a true council, where does that leave the West between Photius and 1054? The EO considered it ecumenical, the West didn't. Why was the East in communion with a West that rejected an ecumenical council?

What about the Western rejection of Canon 28? How can the West be Orthodox if it rejects an ecumenical canon?
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2004, 01:00:13 PM »

I think if you'd mentioned Ibas or Theodoret to a pre-1066 Saxon priest or bishop they would've said "Who?".  

Undoubtedly. But there were many whose job it was to know and they did know. St Columbanus wrote to the Pope's telling them not to put up with the heresies of the East. He supported the Three Chapters, as did many others in the West. I'll dig out his letters.

My point is not to say that the West was heretical, I don't think St Columbanus was. But that different languages and understandings were at play, and that the West was often at odds with the East but wasn't necessarily heretical because of it.

I'm much more interested in the substance of someones faith - even St Leo - and discovering that what was meant is different to what has been heard. I have no time for preserving division when there is none. That's the devils work, and he's been able to do it too easily for too long.

I'd like to know whether St Leo of Rome died a heretic because he rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon? I don't think he did. But it seems there is a strain of EO thought which insists on external uniformity rather than agreement in substance. If St Leo of Rome rejected an ecumenical canon then I do find it confusing that Linus insists he is a saint in his own terms. He cannot say that Chalcedon is infallible and must be accepted and then venerate someone who rejects an infallible aspect of that council? Surely? I am confused in the logic???
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2004, 01:09:29 PM »

But OOs apparently reject the Church's charism of infallbility and her authority. Thus they reject the Council of Chalcedon and the ecumenical councils that followed it.

In what way do I reject the latter councils, or indeed the substance of Chalcedon?

Don't you think that your attitude is a little like the big-endian/little-endian dispute in Gulliver's Travels? Do you think it contributes to the witness to Christ in the world.

I confess that Christ is fully God and fully man, without confusion or mixture, divison or seperation. I confess that the Three Chapters are blasphemy and should be utterly rejected. I confess that the humanity of Christ is perfect in will as in all other things pertaining to the fullness of humanity and the the Word of God wills both divinely and humanly. I confess that icons should be used as teaching aids and should be venerated, not as being venerated in themselves but that the veneration passes to that who is venerated.

In what way do I reject the latter councils?

You feel confident that God wants you to preserve division despite the fact that we have the same faith? I certainly don't feel that confidence nor do I feel confident in pointing out all the errors of the Roman Catholic communion or even the Church of the East. I'd much rather work with members of those communions for unity in truth and love than keep finding reasons for division.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2004, 01:22:05 PM »

Subdeacon Peter and Linus, please take the current deviation from the topic of this thread (and although it may have started as something related to the topic, it seems like it is not now) to another thread or discuss it via PM.  Thank you.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2004, 07:28:26 PM »

Harald Godwinson was not fighting the Normans to be a religious martyr.  The swearing an oath to William that he would support the Norman claim to the English throne is rather complicated by whether it was a freely taken oath, or under duress or that Harald was tricked.  If anyone is interested citations from the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" in modern English translation can be provided.   However, "Oath-breaking" was a very serious matter in those times.  To be labeled as such was dire.  

Harald, his brother Tostig and his father, Earl Godwin were major players, as it were, in English politics with the aim to be who had the most land and wealth and power.  

I have come across a reference to some body claiming Harald Godwinson as a martyr and I *think* I saw an icon, but I will have to search for it.  But the conquest wasn't a religious conflict. It was who would take over after St. Edward the Confessor's death.  Harald Hardrada also was trying to make a grab and was defeated at the Battle of Stanford Bridge a short time before Hastings.

As to people going to Constantinople/Micklagard.  It was rather common in the North lands for men who did not have land or who wanted to better themselves to go be a sword/ax for hire. The first references I've seen are in the late 900's.  Again, citations from the Norse Sagas can be provided, if desired.  They went there because thats where the money was.  The Emperor had a unit only loyal to him and if one survived the rewards were great.  

So some Anglo-Saxons are booted off their land by the Normans. They have to go somewhere and one place, that pays, is Micklagard.  

Small oddity: on the balustrade in Hagia Sophia survives some runes that are thought to date to around 1100 A.D left by one "Halfdan" a nordic name.

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.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2004, 07:54:59 PM »

[I have come across a reference to some body claiming Harald Godwinson as a martyr and I *think* I saw an icon, but I will have to search for it.]

I'd be interested to know who is claiming Harald as a martyr.  I agree the oath taking is a little murky.

I think that Harald Hardrada is considered a martyr by the Norwegians. I think Garrison Keillor mentioned it recently in Prarie Home Companion.  Grin

Didn't Hardrada serve in the Varangian Guard?  I seem to remember something about that?

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2004, 12:41:05 AM »

Well, I did some looking. One of the things making it tricky is that in AS times the name is "Harald" but now many spell it "Harold".  There is a reference to Harald Godwinson on "An English Orthodox Calender" at http://www.russianorthodox-roac.com/4.html as well as references to the "King martyr" from Vladimir Moss.
At http://www.saintandrew.net/fr_josiah/st_alexis.htm on a page about St. Alexis Toth it says, in part,
 "For British descendants today is particulary significant since it is the memorial of the King-Martyr Harold II, and the Battle of Hastings in 1066."

Someone else on a page on various saint says they saw " a listing for "St. Harold, last Orthodox king of England" in the Calendar printed by St. John of Kronstadt Press", but they can't recall any details.  I have no knowledge of this press myself.

The Wikipedia says that "The Orthodox church recently recognised Harold as a martyr with October 14 as his saint's day." but it give no citation or details as to who/where/when.

I was relieved to find out that that the icons I remembered were of earlier A.S. kings such as Edmund and Ethelbert.

A great laugh at the Norwegians considering Harald Hardrada a martyr Grin  I can imagine Garrison Keillor talking about that.

Yes Harald Hardrada ("Hardrede" or Severe Counsellor i.e. Tyrant) did go to the Varangian Guard. It's in the "Heimskringla" by Snorri Sturlison in section 3 of the "Saga of Harald Hardrade" (links provided if interested) Then he came back and was King. Then he tried to take part of England (in conjunction with Tostig (Harald Godwinson's brother) and died at Stamford Bridge.

That also has the saga of King Olaf of Norway, who is St. Olaf, who once won some land by some incredible dicing luck. But that tale is for another time.. Cheesy

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2004, 01:01:34 AM »

Last bit after following one last link before sleep:

 "The English Orthodox today venerate Gytha’s father, St Harold of Hastings, King of England, together with those fallen in battle with him." is from a  site on Urkrainian Orthodoxy:
http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/saints_icons/saints_new/monomakh.htm

So there isn't a lot, but there's some out there claiming Harald Godwinson as an EO martyr.  But it still wasn't a religious conflict.  

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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2004, 11:11:19 AM »

So some Anglo-Saxons are booted off their land by the Normans. They have to go somewhere and one place, that pays, is Micklagard.  

Well it wasn't quite like that. The entire episcopate was removed and many died in prison. Fr John Romanides of blessed memory has much to say about that. Many English were killed, raped, and brutalised while the Normans settled in. And the bloody history of the Middle Ages is a history of Norman dominance. It was a massive discontinuity.

There were many things which the English church still had in common with the wider and Eastern church before the conquest. Married parish priests were very common for instance. Baptism by immersion survived in places until even the 'reformation'.

In fact one of the reasons for the papal inspired and supported invasion of England was to bring the English church into closer conformity with Rome. Of course it was a Western Catholic church but it wasn't dominated by Rome in the way it came to be in the post-Conquest period. And certainly before the conquest the British churches were not dominated by Rome and Rome's writ did not have unquestioned authority.

This did change at the Conquest.

And of course if the pre-Conquest church wasn't Orthodox then neither was Rome and one might ask why the Eastern Churches were in communion with the West in 1053? If it was Orthodox then of course the English Church was Orthodox.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2004, 12:28:12 PM »

Here's an article by Vladimir Moss

http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Fall%20of%20Orthodox%20England.htm

The Fall of Orthodox England
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2004, 02:55:15 PM »

Well, I composed a reply and my computer got the pip and it was gone.  So let's try again.

Taking conquered lands and giving them to people on the "winning side" was not new to the Normans. The Saxons did it in England when they started invading in the mid-400's.  Reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle shows that the Saxons were not merely innocent pacifists that the Normans slaughtered indiscriminantly.  They fought back. (In other times, they fought and killed each other.  Harald and his brother Tostig were not examples of brotherly love for instance.)  Some nobles went to Scotland and other places to regroup, gain allies and try to take it back.  Here are the sections recording the years 1052 to 1101.  

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Anglo/part5.html
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Anglo/part6.html

Married clergy were not uncommon in the western parts of Christendom either.  Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia on celibacy. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

Re baptism, I was unaware that immersion was considered only "Eastern". there are references to immersion and there are also fonts  from before 1066. The one in Wells Cathedral is a Saxon font from what I've read. (Never having visited there personally yet.)

In the Chronicle are numerous references to "Bishop so-and-so" going to Rome to recieve his pall from "Pope such-a-one".  St. Dunstan didn't celebrate mass with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that I've ever read.  Patrick went to Rome and thence to Ireland.  "Orthodox" and "Catholic" did not have all the connotations that they have here and now.  There was Christendom from the far north and west (Iceland converted by vote in 1000 A.D.) to beyond the Byzantine Empire.  There were many places and customs in between dedicated to worshiping the Trinity.

I have seen Vladimir Moss' writings.  They have been posted by ROAC for example.  

With respect,

Ebor
« Last Edit: January 20, 2004, 02:57:05 PM by 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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2004, 02:58:18 PM »

Orthodox doesn't mean Eastern or Oriental Orthodox to me or to many converts in the UK. The Western church was Orthodox or it wasn't Catholic.

None of us, when engaged in evangelism, and using the concept of Orthodox England, mean Eastern Orthodox England.

It's a useful concept in our mission and I'm not sure why is is often attacked.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2004, 04:11:07 PM »

Quote
peterfarrington:
You need to read some more history Linus.

Perhaps you should try not to put so much of a Non-Chalcedonian spin on the history you read.

You said that many in the West taught that Chalcedon authorized the Christology of Ibas and Theodoret, and by that you meant their early, Nestorian Christology.

That is not true, nor can you prove it from history.

What I believe many in the West objected to was what appeared to them as the condemnation of men who were already dead - and thus not able to appear and defend themselves - in order to appease schismatic Monophysites.

As I understand it, Theodoret and Ibas had repented of their Nestorianism, just as you maintain Eutyches repented at Ephesus 449.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, however, never repented and was himself condemned at Constantinople II and not merely his writings.

You should try to post without being insulting or condescending.

Quote
peterfarrington: Pelagius could only find two bishops who would consecrate him when he came back from Constantinople II. All the rest considered he had sold Ibas and Theodoret down the river.
Since it was the writings of these two which were condemned at Constantinople II it was these writings which Pelagius was considered wrongly to have abandoned. Some didn't commune with Rome until 150 years later. Ibas' letter and Theodoret's Christology was considered entirely Orthodox by many in the West.

Theodoret himself wrote to Pope Leo saying that his (Theodoret's) Christology had won the day at Chalcedon. The North African province and much of the West agreed.

Theodoret was the author of the reunion formulary signed by St. Cyril himself in 433, which stated:

[Christ is] "perfect God and perfect man consisting of rational soul and body, of one substance with the Father in His Godhead, of one substance with us in His Manhood, so that there is a union of two natures; on which ground we confess Christ to be one and Mary to be the mother of God " ( quoted in Chadwick's The Early Church, p. 199).

His written criticisms of St. Cyril (one of the "Chapters" condemned at Constantinople II) predate that and Chalcedon.

Evidently he had altered his Nestorian leanings by 431 when he authored the reunion formulary signed by St. Cyril.

That is why Theodoret was not condemned at Chalcedon.

It was not Theodoret's older, Nestorian Christology which was considered Orthodox in the West. That was hardly possible given the outcome of Chalcedon.

Quote
peterfarrington: Sorry for a few questions....

Which bits of Chalcedon do you consider infallible?

Its dogma, not every minute remark.

But that is a good question.

Quote
peterfarrington: And how do you know Chalcedon is an ecumenical council?

The Orthodox Church tells me it is; I believe it on the authority of the Church.

Those who became the Oriental Orthodox (mainly Egyptians) rejected that authority for what they believed were good reasons, just as the Nestorians rejected the Church's authority regarding Ephesus 431 for what they believed were good reasons.

If it is possible to reject the authority of the Church and still be Orthodox, then are Protestants Orthodox?

Quote
peterfarrington: Why do you not accept the 8th and 9th Eastern Orthodox ecumenical councils?

I was taught that the first Seven Councils were recognized by the Church as ecumenical.

I have not been taught any others have such universal recognition, nor have I read that that is the case.

I know that some regard the Quinisext Council (Trullo 692) as ecumenical, but, as I understand it, that opinion is not universal.

Quote
peterfarrington: Why do you not accept the 1845 encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and bishops as authoritative, since that also was signed by all the patriarchs and many of the bishops?

Encyclicals are not universally regarded as infallible and may contain error. Witness the Encyclion of the Emperor Basilicus (476) that you yourself cited once before. It was signed by how many bishops? 700? Yet it anathematized Chalcedon and declared the Latrocinium a valid council.

Obviously encyclicals are merely human letters and liable to mistakes.

Quote
peterfarrington: Since the West do not accept the 8th ecumenical council as ecumenical, or indeed as a true council, where does that leave the West between Photius and 1054? The EO considered it ecumenical, the West didn't. Why was the East in communion with a West that rejected an ecumenical council?

What about the Western rejection of Canon 28? How can the West be Orthodox if it rejects an ecumenical canon?

What you refer to as the 8th Ecumenical Council is not universally regarded by the Orthodox Church as ecumenical. If it were, I would accept that.

Canons deal with discipline and order and are not dogmatic, as I believe you know. They are subject to change and are not part of the Deposit of Faith.

Obviously there was disagreement over Canon 28, but that is not the same thing as rejection of an ecumenical council and the creation of a 1500-year schism.

How is authority to be exercised by the Church if whole regions and peoples are free to reject her councils and separate themselves from her?

Do you reject the idea of conciliar Church government?





« Last Edit: January 20, 2004, 04:23:46 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2004, 06:50:38 PM »

I think the EP should have never removed the Anathema against the RCs.

In Christ
BC
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2004, 06:58:55 PM »

[ think the EP should have never removed the Anathema against the RCs. ]

Oh BC!  Roll Eyes  And we were so nice lifting the excommunication against the EP.  Tsk Tsk!  There goes ecumenical relations!  

CR

Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2004, 07:01:27 PM »

Why? It was an anathema against Humbert surely, and was a gesture, an opening of a conversation, nothing more. There are plenty of other anathemas that those who wished to could shake at the Roman Catholics.

In these dark days we need to be doing what we can to be reconciled with those who love Christ and share much in common. We need not have open communion to offer genuine friendship and fellowship. When we are assailed by liberalism on every side a gesture is important and makes a conversation possible.

Perhaps it will lead nowhere, but perhaps it will bear much fruit in God's will. It is not at all the same as saying that there are no important matters to discuss and obstacles which may be either surmountable or insurmountable.

I would respectfully suggest that as an 18 year old you should be slow to criticise your own Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and bishops. Anyone in the 21st century can hurl anathemas around. It takes wiser hearts to tread the path of reconciliation in Truth and Love.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2004, 07:10:19 PM »

Sb Dn Peter

[Well it wasn't quite like that. The entire episcopate was removed and many died in prison]

What?  Ebor can back me up on this but the entire episcopate wasn't removed.  In fact I seem to remember a Saxon bishop being told to give up his see in favor of a Norman.  The Saxon stood by the tomb of one of his canonized predecessors saying that Saint So and So would decide who was to be bishop.  The Saxon tossed the crozier on the tomb and the effigy grasped the crozier and wouldn't let go when the Norman tried to retrieve it but then released it to the Saxon.  Also I think there were Normans already in Old Blighty as bishops under both St Edward and Harald the Oath-breaker.

I think Ebor responded to some of your other points.  What made you think that married clerics were only in England.  The Continent was rife with them up until Trent and even is more isolated cases after that.

[In fact one of the reasons for the papal inspired and supported invasion of England was to bring the English church into closer conformity with ]

Oh come on.  The Pope blessed the standard that WIlliam carried but he would've sailed even without papal sanction.  Your idea of the Normans seems a little off. The Middle Ages a period of Norman dominance?  Where do you get this?  You're giving them a little too much credit.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2004, 07:12:16 PM »

Have a read of Vladimir Moss' article. I agree with 90% of it and will take up the 10% with him when I've finished it tomorrow.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2004, 07:23:35 PM »

[Thus when King Ethelbert of Kent was baptized by St. Augustine in 597, “he had entered,” as Fr. Andrew Phillips writes, “‘Romanitas’, Romanity, the universe of Roman Christendom, becoming one of those numerous kings who owed allegiance, albeit formal, to the Emperor in New RomeGǪ”]

Have you read Bede's history?  I remember St Augustine being sent by the Roman Pope.  Was there something I missed?

CR
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2004, 07:41:46 PM »


Obviously encyclicals are merely human letters and liable to mistakes.What you refer to as the 8th Ecumenical Council is not universally regarded by the Orthodox Church as ecumenical. If it were, I would accept that.


OK, guys, you've both lost me here. Are both PT and Linus7 even talking about the same 8th Ecumenical Council (879-880 which the Orthodox Church does accept as ecumenical, not the RC 869 one which we do not accept) ?
 Huh Huh Huh Huh

Demetri, the confused
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2004, 07:55:06 PM »

To be honest I don't understand what Linus and PT are talking about.  I thought this thread was about the mis-guided notion that pre-Conquest England was "Orthodox" which it was from an RC point of view.

CR
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2004, 11:35:24 PM »

OK, guys, you've both lost me here. Are both PT and Linus7 even talking about the same 8th Ecumenical Council (879-880 which the Orthodox Church does accept as ecumenical, not the RC 869 one which we do not accept) ?
 Huh Huh Huh Huh

Demetri, the confused

Perhaps the whole conciliar thing would be best dealt with in a separate thread.

Criticisms of Chalcedon should also probably be limited to the Non-Chalcedonian forum.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2004, 12:00:48 AM »

Orthodox doesn't mean Eastern or Oriental Orthodox to me or to many converts in the UK. The Western church was Orthodox or it wasn't Catholic.

But you are not the only ones who use the word in referring to Christians, and in discussions it helps to have common meanings.   To many people to say "Orthodox" *does* mean EO or OO in this time and world. Is "Orthodox" supposed to mean "Christian before 1054"?  I'm afraid I do not quite understand your second sentence re "wasn't Catholic".  I've tried flopping the terms to see if it's clearer "The Western Church was Catholic or it wasn't Orthodox."  but I think I 'm missing your idea.

Quote
None of us, when engaged in evangelism, and using the concept of Orthodox England, mean Eastern Orthodox England.

Why? And what, precisely do you mean?.  If it's not just using the Eastern Rites of liturgy, or using the "filioque" or not just having a patriarch east of Italy... This may be an important point for clarification.  If it is only related to time before 1054, then what if someone were to refer to "Catholic Turkey or Kiev"?  I suspect that there would be some objection.

Quote
It's a useful concept in our mission and I'm not sure why is is often attacked.

Useful?

Ebor
« Last Edit: January 21, 2004, 12:07:17 AM by Ebor » Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2004, 12:27:38 AM »

Sb Dn Peter

[Well it wasn't quite like that. The entire episcopate was removed and many died in prison]

What?  Ebor can back me up on this but the entire episcopate wasn't removed.  In fact I seem to remember a Saxon bishop being told to give up his see in favor of a Norman.  The Saxon stood by the tomb of one of his canonized predecessors saying that Saint So and So would decide who was to be bishop.  The Saxon tossed the crozier on the tomb and the effigy grasped the crozier and wouldn't let go when the Norman tried to retrieve it but then released it to the Saxon.  Also I think there were Normans already in Old Blighty as bishops under both St Edward and Harald the Oath-breaker.

There were Normans and Franks in England for centuries, sometimes clerics and some were laypeople who married into English families.  King Ethelbert had a Frankish, Christian wife while he was still Pagan and she brought a bishop with her. Marriages on the highest levels were to set alliances such as across the Channel.   (See "Bede" which can be found starting here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book1.html

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2004, 12:38:43 AM »

[Thus when King Ethelbert of Kent was baptized by St. Augustine in 597, “he had entered,” as Fr. Andrew Phillips writes, “‘Romanitas’, Romanity, the universe of Roman Christendom, becoming one of those numerous kings who owed allegiance, albeit formal, to the Emperor in New RomeGǪ”]

Have you read Bede's history?  I remember St Augustine being sent by the Roman Pope.  Was there something I missed?

CR

I have been rereading Bede. In book 1, chapter 32 Pope Gregory sends presents and a letter to King Ethelbert. There is no mention of allegience to any emperor in "New Rome", though the dating of the letter is "Given the 22nd day of June, in the nineteenth year of the reign of the most pious emperor, Mauritius Tiberius, in the eighteenth year after his consulship. Fourth indiction." This sort of dating is common at the time.  It is 601 A.D.  The letter does refer to Constantine in his making the Roman Empire Christian but this is to encourage Ethelbert to do the same in spreading the faith among the English.

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2004, 01:14:37 AM »

One problem with the Vladimir Moss work cited is that he does not give source citations.  The AS Chronicle is used,  but what are the others.  Then there's the problematic "Death bed prophecy of St. Edward the Confessor".  I have read this before (on a ROAC site) and did some research which I will give tomorrow as it's late.  However, here is one flat out error in it.  

"...on a year and one day after the day of your death God has delivered all this kingdom, cursed by Him, into the hands of the enemy, and devils shall come through all this land with fire and sword and the havoc of war.”  and farther down

"King Edward died on January 5, 1066. The first part of his prophecy was fulfilled exactly; for one year and one day after his death, on January 6, 1067, Duke William of Normandy, having been crowned..."

Edward died on the 5th of January 1066 "the Eve of Twelfthday" (AS Chron).  William was crowned king on Christmas Day 1066. This is not a year and a day.  The Julian Calender offset doesn't apply here either since there was no Gregorian Calender and wouldn't be for over 500 years.    It's simply wrong. But it is given in the document as an Important Point.


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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2004, 03:31:17 AM »

I have been rereading Bede. In book 1, chapter 32 Pope Gregory sends presents and a letter to King Ethelbert. There is no mention of allegience to any emperor in "New Rome", though the dating of the letter is "Given the 22nd day of June, in the nineteenth year of the reign of the most pious emperor, Mauritius Tiberius, in the eighteenth year after his consulship. Fourth indiction." This sort of dating is common at the time.  It is 601 A.D.  The letter does refer to Constantine in his making the Roman Empire Christian but this is to encourage Ethelbert to do the same in spreading the faith among the English.

But this is Vladimir Moss' point. King Ethelbert is brought into the Roman world of the Emperor by his baptism. The dating is common - within the empire. I don't think Vladimir Moss is talking about some specific oath of allegiance but rather - and which seems reasonable - that by becoming a christian his relationship with the rest of christian Imperial europe changed.

I'm not going to argue about interpretations of this period of history - save to say that I find 80% of Vladimir Moss' position good. And I must say that Fr John Romanides also shared his opinions - or vice versa - and I understand Fr John better after having read Vladimir Moss.

Best wishes

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2004, 03:33:50 AM »

Edward died on the 5th of January 1066 "the Eve of Twelfthday" (AS Chron).  William was crowned king on Christmas Day 1066. This is not a year and a day.  The Julian Calender offset doesn't apply here either since there was no Gregorian Calender and wouldn't be for over 500 years.    It's simply wrong. But it is given in the document as an Important Point.


Yes there are errors like that I want to take up with him, but his chapter on the character of the Roman/Frankish Church wrt that of England is interesting - though I have other issues there.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2004, 12:52:18 PM »

Perhaps the whole conciliar thing would be best dealt with in a separate thread.

That's what I was trying to say when I posted in red (i.e., officially) on Monday.  Smiley
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2004, 05:14:29 PM »

Yes there are errors like that I want to take up with him, but his chapter on the character of the Roman/Frankish Church wrt that of England is interesting - though I have other issues there.

Well, the calendar error makes me question his historical interpretation greatly, because it isn't as if this mistake is hidden in the sources. The A-S chronicle is quite forthright about these dates, after all. (Also, in 1066 the Gregorian offset was half of what it is now, anyway.) It's that word "Orthodox" again. Really. After all, the whole thing relies on distinguishing those words "Orthodox" and "Catholic". I cannot escape the conclusion that the purpose of the whole inquiry is to try to recover a Christian England that is specifically not Catholic. Anglicans do it too. But the problems all arise out of trying to make this distinction in the proper historical context. When you try to do it politically, you have to go back before Whitby to do so; but when you try to do it doctrinally, the matter vanishes into a textual hole. I've seen no evidence that anyone in England-- or Normandy-- cared about the filioque.

The calendar error comes out of the same impetus. Orthodox vs. Catholic now tends to imply calendar difference. But then, it couldn't have, and even if you try to back things up, the dates still don't work out. My sense of all of these writings is that Mr. Moss writes as an apologist, and that it colors his perspective to the degree that I can't trust what he says.

« Last Edit: January 21, 2004, 05:19:28 PM by Keble » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2004, 06:21:40 PM »

[One problem with the Vladimir Moss work cited is that he does not give source citations.  The AS Chronicle is used,  but what are the others.]

I noticed this too.  Doesn't really make me take him seriously.

My question is why is it so important to discover whether pre-Conquest England was Orthodox or not?  Does this include Wales?  What about Northumbria?  Why don't we ask whether Scotland was Orthodox?

CR
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2004, 05:23:34 AM »

My question is why is it so important to discover whether pre-Conquest England was Orthodox or not?  Does this include Wales?  What about Northumbria?  Why don't we ask whether Scotland was Orthodox?


Well those of us in Britain and doing Orthodox evangelism DO consider that and DO consider that the churches in the British Isles were Orthodox.

Why do we do so? Because in our various missions we want to show that the faith and praxis we proclaim is close to that of the pre-Conquest churches in the British Isles - is is not alien.

And it seems a matter of fact that the praxis of the Orthodoxy Churches IS much, much closer to the early churches in the BI than even modern Roman Catholicism.

It is with missiological intent that we make this connection.

Anglicanism is not the same as the early churches. There are completely different practices and a different theology. Even Roman Catholicism has different practices and some different teachings. (I say this from my Orthodox perpective).

So what we are saying when we say that Britain was Orthodox is that what we are proclaiming is something that was here before. Why don't we say 'Catholic' in our evangelism, because we do not believe that Roman Catholicism is as close to the faith and praxis of the early churches. We are making a statement that our churches and those churches are the same, and for those of us who are British and Orthodox in a variety of communions, we believe that.

It is not a matter of romance, it is a matter of missionary endeavor.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #39 on: January 22, 2004, 07:17:27 AM »

What about Saint Edward the Martyr? His relics are now in an Orthodox Church and I have read descriptions of him as a proper saint. One Orthodox woman prayed to him for the healing of her unborn child - it worked. A man called Edward (from Bulgaria if I recall correctly) was about to be baptized but the priest wanted him to change his name, as it was "not Orthodox". Then he had a dream in which a young man in robes and a crown said "I am Edward, King of the English. You bear my name. Be baptized". He later saw something along the lines of a coin portrait of St. Edward and one or more details matched the vision.

I've also seen a fine ikon of the saint at St. Joseph of Arimathea English Language Orthodox (Old Calendarist) Church, Toronto.
Logged

NULL
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 22, 2004, 07:42:40 AM »

There are hundreds and hundreds of British/English saints. We have an icon of St Alban and a relic of his in my own Church. Those before the schism are Orthodox. We venerate them all in my church.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #41 on: January 22, 2004, 03:29:01 PM »

But this is Vladimir Moss' point. King Ethelbert is brought into the Roman world of the Emperor by his baptism. The dating is common - within the empire. I don't think Vladimir Moss is talking about some specific oath of allegiance but rather - and which seems reasonable - that by becoming a christian his relationship with the rest of christian Imperial europe changed.

I'm not going to argue about interpretations of this period of history - save to say that I find 80% of Vladimir Moss' position good. And I must say that Fr John Romanides also shared his opinions - or vice versa - and I understand Fr John better after having read Vladimir Moss.

Best wishes

Peter Theodore

It would seem to be Moss' theory that Ethelbert had this "relationship" but what does he use from historical primary sources to back it up?  Primary sources are those from the time and people, such as The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.  Secondary and tertiary sources are removed from them, for example Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Here is a link what make up the different sorts of sources: http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/LibraryGuides/primsrcs.shtml

One question is why you find Moss' position good? Why does it seem "reasonable" to you?  Sometimes people will find something they like or that agrees with a view and decide that it is true.  Unfortunately, it isn't always.  Just because someone says or publishes something doesn't make it true.

 Long ago, I read an book called "Scripture Twisting" that laid out the principles of how many people and cults take the Bible and make it seem to say things it doesn't.   Taking passages out of context; conflating passages that in reality have nothing to do with each other; applying private meanings to common words, reading poetic or symbolic passages are literal are just a few of the ways.  Or applying modern sensibilities and beliefs to historic figures and situations.

This practice also applies to other works, including History.  Therefore, before we can say that a historical figure did something or believed something, we have to find some primary data.  As Ronald Hutton (an English Scholar and historian) has pointed out, unless people in history *tell* us, we don't know for sure.  Artifacts are found in a marsh, were they left there as an offering?  Or dropped when someone died?  Or fell out of a boat?  Did Ethelbert believe that once he was baptized he was part of the Empire under Constantinople?  Does he or someone writing for him tell us?  
Why would that make him "Orthodox" as opposed to "Catholic" or just "Christian"?

With respect

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 22, 2004, 04:15:25 PM »

Why would that make him "Orthodox" as opposed to "Catholic" or just "Christian"?

With respect also Ebor, I'm trying not to be argumentative and I am much more interested in learning with and from you.

I must say that from my perspective as an Orthodox missionary Orthodox, Catholic and Christian are synonymous. (Without meaning or wishing to be thought to be making any judgement concerning any Christian communion)

For myself, I consider that when I was a protestant evangelical and neither Orthodox nor Catholic, I was also not wholly Christian. I was missing so very much.

All that you say about primary sources is completely true. I'm going to email Vladimir Moss and ask him about the 'year and a day'. I'm also not so bothered about trying to develop some Eastern Orthodox link. For me Orthodoxy IS Christianity and Christianity IS Orthodoxy. The early British Churches were Orthodox not Eastern Orthodox. They were Catholic not Roman Catholic. But I believe that Orthodoxy, outside of the ethnic enclaves and among the indiginous converts, is well able to express being British and Orthodox, in a real continuity with early British Christianity which was also Orthodox, in its own cultural context.

Roman Catholicism - I must say, without meaning or wishing to denigrate anyone - has a different theology and praxis in many respects to both the early insular churches and wider Orthodoxy.

That doesn't mean that traditional 'Orthodox Catholic' Roman Catholics should not also be able to say that the early churches were also Catholic. But they were not Roman Catholic, nor Anglican, nor Baptist, nor Methodist, not Plymouth Brethren. If we do a list of what they believed and how they lived then it seems to me to be fact that the list is closest to Orthodoxy and then to traditional Roman Catholicism (if that exists, I mean in relation to the Pope but not Papal in the modern sense).

With much respect, and seeking your patience

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #43 on: January 22, 2004, 04:54:12 PM »

[One problem with the Vladimir Moss work cited is that he does not give source citations.  The AS Chronicle is used,  but what are the others.]

I noticed this too.  Doesn't really make me take him seriously.

Another question is: is he qualified to write on this history?  There is an interview with him here:  http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/interviu.htm
in which he states that he has a First degree in philosophy and psychology and a doctorate in psychology.  Well, why would this make him a historian?  Sir Stephen Runciman is one who was qualified with a First in History and many works on the Byzantine Empire and the Crusades to his credit.  Him I would trust for careful study and analysis in this subject, but it wouldn't mean that he necessarily was expert in, say, astronomy.
For that it would have to be demonstrated that he knew the field.

Quote
My question is why is it so important to discover whether pre-Conquest England was Orthodox or not?  Does this include Wales?  What about Northumbria?  Why don't we ask whether Scotland was Orthodox?

CR

Well, I have theories on that and there's Keble's post.  But I don't want others to be offended, just because a theory of mine doesn't agree with theirs.  

Ebor
« Last Edit: January 22, 2004, 10:53:51 PM by Ebor » Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #44 on: January 22, 2004, 05:42:30 PM »

Addressing the "Death Bed Prophecy of Edward the Confessor":

I have done some research. There are 2 extant "Life of King Edward the Confessor" one by St. Aelred of Rivaux (1109-1166) and a later poetic one in Norman-French.  I do not personally have an edition of an English translation, though I expect that at trip to Enoch-Pratt Library or the University of Maryland with find a copy.  It is only available on line, that I have found, to people who are affiliated with the University of Sydney.  The latter can be found showing the 1250-1260 manuscript here:
http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/MSS/Ee.3.59/
It would take me a while to puzzle it out, having modern French, but the old script being difficult to modern readers, and I have not done so yet, since I plan to find the "Lives" in book form at some point, leaving the translating to trained scholars.  (But with the wonders of the Net, it's wonderful to actually see old manuscripts.  Smiley )

Now, I mention this because Moss has this "prophecy" in the work Subdn. Peter cited. To see it by itself look here:
http://www.russianorthodox-roac.com/5.html

But it can also be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm
about 2/3's of the way down the page.  

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a citation including which manuscript in the Bodlean Library it is and mentions in the text that it is from the earlier work.  Moss has no citation, nor does the ROAC site, so we don't know where it is from.  It could be from the Norman-French poetic "Life" but it seems clear that it is not from St. Aelred's work since the 2 quote are not the same.  Now, it could have been 2 different translations of one work, but  a) the provenence isn't stated and b) they don't say the same thing in that the 'year-and-a-day' prophecy is not in the quote from St. Aelred, among other things.

I put the 2 passages in columns to compare, btw.

Now Moss seems to hold this prophecy as Important.  But lacking good data, we do not know that his version is accurate.

I must stop for now.

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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 22, 2004, 05:43:42 PM »

I will ask him tomorrow by email and see if he will answer.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #46 on: January 22, 2004, 05:52:30 PM »

I am not trying to give you a hard time, Subdn. Peter.  I am trying to do good History, as I learnt from scholars I know, including one who holds a Doctorate in Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse.  And there are many cases of people making claims for history that aren't true.  The Mormon claim that American Indians were the 12 lost tribes of Israel, or I once heard a person claim that "3000 years ago, Pagans and Christians worshipped side by side".  Dates and places and real history matter.  Because Jesus wasn't some figure from an nebulous 'long ago'.  He came to a Place and a Time in History.

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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 22, 2004, 06:00:58 PM »

Don't worry, I don't believe in bad history at all, and to be honest I think that Vladimir Moss and I have different agendas even if we have an interest in the same period.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2004, 07:12:00 PM »

Something that occurred to me and I haven't been able to find out.  Subdn. Peter mentioned a Fr. John Romanides who  (I gather from what I found) either started, or his works are found at a site called "Romanity".  I tried to find a biography or what his qualifications are for writing about History, but I haven't been able to find a biography on line.  I gather that he wrote books, but what else is known?

Thanks

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.
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2004, 07:19:55 PM »

Father John S Romanides was a Great man.
His qualifications are Loyalty to Romiosini, Loyalty to Orthodox Traditionalism, Loyalty to resisting ecumenism.

Memory Eternal to him..
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2004, 08:33:00 PM »

Loyalty is an admirable thing.  But I wasn't asking about his personal virtues and attributes.  Was he a scholar of history?  If so, what period and what area?  Where was he educated?

Thank you.

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.
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2004, 08:38:06 PM »

He was
Byzantine-Tourkokratic Era
Greece, and Orthodox Near-East
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2004, 08:38:58 PM »

Father John S Romanides was a Great man.
His qualifications are Loyalty to Romiosini, Loyalty to Orthodox Traditionalism, Loyalty to resisting ecumenism.

I believe you may be listing his disqualifications.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2004, 08:39:44 PM by Keble » Logged
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #53 on: January 23, 2004, 08:49:15 PM »

Those are his Qualifications
I regard adherence to Romiosini to be a qualifier
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #54 on: January 23, 2004, 10:52:47 PM »

Pardon this westerner's ignorance but what is "Romiosini"?


Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #55 on: January 23, 2004, 11:03:27 PM »

I was wondering that myself, Carpo, and what I've found on a google says that it's "Hellenism in the Middle Ages".  I found this on Greece.org

Why that subject would make one knowledgeable of the Anglo-Saxons I do not know.

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #56 on: January 23, 2004, 11:11:49 PM »

I'm glad to see your post, CP. I was wondering if I had put readers of the thread into a coma with my dates and manuscript references and all. Grin
I know that many people do not find the Anglo-Saxons and Norse as fascinating as I do.

I'm been looking up more references btw.   Cheesy

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.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #57 on: January 23, 2004, 11:16:03 PM »

[Why that subject would make one knowledgeable of the Anglo-Saxons]

Oh come on Ebor.  We've seen that by the actions of St Augustine baptizing the Saxons they really came under the Emperor in New Rome.  It's obvious that in another article Dr R will point out that the Saxons are really Greeks.  Not only did their baptism bring them under the Emperor but also made them Greek.  I'm sure the AS Chronicle is best read in the original Greek.  Think of it if it wouldn't have been for William winning at Hastings then Saxons would be reputed as the best diners in the world.

CR
Logged
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #58 on: January 23, 2004, 11:24:07 PM »

Carpo,

I always knew Stonehenge was really the ruins of a Temple of Diana.  Cheesy

In Christ,
Anthony

[Why that subject would make one knowledgeable of the Anglo-Saxons]

Oh come on Ebor.  We've seen that by the actions of St Augustine baptizing the Saxons they really came under the Emperor in New Rome.  It's obvious that in another article Dr R will point out that the Saxons are really Greeks.  Not only did their baptism bring them under the Emperor but also made them Greek.  I'm sure the AS Chronicle is best read in the original Greek.  Think of it if it wouldn't have been for William winning at Hastings then Saxons would be reputed as the best diners in the world.

CR
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #59 on: January 23, 2004, 11:33:48 PM »

[Why that subject would make one knowledgeable of the Anglo-Saxons]

Oh come on Ebor.  We've seen that by the actions of St Augustine baptizing the Saxons they really came under the Emperor in New Rome.  It's obvious that in another article Dr R will point out that the Saxons are really Greeks.  Not only did their baptism bring them under the Emperor but also made them Greek.  I'm sure the AS Chronicle is best read in the original Greek.  Think of it if it wouldn't have been for William winning at Hastings then Saxons would be reputed as the best diners in the world.

CR
It's a good thing I wasn't drinking some coffee when I read that, or I might not have a working keyboard now!!! Cheesy  Have you ever read "Asterix in Great Britain"?  I ask because I'm wondering if those diners would serve souvlaki with mint sauce.... Grin

About a year and a half ago, on the EO newsgroup there was a chap who was maintaining that all european languages and culture were originally from Greece.  It was when he said that Chaucer was written in Old English. When he was told that it was in "Middle English" his responce was Oh right, like they would speak in Middle Earth!  (To quote Dave Barry "I swear I am not making this up.")  It was then pointed out that Middle Earth had its languages courtesy of Professor Tolkein.  But I digress.

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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 24, 2004, 06:10:00 AM »

I wouldn't have thought that one had to be a Dr of a particular period of history to be able to right an article about that period? There is a difference between writing about the use of the letter t in Middle English adjectival sentence constructions, and writing a more general historical article expressing theological points.

I think that Fr John Romanides of blessed memory was one of those folk who was genuinely gifted in many areas, and I wish I could have met him.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #61 on: January 24, 2004, 09:39:12 AM »

Those are his Qualifications
I regard adherence to Romiosini to be a qualifier

Well, it qualifies him as an apologist.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #62 on: January 24, 2004, 12:05:34 PM »

I wouldn't have thought that one had to be a Dr of a particular period of history to be able to right an article about that period? There is a difference between writing about the use of the letter t in Middle English adjectival sentence constructions, and writing a more general historical article expressing theological points.

I think that Fr John Romanides of blessed memory was one of those folk who was genuinely gifted in many areas, and I wish I could have met him.

PT

Anyone can write an article about anything if they are so inclined.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they understand the subject or are totally correct. William Shockley, a co-inventor of the transistor, was an expert in aspects of physics and electronics and won a Nobel Prize for his work in that field.  When he decided to hold forth on the subject of genetics and eugenics, he was, trying to be charitable, not anywhere near as knowledgeable, and was wrong.

(Interestingly enough, on the "Romanity" site are more works by Mr. Moss including ones on "Science" and "Genetics re the Antichrist" in which one of his cited sources is "Dr. Henry Morris" of the Creation Science Institute.  A cursory scan makes for dubious reading.)  

You know who this Fr. John Romanides was, apparently.  I do not. I have tried to find some information about him, but so far haven't found much. Being an expert on "Byzantine-Tourkokratic Era
Greece, and Orthodox Near-East" ( Huh "Tourkokratic"?  I gather this means Greece under the Ottomans/Turks, so does this mean his subject was Greece from roughly the 300's to the 1800's?) doesn't necessarily mean that his understanding of England in the same period is correct.

I am no doctor of history, nor have I ever claimed such.  But I try to back up my points with sources that others can read.  If the Bereans "searched the scriptures to see if these things were true" why should we not do the same for historical documentation to see if someone's theories have any basis?

Ebor
« Last Edit: January 24, 2004, 12:07:00 PM by 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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #63 on: January 24, 2004, 02:42:21 PM »

Father John Romanides is probably as well known and considered as Frs Meyendorff and Schmemann.

The Vladimir Moss material has turned up fairly recently on romanity. I don't know who runs it since Fr John Romanides died.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #64 on: January 24, 2004, 03:30:33 PM »

Pardon this westerner's ignorance but what is "Romiosini"?


Carpo-Rusyn


"The Romans"

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #65 on: January 24, 2004, 05:37:09 PM »

Father John Romanides is probably as well known and considered as Frs Meyendorff and Schmemann.

Well, I'm starting to google and there are many more web pages that mention Fr.s Meyendorff and Schmemman than Romanides, but I have found that he was American who was a professor in Greece.  

Quote
The Vladimir Moss material has turned up fairly recently on romanity. I don't know who runs it since Fr John Romanides died.

Well, that's a question then. Who is now running "Romanity"? and then Why put up all the Moss works?  People generally put up things that they like or agree with or that serve (to use your word) an agenda.  

This could take some slogging.  
Trying to stay on the thread subject,

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #66 on: January 24, 2004, 05:39:08 PM »

"The Romans"



But apparently not "Romans" as in Augustus Ceasar, the Legions, the Eternal City etc, but Hellenism...

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.
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #67 on: January 24, 2004, 05:49:35 PM »

Quote
Ebor: I know that many people do not find the Anglo-Saxons and Norse as fascinating as I do.

I am sure that I do.

I just never concerned myself with the ecclesiastical aspects of their history, so in that area I am not qualified to say much.

I have always been more interested in the Germanic peoples before they got themselves baptized than afterwards.

Anyway, I do share your interest in the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse and find your posts very interesting.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #68 on: January 24, 2004, 06:32:11 PM »

Thank you, Linus. That is very kind of you to say and I appreciate it.

I hold that it is important to learn of history as it was (to the best of our abilities) and not take bits and make them say what suits a personal view or belief.  There's too much of that, particularly in trying to support political or religious views.  I've been looking over a 'popular' book, that seems to have been driving by the "DaViinci Code" (Which some people don't seem to get is *Fiction*) that is a morass of names and dates and happenings.  It says (to give an example) that Joseph of Arimathea had a daughter who came to England and married "Bran the Blessed".   In Welsh legend Bran is the son of Mannannan mac Lir, the sea god.  

The point of the book is the "blood line" of Jesus and His descendents and how the nasty patriarchal church has tried to stop it all.   I state here that *I* do not believe any of this.  A friend and I are analyzing the book in order to explain how it's Bad History and wrong to some others who apparently are amazed by it.  *SIGH*

Anyway.  Thanks for the encouragement and I'll try to not lose my head entirely and start off on lengthy discourses on Bede or the "Heimskringla" (though if you want to know about St. Olaf winning a dice game, it's a great story and a friend made a song about it.  Smiley )

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #69 on: January 24, 2004, 07:15:20 PM »

["The Romans"]

Ah so that's what that means.  I must've missed that in my copy of Caesar's "Commentaries".  I shall inform the Vatican.  Would everyone on this forum please refer to the Church previously known as the Roman Catholic Church as the Romiosinian Catholic Church.  We'll work on getting the stationary changed.  What wan't this in Shakespeare (probably another secret Greek)  "Oh Romiosini, Romiosini wherefore art thou Romiosini?"

Thank You

CR
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #70 on: January 24, 2004, 07:44:08 PM »

["The Romans"]

Ah so that's what that means.  I must've missed that in my copy of Caesar's "Commentaries".  I shall inform the Vatican.  Would everyone on this forum please refer to the Church previously known as the Roman Catholic Church as the Romiosinian Catholic Church.  We'll work on getting the stationary changed.  What wan't this in Shakespeare (probably another secret Greek)  "Oh Romiosini, Romiosini wherefore art thou Romiosini?"

Thank You

CR


Is that like Abyssinian?

What about the Russinians and the Bulgarinians?  Cool
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #71 on: January 26, 2004, 01:41:37 PM »

["The Romans"]

Ah so that's what that means.  I must've missed that in my copy of Caesar's "Commentaries".  I shall inform the Vatican.  Would everyone on this forum please refer to the Church previously known as the Roman Catholic Church as the Romiosinian Catholic Church.  We'll work on getting the stationary changed.  What wan't this in Shakespeare (probably another secret Greek)  "Oh Romiosini, Romiosini wherefore art thou Romiosini?"

Thank You

CR


You Know the Orthodox Church is the Roman Catholic Church.
The Followers of the Pope of Rome can call tehmselves.."The Vatican Religion".

The Word Roman now belongs to the Greeks, as Romaioi, Romaiikos, and as Romiosini..

Thank You
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #72 on: January 26, 2004, 02:01:03 PM »

The Word Roman now belongs to the Greeks, as Romaioi, Romaiikos, and as Romiosini..

And I own the Brooklyn Bridge.
Logged
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #73 on: January 26, 2004, 02:08:27 PM »

You can have it the Bridge.
Let the Greeks have Roman.
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #74 on: January 26, 2004, 03:16:38 PM »

Oh good grief, not this again...
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #75 on: January 26, 2004, 03:33:20 PM »

What bearing does being truly Roman have to to with Christianity, Orthodox or otherwise? The Roman Empire is gone and most likely won't come back any time soon. Besides, I always thought Romans were people who actually lived in the city of Rome.

In Christ,
Anthony
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #76 on: January 26, 2004, 03:46:43 PM »

Oh good grief, not this again...

You've seen this before, Mor?  Googling over the weekend was the first time I'd come across "Romans are really Greek".  

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.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #77 on: January 26, 2004, 04:09:33 PM »

I've heard the argument before, even in a class I took on the history of the Byzantine Empire.  I don't have a problem with saying that "Romans are really Greek", understood in the right context, since the Greeks in the Eastern Roman Empire didn't consider themselves any less "Roman" than actual Romans (acc. to my professor).  I just have a problem when people say stuff like "The (Eastern) Orthodox Church is the real Roman Catholic Church".  Who cares?  It only makes things more confusing.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #78 on: January 26, 2004, 04:35:58 PM »

But apparently not "Romans" as in Augustus Ceasar, the Legions, the Eternal City etc, but Hellenism...

Ebor
Ebor, my friend, you've read too much Gibbon Cheesy who blithely dismisses about 1000 years of Roman Imperial history by virtually ignoring Constantinople. My read of Fr Romanides history says he's on the right(er) track, but he may overshoot the  reality as well. "Hellenism" began long before the coming of Christ and was the result of Alexander the Great's campaign to merge the cultures (Greek and eastern) in his new empire. Thus was born Koine Greek. As much as the citizens of the modern state of Hellas wish to connect with classical Homeric "Greeks", they truly view themselves with justification as decendents of the Roman Empire. There were more Greek speakers in the early Roman Empire than Latin-speakers outright. Once the capital was moved to New Rome, the Hellenized locals of course used Greek as their language. Latin was basically used for legal documents and the senate's business.
In fact, the only real criteria for Roman citizenship in the east was 1) be  a Greek speaker and 2) profess faith in the "orthodox Catholic Church".
I can dig up some non-Orthodox and non-Roman Catholic (in other words, secular) histories if you would like.
If you mean "Roman" as only the Rome of the Caesars, well, despite being a big city, Rome was pretty small comparatively speaking.

{Warning: this post probably contains numerous typos which can't be edited}

Demetri
Logged

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

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #79 on: January 26, 2004, 04:36:33 PM »

This must have been inspired by this short manifesto:

"Laying claim on the Phanar since 9 December 2003!" Tongue

AmdG
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #80 on: January 26, 2004, 05:23:42 PM »

[The Word Roman now belongs to the Greeks, as Romaioi, Romaiikos, and as Romiosini.]

Was there a coup while I was at work?  The Greeks have hijacked the word Roman!!!!  But that's ok though because following recent logic as regards the baptism of Ethelbert the current Pope is Greek as am I (whose family tree is planted in Ireland) and all RC's.  

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #81 on: January 26, 2004, 05:28:48 PM »

Well I don't know about hijacking it, but I thought that in the Middle East the EO's were known as Rum Orthodox, and always have been since the 6th/7th centuries.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #82 on: January 26, 2004, 05:30:52 PM »

SbDn
I think my post was more in the nature of poking fun at the previous post that seemed to claim exclusive rights to the appelation "Roman"

CR
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #83 on: January 26, 2004, 05:33:51 PM »

I'm a bit slow. You need to use the <joke></joke> and <irony></irony> tags for my benefit. Smiley
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #84 on: January 27, 2004, 01:10:15 PM »

Well I don't know about hijacking it, but I thought that in the Middle East the EO's were known as Rum Orthodox, and always have been since the 6th/7th centuries.

And still are.  Their Catholic counterparts are called Rum Katoleek, literally Roman Catholic (except in the preferred English translation 'Greek Catholic'), with Rome designating Constantinople rather than the Pope's See.  Roman Catholics (as we understand the word in English) are called Lateen (Latins).  The understanding of Roman as Byzantine supercedes the standard titles accepted in the Western world.  In Arabic historical films, the Byzantines and their armies are always referred to as Rum.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 27, 2004, 04:55:35 PM »

Exactly, therefore it is not merely a form of linguistic hijacking to say that Byzantine Orthodox is Roman.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ByzantineSerb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


OC.net


« Reply #86 on: January 27, 2004, 05:17:30 PM »

are called Rum Katoleek, literally Roman Catholic...


   With the word "Rum" their, I almost assumed we were talking of the French and Irish Catholics.
Logged

If we live as people of God, there will be room for all nations in the Balkans and in the world. If we liken ourselves to Cain who killed his brother Abel, then the entire earth will be too small even for two people. The Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to be
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #87 on: January 27, 2004, 05:33:43 PM »

Exactly, therefore it is not merely a form of linguistic hijacking to say that Byzantine Orthodox is Roman.

On the other hand, it would seem to be a form of liguistic hijacking to say that *only* Byzantine Orthodox was/is Roman, or to claim that the Western Empire somehow was not or the assertion that true Romans were only in the East and the West was taken over by "Latin-Franks".

There seems to a cache to the name "Rome", considering that I have read that there are some who would claim Moscow as "The Third Rome".  

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #88 on: January 27, 2004, 05:38:44 PM »

Ebor, my friend, you've read too much Gibbon Cheesy who blithely dismisses about 1000 years of Roman Imperial history by virtually ignoring Constantinople.

Actually, I have never completed Gibbon.  He's rather dated in some of his views.  Smiley  I read more modern works of history.  If you would wish to recommend any, I thank you.  But it's possible I've read some of them.

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #89 on: January 27, 2004, 05:51:46 PM »

Well I don't know about hijacking it, but I thought that in the Middle East the EO's were known as Rum Orthodox, and always have been since the 6th/7th centuries.

I have read several places, including the writings of a person whose father was from Greek stock in Turkey, that the the appellation "Rum" came from the "millet" system in which the Islamic conquerors catagorized the populace into "millets" or "nations" based on religion. So it was "Rum Millet".  I have also read a bit of Bulgarians saying that they were classed as "Rum Millet" or the "Greek People".  Not knowing great details of Bulgarian political history, I merely mention this as another data point.

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #90 on: January 27, 2004, 05:55:09 PM »

Here is a pdf article that relates:
http://www.syndesmos.org/en/texts/files/Text_51_Diaspora_Efthimiou.pdf
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.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #91 on: January 27, 2004, 06:04:13 PM »

[With the word "Rum" their, I almost assumed we were talking of the French and Irish Catholics. ]

We're not? Grin

[Rum Katoleek]

I think with the mention of "leek" we're bringing in the Welsh as well.  Of course they were probably Orthodox post 1054 as well, not coming under the Norman sway until maybe Henry II.

I'm still trying to get over the fact that Ebor hasn't finished Gibbon!   Wink

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #92 on: January 27, 2004, 06:19:45 PM »

SbDn
I think my post was more in the nature of poking fun at the previous post that seemed to claim exclusive rights to the appelation "Roman"

CR

I'd rather apply Latin with the Vatican Religion.
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #93 on: January 27, 2004, 06:43:47 PM »

There seems to a cache to the name "Rome", considering that I have read that there are some who would claim Moscow as "The Third Rome".  

I don't know about cache but Rome does stand for much more than a city in Italy.

The British people were proud to consider themselves Roman, not because many of them expected to visit Rome or the East, though some did, but because to be Roman meant to be civilised.

I agree that it is error to consider only the Eastern Empire Roman.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #94 on: January 27, 2004, 07:39:43 PM »


I'm still trying to get over the fact that Ebor hasn't finished Gibbon!   Wink

Carpo-Rusyn

<innocent look on> But why read Gibbon when there's Suetonius and Tacitus and Polybius?  Gibbon is a secondary source. <innocent look off>
 Grin Grin Grin

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #95 on: January 28, 2004, 03:37:20 PM »

I don't know about cache but Rome does stand for much more than a city in Italy.

The British people were proud to consider themselves Roman, not because many of them expected to visit Rome or the East, though some did, but because to be Roman meant to be civilised.

I agree that it is error to consider only the Eastern Empire Roman.

I meant to write "cachet", sorry.  Anyway, Rome was more then one city, it was the heart and rulling seat of the Empire.  In the "Acts" St. Paul, as a Roman Citizen, appeals and goes to his trial in Rome.

I would say that perhaps *some* British people may have been proud to consider themselves Roman, depending on when and where in the roughly 400 years of Roman influence.  Such notables as Caratacus and Boudicca come to mind as not been keen on the idea of Roman Rule, just for starters. There was much warfare with the various tribes of southern England.  Then there were those northern tribes against whom Hadrians Wall was started in 122 A.D. The Romans were not simply greeted with open arms and peaceful agreements by the British tribes (who were eventually subdued by combat)

Considering that the history of Roman interaction runs from 55 B. C. when Julius Ceasar tried to invade the first time to 410 or 418 A.D.(the latter date being the one in the AS chronicle) when Rome withdrew, most of that time there was no Constantinople or Eastern vs Western Empire.  Here are a couple of timelines of Romano-British highlights:
http://www.britannia.com/history/romantime.html
http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/his_timeline_roman_britain.htm

Thank you for your last sentence.  It was seeming as though that were the case, that only the eastern empire was Roman.

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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #96 on: January 28, 2004, 03:48:49 PM »

I think that it is fairly conclusive that the British educated and noble class did consider themselves Roman. They took Roman names, set up monuments in latin and in the period after 410 still considered themselves Roman, and were indeed that last free Western Romans. They supported several emperors of their own after all.

The landscape around me where I am writing is dotted with the remains of romanised estates deriving from pre-Roman Iron-Age estates where nobles and kings settled down to a Roman way of life. Just a few hundred yards from where I work is one of the largest villa complexes in Britain, certainly the estate of a king of some sort, and indeed the settlement later became the regional centre for West Kent, even though it is only a small village now.

After the legions had left Romanitas continued. St Illtud's monastery provided a full classical education, St Columbanus writes in the best Latin, even St Patrick writes Latin despite his education having been cut short.

There are pilgrim flasks deposited in 5th-6th century sites from the great centre of Aba Mena in the Egyptian desert. The British got around and were not parochial by any means.

As Ken Dark, Charles Thomas and many others show, Romanitas didn't end in 410, and its continuance shows that despite economic collapse after 410 the British did their best to keep up appearances. Think of Ambrosius Aurelianus, think of all the crosses and monuments with Latin inscriptions and with 5th century figures maintaining the appearance of participating in a civil society. Even Wroxeter with many buildings being constructed after the legions had left, certainly not in the same style as in the height of the empire, but still consciously trying to be Roman and civilised.

The West, like the East, exhibited a variety of means of being Roman - which surely means civilised as much as anything else.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #97 on: January 28, 2004, 05:21:31 PM »

I'm not in much of a position to argue about 400 AD. But it's a very long way from there to 1054 AD. In particular, I see two problems:

First, the mission of St. Augustine of Canterbury is for all intents an admission of a lack of Roman survival. His mission, after all, was one of conversion in the end. And the other influence, the Celtic church, transformed the faith quite radically-- not in matters of doctrine, but in matters of practice. The Saxon church fused these two elements, and while (presumably) orthodox in doctrine at first, its connections were back to Rome, or were local; and its language always was Latin.

Second, the whole development of the 1054 crisis reveals not one Rome, but two. It shows two ecclesiastical principalities, not one; 1054 formalized in doctrine what was already a reality in every other aspect.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #98 on: January 28, 2004, 05:22:32 PM »

The Roman Ruins and acheology in England are indeed wonderful and abundant.  After the conquest of the British tribes there were many towns and roads and villas and romanized names. St. Patrick himself was of British-Roman stock, for example, "Patricius". I do not deny any of the record of that. The Roman names are Latin related. St. Patrick, as you wrote, wrote in Latin.  Not Greek.  

It has not been proven however (to get back to an assertion some time ago) that when Ethelbert became a Christian he somehow looked upon himself as a subject of an Emperor in Constantinople or in anyway Greek influenced.

But the "Romanitas/Romanity" that has been mentioned before via Fr. Romanides is that it's Hellenism and that the "Latin-Franks" took over the West. It would seem that there were many ways to be Romans, as there were many ways to be practicing believing Christians, not just Eastern or with the name "Orthodox".

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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #99 on: January 28, 2004, 05:45:55 PM »

I disagree with Keble to the extent that he is only talking about those parts of Britain which came under Anglo-Saxon domination. St Columbanus, that most Latin of Irish, was writing and chastising Popes while the pagan Anglo-Saxons feasted in the East of Britain.

But I mostly agree with you. There were different ways to be Roman. I do think that Ethelberht was aware of the Eastern Emperor, we have many Byzantine or Coptic bowls found in high status burials for instance, and many coins are attempts at some representation of Eastern coins. But that doesn't mean that Ethelberht was in any sense in a real relationship with a real Emperor. If anything, and I mean 'if', then his conversion was a means of becoming part of Romanitas which in a very tenuous sense meant part of the great European Empire which looked vaguely Romewards and even more vaguely towards Constantinople.

Certainly no Greek content to his new Christian relationship with the thought of Empire, although some Irish did indeed know some Greek, nor any sense of being Orthodox rather than Catholic. It was St Gregory after all who wrote to him. But if Orthodoxy and Catholicity mean Christian, as they do to me, I refuse to allow them to be used as denominational tags, then he was both Orthodox and Catholic, and he is indeed venerated by all as a saint.

I do think that there is some substance to Fr John Romanides argument, but it seems to me to be dealing with a somewhat later period than that of St Gregory. He was hardly a Frank or Frank-Controlled. He was one of the great Roman Patrician figures surely.

I think Fr John is arguing that the Romanitas which all Western and Byzantine Christians were part of was slowly corrupted in the West by the Franks. Not that it had not always included the West but that under the Franks the very nature of culture and society changed. I'm not necessarily arguing that, but I think that is his point. And therefore that those areas of the West that resisted the Frankish attitudes (and we need not say that since Liudhard and Bertha were Franks this means that Ethelbert was Frankicised) to the Church and society in which the church became merely an agent of the secular power were those which perpetuated the spirit of Romanitas the longest.

I am sure that we don't actually disagree. I am neither a Hellenophile nor a Hellophobe.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #100 on: January 28, 2004, 05:55:58 PM »

If you'll forgive an abrupt interjection, with all this talk of Rome, maybe now is the time to start an Asterix thread.  Asterix in Brittania, anyone?

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #101 on: January 28, 2004, 06:02:44 PM »

I'm game. I have all the Asterix books.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #102 on: January 28, 2004, 06:27:39 PM »

Excellent Idea! We have the Asterix books and some of the films, including "Asterix in Britain"  "Boar, in mint sauce?  poor thing"  "May I have a spot of milk in my hot water?"  Grin But would it go in reviews or "Other"?

I'll get to the rest of your post Subdn. Peter, later, if it's all right. Family and dinner are coming due... with the attendant chaos.

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.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #103 on: January 28, 2004, 06:41:58 PM »

I disagree with Keble to the extent that he is only talking about those parts of Britain which came under Anglo-Saxon domination. St Columbanus, that most Latin of Irish, was writing and chastising Popes while the pagan Anglo-Saxons feasted in the East of Britain.

I'm not sure what parts of Britain we're talking about as being the exceptions. In Northumbria, the issue of evolution is if anything even more pronounced.

Quote
But I mostly agree with you. There were different ways to be Roman.

But I think it is statements like this that are precisely where we get into trouble. It seems to me that these differences of way contain within them the precise differences in personal identity which we, in this age, would see as the more primary taxonomy. Consider our old buddies, the Varangian Guard. Reading the sagas, there's no trace of any religious motivation at all. Joining the guard is a pretty good way to increase one's standing and one's wealth, and the point is to bring both home. And there's clearly a sense of Constantinople as a foreign place; they specifically do not think of either it or Rome as the center of the people in which they dwell. Both are important foreign powers, but both are foreign.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #104 on: February 06, 2004, 11:34:04 AM »

I'm not trying to be a pest, Subdn. Peter.  This topic has been pretty quiet for a week. Has there been any word from Mr. Vladimir Moss?

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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #105 on: February 06, 2004, 12:15:50 PM »

Sorry, I hadn't contacted him since we seemed to doubt his competency.

Would you summarise the questions we might want to ask and I'll contact him

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #106 on: February 06, 2004, 05:17:22 PM »

I beg your pardon, Subdn. Peter.  I was labouring under the impression that you had written to Mr. Moss and was wondering if he had not answered. I just re-read the whole thread and that was from January 22nd section.

I be plainly state that *I* doubt Mr. Moss' competancy in this area as it has not been demonstrated that he is qualified or understands the subject.  I have found places where he has made errors and bases his arguement upon them, such as the "year and a day" bit of the prophecy that is supposed to show how it is a true saying and that The Conquest was Orthodox (to my reading Mr. Moss very much means Orthodox as it is used now as in referring to EO) with Evil Roman Catholics beating down the Saxons for religious reasons.

However, because *I* doubt doesn't mean that others shouldn't seek for clarification, if desired.  If, otoh, our discussions have caused you to doubt Mr. Moss' writings it may not be necessary.  But earlier you wrote that you found some of them to be good.  What parts were those and what seemed good to you, if I may ask?

Then again, when building on a historical framework, a writer may use some real solid facts as underpinnings to put an unusual, not to say, wrong, theory forth.  I've seem a number of those in my time. Erick von Danikin and his "Chariots of the Gods" used some real archeology, for example.  Or the book I mentioned above about the "bloodline of Jesus" that cites the Scriptures, but then has Joseph of Arimathea's daughter marrying "Bran the Blessed".  

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #107 on: February 06, 2004, 05:19:01 PM »

ACK!  The first line of the second paragraph should read:

"I will plainly state..."

I really haven't lost all command of my grammar...

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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #108 on: February 06, 2004, 05:52:30 PM »

I think that I do find the concept that the Churches in the British Isles before the Conquest were Orthodox Catholic - that is not Eastern Orthodox at all and not Roman Catholic in the medieval and post-Trent sense - to be true. If I go through the faith and praxis of the pre-Conquest Churches it seems to me to be consonant with what I believe and much of what I practice as an Orthodox who is aware of the difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy.

On the other hand, though I believe that concept to be very useful for my evangelistic efforts I do not believe in any sort of direct continuity through the last thousand years. There is no secret Celtic Apostolic Succession as some of my loonier friends seem to think.

I felt that Vladimir Moss went too far with too little evidence on quite a few occasions. He was writing with an end in view which often took over, rather than allowing primary sources to speak for themselves. Since I have read other sources which criticise King Edward and consider him the weak link which brought disaster on the kingdom I was rather confused that he venerated King Edward. I am also rather doubtful of the prophecies that are mentioned.

Since I'm interested in the development of Western Orthodoxy and the COP has never put pressure on the BOC to become ethnically Eastern I find the idea that Britain was Western Orthodox to be important and true. I could list all the praxis of the British Churches and it would have many matters in common with the rest of Western Orthodoxy and with Eastern Orthodoxy. I guess if the RCC was more traditional in the sense I mean here then there would be a clear connection with the insular Churches and the modern RCC. I'm thinking of monasticism, fasting, spirituality, saints, sacraments, traditional theology etc etc.

I never mean that the British Churches were Eastern Orthodox. I fully accept that Vladimir Moss might, or might come over that way.

I do mean that by being Western Orthodox I think that this brings a real spiritual, experiential (to an extent) connection with the early churches. I think this would be true also of traditional RC's but I don't know how RCC is constructed nowadays.

I am sure that we agree but it's hard to communicate everything in a post.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #109 on: February 07, 2004, 07:20:56 PM »

I will have a longer post later, but I just found this on the Indiana List with the message heading of "Tomb of Orthodox English King Discovered"  
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=487950

<I looked for an emoticon of banging ones head against a wall but couldn't find one>

The article itself does not use the word "Orthodox".  That is given to it by the IL poster.  The tomb is referred to as that of an "Anglo-Saxon king".  But since he died somewhere before 700 the poster claims him as an "Orthodox English King" and I do not think that the poster is using in the same way that Subdn. Peter is.  but as in EO as opposed to RC.

This sort of thing is starting to pop up more.  A number of Vladimir Moss' writings are on this ROAC site: http://www.russianorthodox-roac.com/Articles.html  including the "Deathbed Prophecy". And not enough people now Anglo-Saxon history to see the errors.  

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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #110 on: February 09, 2004, 05:41:53 AM »

Let me just put it on record again, I don't think that the AS Church was EO, or OO or RC.

But since I do think that the EO and OO have preserved the content of the traditional faith in a way that I can't consider the RC to have done means that I consider the AS Church to be substantially Orthodox Catholic wthout being EO or OO.

Any perversion of history is to be deprecated.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #111 on: June 13, 2005, 06:47:22 PM »

Well, I'm going to resurrect this old topic.

We've recently discussed "Western Orthodoxy" and I wanted to discuss a few things.

Harold Godwinson is listed as a martyr by the Russian Orthodox Church with October 14th being his feast day.  I'm not going to discuss that decision, but it was made. 

As most know, his illegitimate daughter, Gytha of Wessex, was married to Vladimir Manomakh.  I was reading a book of medieval Russian literature and their was a brief discussion about many of Harold's family fleeing to Kyiv.  It was also mentioned that certain of their children married into various Latin families.  There isn't any discussion of religious conflict, requirements of conversion, etc.  It is also mentioned the Gytha may have gone along on the First Crusade.  I'm not sure if that's even possible, but that's what was said.

Kiev/Kyiv was an extremely important city at the time and there were many marriages between "Western" Christians and Eastern ones without any apparent hoopla.  One kid marries some Frenchy and another a Greek. 

In my mind this brings about a few questions.  When did the schism actually affect people's daily worship?  Should this affect the way we look at the Western Rites?
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2005, 07:32:28 PM »

The big question is: when did people find out the schism actually took place? I mean, they didn't have the internet or nothing. So should the Orthodox reject such Catholic saints such as St. Edward the Confessor (1004-1066 AD)?... wait, that's not a great example as he wasn't such a great guy (probably as good as Constantine, though). How about St. Margaret of Scotland? etc.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,441


« Reply #113 on: June 13, 2005, 07:41:32 PM »

Just a btw, but I went to a Chanticleer concert Friday evening in Berkeley which was called Hildegard: a Measure of joy.  It was a fictional canonization of Hildegard von Bingen with some of her music as well as others.  It was awesome!  I also picked up a Hildegard Anonymous 4 album and another Anonymous 4 album that featured love songs from the 13th Century Codex before the concert at a record store down the street.  Simply beautiful.  The West really had some great treasures - still for a few hundred years post schism.  It's a shame how much they digressed.

Another aside - I think there was a rood screen in the Episcopal church where the concert was held.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #114 on: June 17, 2005, 08:43:25 AM »

Well, I'm going to resurrect this old topic.

We've recently discussed "Western Orthodoxy" and I wanted to discuss a few things.

Harold Godwinson is listed as a martyr by the Russian Orthodox Church with October 14th being his feast day.ÂÂ  I'm not going to discuss that decision, but it was made.ÂÂ

I've seen only one or two references to that in the past. One was a Ukrainian site. Another was supposed to be on a calendar, but I've never seen it, someone on a list mentioned it.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Do you recall which Russian Orthodox church is listing Harald Godwinson?
 
Quote
As most know, his illegitimate daughter, Gytha of Wessex, was married to Vladimir Manomakh.ÂÂ  I was reading a book of medieval Russian literature and their was a brief discussion about many of Harold's family fleeing to Kyiv.ÂÂ  It was also mentioned that certain of their children married into various Latin families.ÂÂ  There isn't any discussion of religious conflict, requirements of conversion, etc.ÂÂ  It is also mentioned the Gytha may have gone along on the First Crusade.ÂÂ  I'm not sure if that's even possible, but that's what was said.

Interesting.ÂÂ  Do you remember the title of the book?ÂÂ  Regarding marrying other families: Royal and noble familes tend to marry each other for alliances, land and the like.  There is a term "Morganatic" for the marriage of a Royal or Noble person and one from a lower class.  The offspring of those unions would not generally inherit any titles or lands
http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/M0422100.html

Perhaps the royals and nobles mostly went about their usual business and weren't following the doings of the patriarchs and anathemas much.ÂÂ  (Then again, news also traveled more slowly then today, when the Net can send some piece of information around the world in moments.ÂÂ  Wink )

Quote
Kiev/Kyiv was an extremely important city at the time and there were many marriages between "Western" Christians and Eastern ones without any apparent hoopla.ÂÂ  One kid marries some Frenchy and another a Greek.ÂÂ  

Marrying in one's own ranks were important for politics and inheritance.  Here's an example of Royal/Noble marriages from the children and grandchildren of Queen Victoria:
http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/~saw/royal/r01.html


Quote
In my mind this brings about a few questions.ÂÂ  When did the schism actually affect people's daily worship?ÂÂ  Should this affect the way we look at the Western Rites?

Well, since there were already different rites for worship before 1054, probably people mostly just did what they had always done.ÂÂ  

Just some thoughts.  I hope they aren't too disjointed.  Smiley


Ebor
« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 08:50:41 AM by 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.
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #115 on: June 17, 2005, 10:20:39 AM »

Ebor,

Not at all.  It just seems strange to me that these folks, some of whom wrote and wrote about Church business, don't discuss problems with going from one tradition to the next.  I am quite certain that their were problems.  I'm just wondering if some of these mariages had an effect on the sensibilities of other churches. 

For instance, I know that Ukrainian Orthodox churches tend to have adopted and transformed certain Western practices.  To be sure, this wouldn't be the only factor, but it would seem that it is possible that these exchanges occurred quite early in the Christianization of Eastern Slavs.

I'm also wondering, and I'm sure someone here has to have something on it, what discussions the East had concerning the liturgies in the West, excluding issues surrounding the filioque.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #116 on: June 17, 2005, 10:23:37 AM »

Sorry, the book is Medieval Russia's epics, chronicals and tales edited by Serge A Zenkovsky and published by Meridian.

This is the revised and enlarged edition from 1974.  I'm sure something new has come out since the 1990s.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #117 on: June 17, 2005, 11:05:22 AM »

Cizinec,

Thank you for the title.  I'm wondering if I have that one in my shelves. (of which there are a good number.  I attract books the way magnets pick up iron filings it seems Cheesy )  I shall have to check.

Those are some interesting thoughts.  It also could be that the securing of alliances and politics were more ummm occupying their attention and they left more church things to the clerics.  Ivan IV of Russia ("The Terrible" though I know that's not an exact translatoin of the sobriquet) worked on having cordial relations with England during the reign of Elizabeth I and I have seen references to him proposing marriage either to the Queen herself or one of her ladies.  I'll have to dig that up if you want.   That was in the mid 1500's.

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #118 on: June 17, 2005, 12:38:38 PM »

Just a btw, but I went to a Chanticleer concert Friday evening in Berkeley which was called Hildegard: a Measure of joy.  It was a fictional canonization of Hildegard von Bingen with some of her music as well as others.  It was awesome!  I also picked up a Hildegard Anonymous 4 album and another Anonymous 4 album that featured love songs from the 13th Century Codex before the concert at a record store down the street.  Simply beautiful.  The West really had some great treasures - still for a few hundred years post schism.  It's a shame how much they digressed.

Another aside - I think there was a rood screen in the Episcopal church where the concert was held.

There are some wonderful things in the Western Church aren't there?  Smiley

Re the Rood Screen-  What church was the concert held in?  Maybe they have a web site with pictures. Just remember that Rood Screens are the same as Iconostases per developement or function.  Wink

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #119 on: June 17, 2005, 12:40:34 PM »

I'm also wondering, and I'm sure someone here has to have something on it, what discussions the East had concerning the liturgies in the West, excluding issues surrounding the filioque.

It just occurred to me that maybe Dix writes about that in The Shape of the Liturgy.  We have a copy of that around here somewhere.  I'll try to remember to look for it.

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.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,441


« Reply #120 on: June 17, 2005, 01:20:21 PM »

There are some wonderful things in the Western Church aren't there?ÂÂ  Smiley

Re the Rood Screen-ÂÂ  What church was the concert held in?ÂÂ  Maybe they have a web site with pictures. Just remember that Rood Screens are the same as Iconostases per developement or function.ÂÂ  Wink

Ebor

Rood Screen:  Look in the back
http://stmarksberkeley.org/music/choir.jpg

http://www.stmarksberkeley.org/
Logged
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #121 on: June 17, 2005, 02:56:30 PM »

Harold Godwinson is listed as a martyr by the Russian Orthodox Church with October 14th being his feast day. I'm not going to discuss that decision, but it was made.

The St. Herman Calendar, published by the St. Herman of Alaska Serbian Orthodox Monastery in Platina, CA, does not list King Harold II among the saints commemorated at October 14th. Fr. Andrew Phillips' website Orthodox England also does not mention King Harold as a saint. (Fr Andrew belongs to ROCOR.) Both sources are known by their efforts in promoting the veneration of Western pre-Schism saints. Does anyone know if King Harold II was indeed glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church (the Moscow Patriarchate, I presume)? There is an interesting discussion about this subject in an OrthodoxWiki article, written by Rdr. Andrew Damick, a seminarian at St. Tikhon. He says that this alleged glorification is undocumented.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,424



« Reply #122 on: June 18, 2005, 01:10:22 AM »

I'm curious about that myself, Felip.  Just *which* Russian church is supposed to have proclaimed Haraldr Godwinson a saint?  Vladimir Moss seems to be a chief promoter of Haraldr Godwinson as somehow religiously driven, but that's not the Haraldr that is written of in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.  He and his brother Tosti, just for starters clashed over power and lands not religion.  Earl Godwin and his sons were not a very peaceful family  Wink

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.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.313 seconds with 150 queries.