Western post-1054 Orthodoxy

[Ebor]

Here is a pdf article that relates:
http://www.syndesmos.org/en/texts/files/Text_51_Diaspora_Efthimiou.pdf

[carpo-rusyn]

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

We're not?

[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!  

Carpo-Rusyn

[sdcheung]

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.

[Father Peter]

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.

[Ebor]

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

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>
 

Ebor

[Ebor]

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

[Father Peter]

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.

[Keble]

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.

[Ebor]

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

[Father Peter]

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

[SamB]

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

[Father Peter]

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

[Ebor]

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?"   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

[Keble]

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.

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.

[Ebor]

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

[Father Peter]

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

[Ebor]

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

[Ebor]

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

[Father Peter]

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

[Ebor]

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

[Father Peter]

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

[cizinec]

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?

[SeanMc]

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.

[Elisha]

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.

[Ebor]

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?
 

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   )

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

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. 


Ebor

[cizinec]

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.

[cizinec]

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.

[Ebor]

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 )  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

[Ebor]

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? 

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. 

Ebor

[Ebor]

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

[Elisha]

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

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  

Ebor

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

http://www.stmarksberkeley.org/

[Felipe Ortiz]

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.

[Ebor]

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 

Ebor

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Western post-1054 Orthodoxy