OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 06:13:41 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: British/Celtic Church's relationship to Rome/Constantinople  (Read 2003 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« on: June 19, 2010, 12:31:11 AM »




This discussion has been split from Why didn't Luther become Orthodox?, which is here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22849.0.html, please continue to discussion about Luther there, and the discussion about British/Celtic Christianity and it's relationship to Rome and Constantinople here. Thanks....

Northern Pines, Religious Topics Forum Moderator



Please
For that matter, why didn't Henry VIII become Orthodox?

Surely the Orthodox prelates of the time wouldn't have had a problem with a monarch retaining de facto control of a national church.

Henry could have created a North Sea alliance and then really put the pressure on France.

Perhaps they would have thought his reasoning for starting a new church to be too embarrassing?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 11:25:42 AM by NorthernPines » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2010, 12:32:52 AM »

For that matter, why didn't Henry VIII become Orthodox?

Surely the Orthodox prelates of the time wouldn't have had a problem with a monarch retaining de facto control of a national church.

Henry could have created a North Sea alliance and then really put the pressure on France.

Someone should write a fantasy/alternative history about what this would have been like. Instead of a "reformation," it would have been an overturning of Whitby and a return to the Celtic/British origins of the Church in England.

The pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon church is not recognized in the Byzantine tradition?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2010, 12:35:30 AM »

It's also great fantasy to imagine that Celtic Christianity was much like Eastern Orthodoxy.

Certainly not in their liturgical, cultural, or theological emphases, or even form of ecclesiastical governance, but would it be wrong to assume that they were one in doctrine?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2010, 12:58:47 AM »

Someone should write a fantasy/alternative history about what this would have been like. Instead of a "reformation," it would have been an overturning of Whitby and a return to the Celtic/British origins of the Church in England.

Yes, that would be pure fantasy, since the Orthodox Church was busy suppressing other native rites around the time of the schism.  Do you think that the British Isles would have been spared Constantinople's penchant for uniformity?  It's also great fantasy to imagine that Celtic Christianity was much like Eastern Orthodoxy.

"The Egyptian Desert in the Irish Bogs:
The Byzantine Character of Early Celtic Monasticism"


by Rev.Gregory Telepneff
(Center for Traditional Orthodox Studies,Etna, California)
1998/ISBN 0-911165-37-1)

This book makes the case very convincingly that Coptic Orthodox monasticism
and liturgy in Gaul, Ireland and northern Britain was the most important
Christianising force in those areas.

Early missionaries from the Eastern Patriarchates were even more numerous
and went even more far afield than we have hitherto known.

'Light and Life Publishing'
  http://www.light-n-life.com


-oOo-


"The Celtic Church and the Influence of the East"

By John Stirton.
 
From ScotPress
http://www.scotpress.com/

SP-37. "The Celtic Church and the Influence of the East"
The first Christians in the British Isles drew their information from
the Roman empire, and when that empire collapsed in the west, around
410, it left Celtic Christians isolated and alone at the edge of the
world, forced to define their religion from what they knew and what they
could remember. This was a religion which owed much to the east, with
whom it shared many rites and rituals. This is a history of that early
religion and its relationship to the Eastern Roman orthodox church.

 
 
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2010, 01:58:10 AM »

I would say that the pre-Christian Irish bogs might be a spiritual desert. In fact, I would say that about most of the pagan bogs. Dazhbog, Stribog, Chernobog and all the other bogs!

But judge not lest you be judged. What do you think?
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 01:59:16 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2010, 08:54:26 AM »

What makes you think Henry VIII had any sort of theological outlook compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy?

Like the Orthodox, St Thomas Moore rejected Papal infallbility. Henry VIII executed Moore. I suspect Henry VIII was not a deep theologian and if he could get away with the divorce without leaving Catholicism, he would have, at least for political reasons.

First, may I ask for some more information on the idea that Sir Thomas More "rejected Papal infallibility" please? Thank you in advance. More's unfortunate trial and execution was based on politics, intrigue, his refusal to take the oath of supremacy from my readings in history.

Secondly, Henry VIII was certainly educated in theology and had been, until his elder brother Arthur's death, preparing for a possible life as a high cleric.  He wrote Defense of the Seven Sacraments aka Assertio Septem Sacramentorum  as a response to some of Luther's writing.  For this work he was named "Defender of the Faith" by Pope Leo X. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Seven_Sacraments

Also, if anyone is interested, this work can be read on-line via a scanned copy at
 http://www.archive.org/stream/assertioseptem00henruoft#page/n29/mode/2up

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.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2010, 05:33:37 PM »

"The deposing power of the Pope, his personal infallibility, and all those absurd attributes, which degraded the Church much more than they elevated...."

From the WORKS OF THOMAS MOORE
http://books.google.com/books?id=fSY3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA630&lpg=PA630&dq=%22thomas+moore%22+infallibility+pope&source=bl&ots=hMzx4rkO1K&sig=1gssCvUhv2YhHIu4jPvUF3LOHXs&hl=en&ei=cDYdTPKHOIH68Ab736CLDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBDgK

The point is, their view of papal fallibility matched Orthodoxy, and the fact that Henry VIII found something to defend against Luther about the sacraments doesn't mean Hnery VIII was incompatible with Orthodoxy completely. it doesn't mean either one was right anyway, after all, there are differing views in Orthodoxy on the Eucharist, the official position is that it's a mystery.

My conclusion is that the divorce thing was the main problem for Henry VIII. I don't think Orthodox would let him divorce so easily, and as pointed out I guess Orthodox would let him somehow be a head of his church like the Roman emperor once was, I guess, right?

The other things I believe were secondary, and he probably otherwsie wouldve stayed Catholic.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2010, 08:09:57 PM »

Someone should write a fantasy/alternative history about what this would have been like. Instead of a "reformation," it would have been an overturning of Whitby and a return to the Celtic/British origins of the Church in England.

Yes, that would be pure fantasy, since the Orthodox Church was busy suppressing other native rites around the time of the schism.  Do you think that the British Isles would have been spared Constantinople's penchant for uniformity?  It's also great fantasy to imagine that Celtic Christianity was much like Eastern Orthodoxy.

"The Egyptian Desert in the Irish Bogs:
The Byzantine Character of Early Celtic Monasticism"


by Rev.Gregory Telepneff
(Center for Traditional Orthodox Studies,Etna, California)
1998/ISBN 0-911165-37-1)

This book makes the case very convincingly that Coptic Orthodox monasticism
and liturgy in Gaul, Ireland and northern Britain was the most important
Christianising force in those areas.

Early missionaries from the Eastern Patriarchates were even more numerous
and went even more far afield than we have hitherto known.

'Light and Life Publishing'
  http://www.light-n-life.com


The major problem with this is that Byzantine Christianity, as it came to develop in the Church of Constantinople, is really quite different from Egyptian Christianity.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,006



« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2010, 09:08:57 PM »

^Here we go again. Embarrassed

I thought this thread was about why Luther didn't become Orthodox.  How is it that we're off topic and talking about how Byzantine Theology is not exactly the same as Oriental Orthodox theology?  Come on, back to topic, people!
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2010, 09:28:10 PM »

"The deposing power of the Pope, his personal infallibility, and all those absurd attributes, which degraded the Church much more than they elevated...."

From the WORKS OF THOMAS MOORE
http://books.google.com/books?id=fSY3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA630&lpg=PA630&dq=%22thomas+moore%22+infallibility+pope&source=bl&ots=hMzx4rkO1K&sig=1gssCvUhv2YhHIu4jPvUF3LOHXs&hl=en&ei=cDYdTPKHOIH68Ab736CLDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBDgK

Thank you for the information.  However, you are mistaken as to this having anything to do with the politics and religious situation of England in the first third of the 16th century.  I had asked you for the reference because it did not sound like anything from that time and place and, indeed, it is not.

The author of the above quote is not the man who was Chancellor of England and the author of Utopia.

You have been reading the writings of Thomas Moore (1779-1852) who was an Irish poet and songwriter.  He is particularly known for "The Minstrel Boy" and "The Last Rose of Summer" and "Believe Me If All Those Endearing Young Charms." His opinions on religion and papal supremacy do not have any relation to Tudor England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Moore

Sir Thomas More (1478-1535)  was the Renaissance Humanist, Lawyer, author and for three years the Chancellor of England under King Henry VIII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More

A biography was written of him by his son-in-law William Roper.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/16croper-more.html


Quote
The point is, their view of papal fallibility matched Orthodoxy,

I will have to check about for the history of the concept of "papal infallibility" but I do know that it was not defined as dogma until the First Vatican Council which took place in 1870.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm  near the bottom of the page


Quote
My conclusion is that the divorce thing was the main problem for Henry VIII. I don't think Orthodox would let him divorce so easily, and as pointed out I guess Orthodox would let him somehow be a head of his church like the Roman emperor once was, I guess, right?

The other things I believe were secondary, and he probably otherwsie wouldve stayed Catholic.

The request by Henry to have his first marriage annulled was not unique.  Historically, a number of noble and royal marriages were dissolved so that the ruler could marry again, usually in order to try and get a legitimate male heir.  One such example is that of Eleanor of Acquitaine and King Louis VII of France.  She only bore him daughters, so their union was annulled.  Louis married twice more and finally had a son with his third wife.  Eleanor married Henry, Count of Anjou who became King Henry II of England and bore *him* sons.

Henry knew that he could father boys as he had a son with another women, Henry Fitzroy. Unfortunately the younger Henry died young.  Catherine of Aragon had one living child: Mary Tudor who was queen before Elizabeth I.

And there was no "easy divorce" in this case.  Catherine's nephew, the Emperor Charles V, had control over Pope Clement VII (he was a prisoner basically) and did not want his aunt to be ousted from her marriage.  The request for annulment was not granted, therefore.  If you are interested, there is a thread on the forum that has more information on Henry VIII and the break with the Church of Rome.  However, there was no change in any of the beliefs.  It was a matter of politics, succession and who would rule a country: natives or foreigners.

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.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2010, 09:57:07 PM »

Thank you for the information.  However, you are mistaken as to this having anything to do with the politics and religious situation of England in the first third of the 16th century.  I had asked you for the reference because it did not sound like anything from that time and place and, indeed, it is not.

I will have to check about for the history of the concept of "papal infallibility" but I do know that it was not defined as dogma until the First Vatican Council which took place in 1870.

I clearly remember reading not too long ago that SAINT Thomas Moore rejected papal infallibility.
If you want to disprove what I know, go ahead. I don't have doubt about it.

Quote
My conclusion is that the divorce thing was the main problem for Henry VIII. I don't think Orthodox would let him divorce so easily, and as pointed out I guess Orthodox would let him somehow be a head of his church like the Roman emperor once was, I guess, right?

The other things I believe were secondary, and he probably otherwsie wouldve stayed Catholic.

The request by Henry to have his first marriage annulled was not unique.  Historically, a number of noble and royal marriages were dissolved so that the ruler could marry again, usually in order to try and get a legitimate male heir.  One such example is that of Eleanor of Acquitaine and King Louis VII of France.  She only bore him daughters, so their union was annulled.  Louis married twice more and finally had a son with his third wife.  Eleanor married Henry, Count of Anjou who became King Henry II of England and bore *him* sons.

Henry knew that he could father boys as he had a son with another women, Henry Fitzroy. Unfortunately the younger Henry died young.  Catherine of Aragon had one living child: Mary Tudor who was queen before Elizabeth I.

And there was no "easy divorce" in this case.  Catherine's nephew, the Emperor Charles V, had control over Pope Clement VII (he was a prisoner basically) and did not want his aunt to be ousted from her marriage.  The request for annulment was not granted, therefore.  If you are interested, there is a thread on the forum that has more information on Henry VIII and the break with the Church of Rome.  However, there was no change in any of the beliefs.  It was a matter of politics, succession and who would rule a country: natives or foreigners.

Basically none of this changes that: Henry's problem was that the Catholic Church wasnt giving him a divorce, and if they had he probably wouldve stayed Catholic.

All you did was show that according to church rules maybe it could have been easier for him to get a divorce, but "Pope Said No," which is what alot more things come down to in Catholicism after they accepted infallibility.
If "Pope Said No" and orthodox couldve said yes, then the divorce problem still wasnt as big. But you alread had this cool movement catching on in nearby Germany and Russia was a long ways away, plus who knows if Tsar "IVAN" is going to give you a divorce.
So the divorce was the main thing, and he couldve done orthodoxy likely if he wanted to because he probably rejected papal infallibility if +Thomas Moore did.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2010, 10:25:12 PM »


I clearly remember reading not too long ago that SAINT Thomas Moore rejected papal infallibility.
If you want to disprove what I know, go ahead. I don't have doubt about it.

I have not found any reference to any St. Thomas MOOre. Do you have a link to any such person, please?   It is Sir Thomas More, the author and Chancellor, who was canonized by the  RC Church in 1935 as St. Thomas More. He is the same man.  He was later added to the Anglican Calender of Saints in 1980.
http://www.americancatholic.org/features/saints/saint.aspx?id=1422

If you clearly remember reading it, then would you please give some source or link so that others may read it as well.  I am not trying to "disprove" your assertion.  I am asking for more information in order to learn more.  But the link to the book that you gave above is not by any RC saint. 



Quote

Basically none of this changes that: Henry's problem was that the Catholic Church wasnt giving him a divorce, and if they had he probably wouldve stayed Catholic.

All you did was show that according to church rules maybe it could have been easier for him to get a divorce, but "Pope Said No," which is what alot more things come down to in Catholicism after they accepted infallibility.
If "Pope Said No" and orthodox couldve said yes, then the divorce problem still wasnt as big. But you alread had this cool movement catching on in nearby Germany and Russia was a long ways away, plus who knows if Tsar "IVAN" is going to give you a divorce.
So the divorce was the main thing, and he couldve done orthodoxy likely if he wanted to because he probably rejected papal infallibility if +Thomas Moore did.

It is likely that if Clement VII had granted the annulment then England would not have broken with Rome.  I don't think that there is any great controversy with that idea.  However, the idea that England would have put themselves under Constantinople is, I think, not particularly supportable.  Considering the situation of needing male heirs and not wanting foreign rulers having power, what would "Tsar IVAN" have to do with anything.  I'm sorry, I'm not following your reasoning.

Also, the liturgy and customs in the English Church were rooted in western Christianity.  Eastern liturgy and practice would be alien, imo.

I apologize that I seem to have upset you.  But real history and information are important.

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.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2010, 12:29:34 AM »

How is it that we're off topic and talking about how Byzantine Theology is not exactly the same as Oriental Orthodox theology?

Where did I mention Oriental Orthodoxy?

You all have your own Egyptian church, don't you?

The distinction is about two different regional forms of Christianity, not necessarily two different faith traditions.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2010, 01:05:25 AM »


I clearly remember reading not too long ago that SAINT Thomas Moore rejected papal infallibility.
If you want to disprove what I know, go ahead. I don't have doubt about it.

I have not found any reference to any St. Thomas MOOre. Do you have a link to any such person, please?   It is Sir Thomas More, the author and Chancellor, who was canonized by the  RC Church in 1935 as St. Thomas More. He is the same man.  He was later added to the Anglican Calender of Saints in 1980.
http://www.americancatholic.org/features/saints/saint.aspx?id=1422

If you clearly remember reading it, then would you please give some source or link so that others may read it as well.  I am not trying to "disprove" your assertion.  I am asking for more information in order to learn more.  But the link to the book that you gave above is not by any RC saint. 

EBOR,

More and Infallibility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

I read elsewhere that More called the church infallible but never called the Pope that.

This book contrasts King Henry's view of the papacy with another author's view at that time.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DdAYSzj20t0C&pg=PA277&img=1&pgis=1&dq=infallible&sig=ACfU3U2EpFQr3YJWYedOCkpRpdz-kg50MQ&edge=0

I also read that a Catholic priest, wrote a book about Moore's rejection of infallibility to the pope, entitled papal power.

I read on
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2009/01/lessons-from-st-thomas-more-and-tudors.html
a claim that More was somehow involved in burning people? Personally I have doubts about this because the statement was not clearly made, and I would prefer it was not true, since I like More as a "humanist," and one who apparently doubted Papal infallibility when it was not yet a doctrine.

Peace
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2010, 01:33:24 AM »

Basically none of this changes that: Henry's problem was that the Catholic Church wasnt giving him a divorce, and if they had he probably wouldve stayed Catholic.

All you did was show that according to church rules maybe it could have been easier for him to get a divorce, but "Pope Said No," which is what alot more things come down to in Catholicism after they accepted infallibility.
If "Pope Said No" and orthodox couldve said yes, then the divorce problem still wasnt as big. But you alread had this cool movement catching on in nearby Germany and Russia was a long ways away, plus who knows if Tsar "IVAN" is going to give you a divorce.
So the divorce was the main thing, and he couldve done orthodoxy likely if he wanted to because he probably rejected papal infallibility if +Thomas Moore did.
[/quote]

It is likely that if Clement VII had granted the annulment then England would not have broken with Rome. I don't think that there is any great controversy with that idea.

OK, that's what I am saying too.

<< However, the idea that England would have put themselves under Constantinople is, I think, not particularly supportable. >>

OK, that's what I am saying too. It is not supportable from a POLITICAL perspective. That is why it did not happen and we both agree on this. It is questionable how much religious doctrines played into this, since Orthodoxy, like the Protestantism Luther chose, rejects papal infallibility and papal supremacy, the immaculate conception of Mary, doesn't put the same emphasis on Mary, priestly celibacy, etc. It's my personal belief that the biggest and most decisive difference between the churches is the issue of Papal Supremacy, which was a practical reason for
Protestants under Rome to reject Apostolic Succession, thereby dividing Christendom into three.

<<Considering the situation of needing male heirs and not wanting foreign rulers having power, what would "Tsar IVAN" have to do with anything.  I'm sorry, I'm not following your reasoning. >>

The reasoning is what you just said. An English King would not want the granting of his divorce to be laying for months in the hands of some Church Council under black-bearded Tsar Ivan over in "Cossack land". Henry wanted a divorce and he wanted it "Now"!
Nor did he want Patriarchs and foreign rulers to run England's policies, since at that time the church did play a big role in politics.

<<Also, the liturgy and customs in the English Church were rooted in western Christianity.  Eastern liturgy and practice would be alien, imo.>>
Of course, this is a matter of liturgical practice, not a doctrine of the faith, since we now have "Western Orthodox" parishes. So there were probably cultural differences between Holy Mother Russia and the decadent west that may have distorted the Englishers' perceptions, much as it may today when Westerners enter into Orthodox churches and it feels so different they do not realize it is the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

Your original question was why Henry didn't become Orthodox, and basically it comes down to politics and the culture shock, not real doctrinal differences. As you said he wouldve stayed Catholic if it was not for the marriage thing. So that means he would have been ok with the Catholic doctrines other than the Papal infallibility and supremacy, which are the two main differences Catholicism has with Orthodoxy. It's good enough to explain this by saying that Henry wanted to be the head of England's church but that Rome wouldn't let him. But this is not a difference with orthodoxy, where sometimes a secular authority did head the church, like crazy-scary-Tsar Ivan Grozny, who may have had thermometer juice in his teeth fillings. Add on to that the fact that Thomas More may well have rejected papal infallibility, and as far as doctrines go, the Anglicans could have chosen Orthodoxy.

The reason he didn't was politics. After all, what lay between Russia and England? Germany. And German culture was after all much closer to English culture, the languages are in the same langauge group, and they had a jolly time of the Reformation there. So that is the answer to the question.

<<I apologize that I seem to have upset you.  But real history and information are important.>>

Of course it is upsetting that someone who is as intelligent as you are is not getting it. Cheesy 

I am joking. Be happy.

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

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2010, 01:45:27 PM »

This book contrasts King Henry's view of the papacy with another author's view at that time.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DdAYSzj20t0C&pg=PA277&img=1&pgis=1&dq=infallible&sig=ACfU3U2EpFQr3YJWYedOCkpRpdz-kg50MQ&edge=0

An interesting quote that does refer to the 1870 establishment of the concept of papal infallibility, but I'm curious as to what book that is a passage from since it's just a small clip picture.  I'll have to dig for it to find the general context.  

Quote
I also read that a Catholic priest, wrote a book about Moore's rejection of infallibility to the pope, entitled papal power.

I found a book by that title by a Paul Collins listed as being published in 1997. Could that be the one you have in mind?  I haven't read it, so I don't know if Sir Thomas More is mentioned.

I apologize for bringing this up again. but Sir Thomas MOre and Thomas MOOre are two very different people.  That was part of the confusion earlier.  So do you recall if the book refers to the English Chancellor or the Irish Poet?  I swear that I am not trying to be difficult on this. But it's important to know which person is being referred to.

Quote
I read on
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2009/01/lessons-from-st-thomas-more-and-tudors.html
a claim that More was somehow involved in burning people? Personally I have doubts about this because the statement was not clearly made, and I would prefer it was not true, since I like More as a "humanist," and one who apparently doubted Papal infallibility when it was not yet a doctrine.

Peace


It is a historical fact that during Sir Thomas More's time as Chancellor there were people burned as heretics. Peter Ackroyd's biography is well regarded and reports on both the gentle and harsher sides of the man.  Also, his reply to Luther after the latter had written a rude reply to Henry VIII's book on the Sacraments was, umm, not particularly polite and he wrote a long response against Tyndale as well.  He also defended the papal powers to control such things as marriages, that was part of the reason for his trial and execution.

With respect,

Ebor
« Last Edit: July 04, 2010, 01:46:21 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.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2010, 02:07:55 AM »

This book contrasts King Henry's view of the papacy with another author's view at that time.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DdAYSzj20t0C&pg=PA277&img=1&pgis=1&dq=infallible&sig=ACfU3U2EpFQr3YJWYedOCkpRpdz-kg50MQ&edge=0

An interesting quote that does refer to the 1870 establishment of the concept of papal infallibility, but I'm curious as to what book that is a passage from since it's just a small clip picture.  I'll have to dig for it to find the general context.  

Quote
I also read that a Catholic priest, wrote a book about Moore's rejection of infallibility to the pope, entitled papal power.

I found a book by that title by a Paul Collins listed as being published in 1997. Could that be the one you have in mind?  I haven't read it, so I don't know if Sir Thomas More is mentioned.

I apologize for bringing this up again. but Sir Thomas MOre and Thomas MOOre are two very different people.  That was part of the confusion earlier.  So do you recall if the book refers to the English Chancellor or the Irish Poet?  I swear that I am not trying to be difficult on this. But it's important to know which person is being referred to.

Yes Collins is talking about Thomas More.

Quote
his reply to Luther after the latter had written a rude reply to Henry VIII's book on the Sacraments was, umm, not particularly polite and he wrote a long response against Tyndale as well.

That is funny, except is it resulting in Tyndale's execution with More's oversight????????????????????
Please say NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: July 05, 2010, 02:08:15 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2010, 06:28:35 PM »

Yes Collins is talking about Thomas More.


Thank you.  Smiley

Quote
Quote
his reply to Luther after the latter had written a rude reply to Henry VIII's book on the Sacraments was, umm, not particularly polite and he wrote a long response against Tyndale as well.

That is funny, except is it resulting in Tyndale's execution with More's oversight?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh?
Please say NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, Tyndale had left England some years before when his translation of the Bible into English was rejected by the Church Authorities and King Henry was against it as well.  His translation was printed in the German city of Worms in 1526 and copies were smuggled into England.  As an interesting side note he wrote a work that the attempt at an annulment by the king was against scripture and a plot by Cardinal Wolsey.  Tyndale was taken captive in Antwerp, Belgium, due to being betrayed by someone he thought was a friend, in 1535 and tried for heresy.  He was condemned, strangled at the stake and his body burnt. He died a year and 3 months after Sir Thomas More.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/260.html
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.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2010, 10:53:49 PM »

Yes Collins is talking about Thomas More.


Thank you.  Smiley

Quote
Quote
his reply to Luther after the latter had written a rude reply to Henry VIII's book on the Sacraments was, umm, not particularly polite and he wrote a long response against Tyndale as well.

That is funny, except is it resulting in Tyndale's execution with More's oversight?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh?
Please say NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, Tyndale had left England some years before when his translation of the Bible into English was rejected by the Church Authorities and King Henry was against it as well.  His translation was printed in the German city of Worms in 1526 and copies were smuggled into England.  As an interesting side note he wrote a work that the attempt at an annulment by the king was against scripture and a plot by Cardinal Wolsey.  Tyndale was taken captive in Antwerp, Belgium, due to being betrayed by someone he thought was a friend, in 1535 and tried for heresy.  He was condemned, strangled at the stake and his body burnt. He died a year and 3 months after Sir Thomas More.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/260.html

YEY! So I take it More was not involved in executing "heretics?"

Hal
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2010, 11:45:27 AM »

YEY! So I take it More was not involved in executing "heretics?"

Hal

Sir Thomas More would not have been involved in the execution of William Tyndale if he'd been alive because it happened in another country.  In England under More's chancellorship he did prosecute "heretics" and six were burnt.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/more/moreaccount.html

I'm looking for a copy of Ackroyd's biography for citations and I have a copy of More's biography written by his son-in-law William Roper on the shelves so I can dig it out.

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.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2010, 07:19:49 PM »

YEY! So I take it More was not involved in executing "heretics?"

Hal

In England under More's chancellorship he did prosecute "heretics" and six were burnt.

Ebor


WHAT???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

St. More wrote a deep, admirable work about spirituality and spritiuality under persecution and nearness of execution. HE EXECUTED??????????????????????? NO!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 07:27:51 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,238



« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2010, 08:39:45 PM »

YEY! So I take it More was not involved in executing "heretics?"

Hal

In England under More's chancellorship he did prosecute "heretics" and six were burnt.

Ebor


WHAT?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh??

St. More wrote a deep, admirable work about spirituality and spritiuality under persecution and nearness of execution. HE EXECUTED?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh? NO!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just wanted to make sure that you realized Sir Thomas More is not recognized as a Saint by the Orthodox Church.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2010, 09:25:25 PM »

YEY! So I take it More was not involved in executing "heretics?"

Hal

In England under More's chancellorship he did prosecute "heretics" and six were burnt.

Ebor


WHAT?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh??

St. More wrote a deep, admirable work about spirituality and spritiuality under persecution and nearness of execution. HE EXECUTED?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh? NO!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just wanted to make sure that you realized Sir Thomas More is not recognized as a Saint by the Orthodox Church.

In Christ,
Andrew

I wasn't even thinking about that. Are there Orthodox saints who tortured people to death for heresy HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh

NO, THOMAS MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO!!! Don;t KILL!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2010, 09:32:51 PM »

I'm sorry that this is apparently a shock to you, but it is historically accurate and nearly 500 years in the past.  Perhaps some of More's writings contra Luther and "heretics" is available on-line.  I'll look

Did you know of Sir Thomas More mostly from the movie A Man for All Seasons perhaps?
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.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2010, 10:25:31 PM »

I'm sorry that this is apparently a shock to you, but it is historically accurate and nearly 500 years in the past.  Perhaps some of More's writings contra Luther and "heretics" is available on-line.  I'll look

Did you know of Sir Thomas More mostly from the movie A Man for All Seasons perhaps?

I loved his Utopia very much. His disagreement with papal infallibility is admirable. Yes the Man for All Seasons I saw. His writing about facing execution and finding heart before such death seems very moving. And his standing up to Henry about the divorce and splitoff seems very courageous.


NO< MORE< WHY YOU KILL? NO KILLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,732



« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2010, 11:34:43 PM »

I would say that the pre-Christian Irish bogs might be a spiritual desert. In fact, I would say that about most of the pagan bogs. Dazhbog, Stribog, Chernobog and all the other bogs!

But judge not lest you be judged. What do you think?

If this is meant as a joke, then well done!  I laughed heartily.  I love a good play on words.

If this was meant seriously (I don't know if English is your first language or not  Wink) then he meant bogs (wetlands) not bog (Slavic god).
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2010, 12:13:07 AM »

Playing on Words? You think this is joke??




THEY DO NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 12:18:14 AM by rakovsky » Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,732



« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2010, 01:12:09 AM »

^  I am referring to you saying, "I would say that the pre-Christian Irish bogs might be a spiritual desert."  In English, bogs generally refer to wetlands with acidic peat.  Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog

So yes, I thought it was a joke.  If not, then you are misunderstanding the term "Irish bogs". 
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2010, 01:25:22 AM »

Sorry if I no understand you right. Maybe you saying that Irish gods were wet-land like wilderness? That is what I saying too!

Why here is strange word "acid peat?" Book Clockwork Orange say bog means name for god. Book Clockwork Orange is best book in world!

This is ORTHODOX forum. We talk about God. Why you say joke? I am serial.

Причем тут болота? Ирландские боги - это не православие. Это православный форум, и для нас, наверно, в каком то смысле, что-то в до-христианской теологии отсутствовало. Значит в чем-то пустыня.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 01:30:28 AM by rakovsky » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2010, 03:30:58 AM »

'Clockwork Orange' contains loads of russianisms.

English bog = Russian болотo
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2010, 10:31:11 PM »

English bog = Russian болотo

I saw strange explanation on internet for your so-called "English Bog."

Quote
John Widdowson, my old English tutor I recall pointing out to us long ago that the word-element bo [bu] has connotations related to the supernatural, to fear and to scatology throughout the Indo-European family of languages and beyond (cf. taboo); from the Slavic Bog [God] to the modern English bog [toilet]).

What does mean here word "scatology"Huh??
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2010, 11:11:36 PM »

I wasn't even thinking about that. Are there Orthodox saints who tortured people to death for heresy HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh

Emperor Justinian had people killed for reverting back to paganism from Christianity.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm

Quote
Justinian's first years as emperor were full of action. There was a spate of legislation, directed against Manichaeans, pagans and Samaritans. Pagans were barred from the civil service, baptized Christians who lapsed into paganism were to be put to death, as were any persons caught making secret sacrifice to the gods; pagan teachers were denied stipends from the imperial treasury and if they would not accept baptism, they were to lose their property and be banished into exile. It was probably this last law which put an end to the Neoplatonic Academy in Athens, which was still a pagan stronghold.

This is another random Google link. The essay author actually debunks some of the very old anti-Justinian material, although this is in there as well.

http://one-evil.org/people/people_06c_justinian.htm

Quote
In 532, having crushed the Sarmatians, Justinian extended his persecution of satanic cults by ordering the closure of all temples of the Phrygian goddess otherwise known as Cybele, Dionysis and Athena and outlawing the worship of Cybele also a Capital crime (punishable by death). This sparked mass riots by the galli priests and their supporters across major centres, including Constantinople.

I'm sure you'll find colourful or problematic incidents in the lives of nearly every public official or monarch, glorified or not.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 11:18:04 PM by John Larocque » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2010, 11:13:17 PM »

I wasn't even thinking about that. Are there Orthodox saints who tortured people to death for heresy HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh

Emperor Justinian had people killed for reverting back to paganism from Christianity.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm

Did he kill them in tortuous ways?

Torture deaths= bad
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2010, 11:20:47 PM »

I have no clue. I don't see much of a difference to me between killing someone for their adherence to beliefs against the state... or the use of "enhanced interrogation" prior to the disposal of those who committed the capital crime. The end result is the same. The truth of the matter is that those who were involved in these prosecutions believed they were doing the work of God, therefore the ends justified the means.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 11:22:21 PM by John Larocque » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2010, 12:26:11 AM »

I don't see much of a difference to me between killing someone for their adherence to beliefs against the state... or the use of "enhanced interrogation" prior to the disposal of those who committed the capital crime. The end result is the same.

HuhHuhHuhHuh?

Completely wrong here. The Old Testament limited ways that could be used to execute people. Adding on extra fun things like HDQ, forced-feeding milk and honey death (forgot the name), are pretty bad dude. Adding on the torture things makes things really bad, whatever so-called justifications about sinning in God's name are used
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2010, 01:18:52 AM »

I think you missed the point. I think the fact that people were executed is an act more barbarous than being tortured. If you've tortured, you've compounded the crime, but the crime itself was the execution, not the torture. A torture-less execution is no less objectionable. Torture takes something bad and makes it worse. (Apparently Justinian was against juridicial torture)

Granted, this is a 21st century sensibility, but it's not an agreeable notion with me. There's another thread here on acts of not only Emperor Justinian, but also Tsar Nicholas, and a few others who are glorified saints in the calendar. To wit, they died as saints, but not everything they did was saintly.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 01:24:04 AM by John Larocque » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,300



WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2010, 02:03:54 AM »

I think you missed the point. I think the fact that people were executed is an act more barbarous than being tortured. If you've tortured, you've compounded the crime, but the crime itself was the execution, not the torture. A torture-less execution is no less objectionable. Torture takes something bad and makes it worse. (Apparently Justinian was against juridicial torture)

Quote
I think the fact that people were executed is an act more barbarous than being tortured.
That's not necessarily true. Some people can be tortured so bad they prefer decapitation, sorry to say. I think Origen was hurt very very bad, but died too much later for it to be considered martyrdom, which he supposedly preferred, I heard.

I understand that the Catholic Church has the view of the sanctity of life, and regarding execution I agree with this view. However, I don't think that we really hold it paramount, because we would rather give up our life than sin in some ways I think. There is an Orthodox saint who killed self and baby instead of being tortured/apostasized by Mongols. I am not sure how honorable this is, but I think we may be able to find such cases where avoiding certain kinds of torture outweighs earthly life in and of itself.

Further, the Inquisition might have tried to justify its sinful tortures by saying they were saving people. But when they tortured the people, they put a black cloth over crucifixes so Christ wouldnt see. At some level maybe they knew they were doing wrong.

Glad to see Justinian was against judicial torture. Maybe we can find some more saints who were.


By the way, whatever the Old Testament allowable methods, I believe strangulation and burning are very bad torture deaths. Decapitation, shooting, and controlled demolition are probably the only honorable ways. If ways can be honorable.

Quote
A torture-less execution is no less objectionable. Torture takes something bad and makes it worse.
With all due respect, I think this is a contradiction in terms.

Granted, this is a 21st century sensibility, but it's not an agreeable notion with me. There's another thread here on acts of not only Emperor Justinian, but also Tsar Nicholas, and a few others who are glorified saints in the calendar. To wit, they died as saints, but not everything they did was saintly.

Personally, I have doubts whether everyone so canonized actually deserves the honorific, although I assume that they had faith, and faith is technically the criteria to make one a "saint."
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 02:06:25 AM by rakovsky » Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2010, 12:24:14 PM »



Just a reminder to everyone, this thread was created to discuss issues related to British/Celtic Christianity and it's relationship to the Church's of Rome and Constantinople.  Let's try to keep the discussion on topic please. Thank you!

Northern Pines, Religious Topics Forum Moderator
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 12:26:24 PM by NorthernPines » Logged
Tags: British Orthodox Church 
Pages: 1   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 0.162 seconds with 65 queries.