Author Topic: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources  (Read 5742 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #180 on: October 18, 2015, 03:58:53 PM »
What is that and why are you running out of arguments so quickly?

1. That joke wasn't for you.

2. You haven't been able to offer a rebuttal to one serious argument I've advanced.  You let rakovksy do the heavy-lifting for you, so no dice on that score.

And you have yet to respond with any hard evidence besides your own imperviable stubbornness and poignancy.

It's not on me to prove that Harold is not a saint, but on you to prove that he is.  So far, you've offered nothing compelling.

There is sufficient evidence he is. Meanwhile Ss. Barlaam and Josaphat are likely adaptions from a Buddhist tale based on contemporary historical research (no offense) and their existence is dubious. Or how about all the saints under the Early Roman period we knwo next-to-nothing about? Or the Irish saints who are prob ably Christianized adaptations of Celtic pagan folklore? It's not about the hard facts, even though the hard facts ARE present here, it's the cultus and message. Passion bearer-King Harold II of England, a good and just Christian ruler, was killed in cold blood by an usurper from Normandy who was funded andblessed by the schismatic and heretical Pope Alexander II and carried his Papal banner into battle according to the Bayeux Tapestry. Harold died and was the last of the Anglo-Saxon kings, the Old English clergy was stripped of its autonomy and cultureand placed firmly under Rome. Facts. Harold II is a saint.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #181 on: October 18, 2015, 04:06:44 PM »
Ad hominem. You don't deserve to bare that icon with that kind of behaviour. Would St. Nicholas EVER act how you're acting? Are you unable to produce any good argument, so much you must result to personal attacks?
I quote the words of Christ and you respond with malicious asusmption, accusations, insults, and insinuations.

Also K was never used in Latin bar exceptional Greek loanwords.

I'm responding to your silliness - and misapplication of the words of Christ - with more silliness.  The fact that you feel compelled to correct my faux Latin is hilarious.  Get over yourself.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypocrite

Quote
hypocrite ‎(plural hypocrites)

    Someone who practices hypocrisy, who pretends to hold beliefs, or whose actions are not consistent with their claimed beliefs. [from early 13th c.]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=geek

Quote
Geek 

Not to be confused with Nerd. A geek does not have to be smart, a Geek is someone who is generally not athletic, and enjoys Video Games; Comic Books; being on the internet, and etc.

I run track, swim, and lift, but OK. :/

Yeah, sure.  I don't care if you're the lovechild of Jack LaLanne and Flo Jo.  The point is, you're not going to get me to butt out of this thread or stop asking questions you apparently have no answer for by throwing a fit, making ad hominem remarks on the basis of my confession, or calling me names.  If anything, you should be grateful for the opportunity to fine tune your case against a critical audience before bringing to a -  :laugh: - council.  At least emulate your idol rakovsky and try to formulate serious answers to those who question whether or not Harold II is an Orthodox saint instead of acting like a baby when people disagree with you.
Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #182 on: October 18, 2015, 04:18:44 PM »
There is sufficient evidence he is.

If there is, you haven't provided it.  Neither has rakovsky, but at least he's given it the old college try instead of throwing a fit.

Meanwhile Ss. Barlaam and Josaphat are likely adaptions from a Buddhist tale based on contemporary historical research (no offense) and their existence is dubious.

So?  Make a thread calling for them being stricken from the synaxarion if you want (not that I think the Church will bite).  None of that means Harold should be canonized.  Besides, we've been over Ss. Barlaam and Josaphat in your St. Romulus Augustulus thread:

Had the little Augustus been killed in his deposition perhaps there would be a case to be made but chances are the boy survived into adulthood and without any knowledge of his post-imperial life, it would be too great a leap to name him a saint. We can't know what sort of person he was or became and what we can garner from his time as emperor is not enough.

Can't the same case be made for many current saints after the Fall of Rome until the High Middle Ages? Some probably even didn't exist (although I hope they did), like Ss. Barlaam and Jospahat.

The article says Romulus Augustulus died in exile, and whether he was receiving pension from Odoacer is uncertain, but I think it was probably not the most comfortable life even for an emperor-in-exile. Anyway, if the Arian king had not deposed him, he could have had a chance to restore Roman and Orthodox hegemony across Europe. I believe he deserves some kind of sympathy for his lost potential.



All of your arguments are hypothetical.  The Church can't recognize someone's sainthood based on your fan fiction in which he was the pious, prayerful prisoner of a barbarian heretic king or the would-be patron of a Western Orthodox Empire.  "It was likely this..." and "It was likely that..." don't mean a hill of beans.  The actual facts of the lives of certain saints - or even their existence - being called into question doesn't factor into the equation either.  At the time they were sainted, their hagiographies were taken at face value and absolutely believed.  The Church isn't going to de-sanctify them based on modern skepticism, but it's not going to make Romulus Augustulus or anyone else a saint based on some kid's wild speculation either.

If I recall correctly, your rebuttal was...

Y-you are mean...

Or how about all the saints under the Early Roman period we knwo next-to-nothing about? Or the Irish saints who are prob ably Christianized adaptations of Celtic pagan folklore?

Again, see my answers above:

1. Make a thread calling for their being stricken from the synaxarion (not that I think the Church will bite).  None of this means that Harold was a saint.

2. The actual facts of the lives of certain saints - or even their existence - being called into question doesn't factor into the equation either.  At the time they were sainted, their hagiographies were taken at face value and absolutely believed.  The Church isn't going to de-sanctify them based on modern skepticism, but it's not going to make Romulus Augustulus or anyone else a saint based on some guy on the internet's wild speculation either.

It's not about the hard facts

To some extent, it is.

even though the hard facts ARE present here

Apparently, they are not.  At least, no one in this thread has produced hard facts justifying the canonization of Harold II.

it's the cultus

There is apparently none to speak of.

and message.

So we canonize someone simply to send a good message?  Ridiculous.

Passion bearer-King Harold II of England, a good and just Christian ruler, was killed in cold blood by an usurper from Normandy who was funded andblessed by the schismatic and heretical Pope Alexander II and carried his Papal banner into battle according to the Bayeux Tapestry. Harold died and was the last of the Anglo-Saxon kings, the Old English clergy was stripped of its autonomy and cultureand placed firmly under Rome. Facts.

None of which means that he was a saint.

Harold II is a saint.

You're saying it doesn't make it so.  If you truly believe he's a saint, and aren't just trying to "send a message" here, ask for his intercession in your private devotions.  I wouldn't bet the farm that he'll be added to the synaxarion anytime soon though.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 04:32:22 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #183 on: October 18, 2015, 04:36:02 PM »
Ad hominem. You don't deserve to bare that icon with that kind of behaviour. Would St. Nicholas EVER act how you're acting? Are you unable to produce any good argument, so much you must result to personal attacks?
I quote the words of Christ and you respond with malicious asusmption, accusations, insults, and insinuations.

Also K was never used in Latin bar exceptional Greek loanwords.

I'm responding to your silliness - and misapplication of the words of Christ - with more silliness.  The fact that you feel compelled to correct my faux Latin is hilarious.  Get over yourself.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypocrite

Quote
hypocrite ‎(plural hypocrites)

    Someone who practices hypocrisy, who pretends to hold beliefs, or whose actions are not consistent with their claimed beliefs. [from early 13th c.]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=geek

Quote
Geek 

Not to be confused with Nerd. A geek does not have to be smart, a Geek is someone who is generally not athletic, and enjoys Video Games; Comic Books; being on the internet, and etc.

I run track, swim, and lift, but OK. :/

Yeah, sure.  I don't care if you're the lovechild of Jack LaLanne and Flo Jo.  The point is, you're not going to get me to butt out of this thread or stop asking questions you apparently have no answer for by throwing a fit, making ad hominem remarks on the basis of my confession, or calling me names.  If anything, you should be grateful for the opportunity to fine tune your case against a critical audience before bringing to a -  :laugh: - council.  At least emulate your idol rakovsky and try to formulate serious answers to those who question whether or not Harold II is an Orthodox saint instead of acting like a baby when people disagree with you.

Saint Harold II of England, please pray for Antonious.


Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #184 on: October 18, 2015, 04:40:13 PM »
There is sufficient evidence he is.

If there is, you haven't provided it.  Neither has rakovsky, but at least he's given it the old college try instead of throwing a fit.

Meanwhile Ss. Barlaam and Josaphat are likely adaptions from a Buddhist tale based on contemporary historical research (no offense) and their existence is dubious.

So?  Make a thread calling for them being stricken from the synaxarion if you want (not that I think the Church will bite).  None of that means Harold should be canonized.  Besides, we've been over Ss. Barlaam and Josaphat in your St. Romulus Augustulus thread:

Had the little Augustus been killed in his deposition perhaps there would be a case to be made but chances are the boy survived into adulthood and without any knowledge of his post-imperial life, it would be too great a leap to name him a saint. We can't know what sort of person he was or became and what we can garner from his time as emperor is not enough.

Can't the same case be made for many current saints after the Fall of Rome until the High Middle Ages? Some probably even didn't exist (although I hope they did), like Ss. Barlaam and Jospahat.

The article says Romulus Augustulus died in exile, and whether he was receiving pension from Odoacer is uncertain, but I think it was probably not the most comfortable life even for an emperor-in-exile. Anyway, if the Arian king had not deposed him, he could have had a chance to restore Roman and Orthodox hegemony across Europe. I believe he deserves some kind of sympathy for his lost potential.



All of your arguments are hypothetical.  The Church can't recognize someone's sainthood based on your fan fiction in which he was the pious, prayerful prisoner of a barbarian heretic king or the would-be patron of a Western Orthodox Empire.  "It was likely this..." and "It was likely that..." don't mean a hill of beans.  The actual facts of the lives of certain saints - or even their existence - being called into question doesn't factor into the equation either.  At the time they were sainted, their hagiographies were taken at face value and absolutely believed.  The Church isn't going to de-sanctify them based on modern skepticism, but it's not going to make Romulus Augustulus or anyone else a saint based on some kid's wild speculation either.

If I recall correctly, your rebuttal was...

Y-you are mean...

Or how about all the saints under the Early Roman period we knwo next-to-nothing about? Or the Irish saints who are prob ably Christianized adaptations of Celtic pagan folklore?

Again, see my answers above:

1. Make a thread calling for their being stricken from the synaxarion (not that I think the Church will bite).  None of this means that Harold was a saint.

2. The actual facts of the lives of certain saints - or even their existence - being called into question doesn't factor into the equation either.  At the time they were sainted, their hagiographies were taken at face value and absolutely believed.  The Church isn't going to de-sanctify them based on modern skepticism, but it's not going to make Romulus Augustulus or anyone else a saint based on some guy on the internet's wild speculation either.

It's not about the hard facts

To some extent, it is.

even though the hard facts ARE present here

Apparently, they are not.  At least, no one in this thread has produced hard facts justifying the canonization of Harold II.

it's the cultus

There is apparently none to speak of.

and message.

So we canonize someone simply to send a good message?  Ridiculous.

Passion bearer-King Harold II of England, a good and just Christian ruler, was killed in cold blood by an usurper from Normandy who was funded andblessed by the schismatic and heretical Pope Alexander II and carried his Papal banner into battle according to the Bayeux Tapestry. Harold died and was the last of the Anglo-Saxon kings, the Old English clergy was stripped of its autonomy and cultureand placed firmly under Rome. Facts.

None of which means that he was a saint.

Harold II is a saint.

You're saying it doesn't make it so.  If you truly believe he's a saint, and aren't just trying to "send a message" here, ask for his intercession in your private devotions.  I wouldn't bet the farm that he'll be added to the synaxarion anytime soon though.

Once again you're a hypocrite. I can't tell if you're trying to be progressive, conservative, or reactionary here; I think you're attempting to be all 3. Answer me this: Pray tell, what would you do if Harold II were to be canonized by my Church which you are not even a part of??

The facts are for Harold. Show me evidence otherwise.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,360
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #185 on: October 18, 2015, 04:40:58 PM »
Thread unlocked

Everyone, please remember to focus your criticism on ideas, points of view, and arguments, NOT on those who post here. Until such time that I deem this thread more suitable for the Private Forum--I haven't decided that yet--personal attacks the likes of which I saw here recently will not be tolerated.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 05:15:20 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,364
  • St. Arsenios of "Saint-Producing" Cappadocia
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #186 on: October 18, 2015, 05:25:07 PM »
Once again you're a hypocrite. I can't tell if you're trying to be progressive, conservative, or reactionary here; I think you're attempting to be all 3. Answer me this: Pray tell, what would you do if Harold II were to be canonized by my Church which you are not even a part of??

The facts are for Harold. Show me evidence otherwise.
Try "an Orthodox Christian." The Faith isn't a matter of a person's fancy or unsubstantiated romantic notions, and that is what AN is trying to get across.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 05:44:33 PM by Antonis »
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #187 on: October 18, 2015, 05:51:46 PM »
Saint Harold II of England, please pray for Antonious.

St. Romulus Augustulus please intercede for your servant Amatorus.  All Dubious Passion-Bearers pray for us!



Once again you're a hypocrite.

How so?  Substantiate this oft-repeated and ridiculous assertion.  All I've done in this thread is repeatedly poke holes in your silly fantasies about figures like Romulus Augustulus and Harold II being saints of the Orthodox Church.  How is that hypocritical?

I can't tell if you're trying to be progressive, conservative, or reactionary here; I think you're attempting to be all 3.

Don't try to apply words you just learned in your freshman poli-sci class to me.  You're just embarrassing yourself.

Answer me this: Pray tell, what would you do if Harold II were to be canonized by my Church which you are not even a part of??

You're the one who is into speculative What If? fanfiction.  You tell me.

And are you back to trying to call my opinion into question because of my confession after having already acknowledged that this was a mistake?  Get it together.

The facts are for Harold.

Then introduce some into the discussion.

Show me evidence otherwise.

That's not how this works.  The burden of proof is on you.  I don't have to introduce evidence to prove that a figure the Orthodox Church has declined to canonize for 949 years is not a saint of the Church.

Once again you're a hypocrite. I can't tell if you're trying to be progressive, conservative, or reactionary here; I think you're attempting to be all 3. Answer me this: Pray tell, what would you do if Harold II were to be canonized by my Church which you are not even a part of??

The facts are for Harold. Show me evidence otherwise.
Try "an Orthodox Christian." The Faith isn't a matter of a person's fancy or unsubstantiated romantic notions, and that is what AN is trying to get across.

Exactly!  Thank you, Antonis.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 06:04:25 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • "Mor has a huge ego"
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,759
  • Abp Yeznik Petrosian Defender of the Faith
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #188 on: October 18, 2015, 05:58:05 PM »
Saint Harold II of England, please pray for Antonious.

St. Romulus Augustulus please intercede for your servant Amatorus.  All Dubious Passion-Bearers pray for us!



Amen.
Quote from: Fr Alexander Schmemann
The Gospel is quite clear: both saints and sinners love God. "Religious" people do not love him, and whenever they can, they crucify him.

Of course, OC.net is not reflective of the Church, but is rather a surreal bubble. I have visited a lot of different parishes around the world and have listened to many hours of AFR...

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,360
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #189 on: October 18, 2015, 06:01:07 PM »
Answer me this: Pray tell, what would you do if Harold II were to be canonized by my Church which you are not even a part of??
FWIW, and yes I am speaking officially in my capacity as a moderator, Antonious Nikolas's membership in the Coptic Orthodox Church does not disqualify him from offering an authoritative opinion on Harold II's qualifications to be a Saint. AISI, his church affiliation is irrelevant to this discussion, and I will deem any further attempts to discredit him on this basis an ad hominem.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 06:02:34 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #190 on: October 18, 2015, 06:02:47 PM »
Saint Harold II of England, please pray for Antonious.

St. Romulus Augustulus please intercede for your servant Amatorus.  All Dubious Passion-Bearers pray for us!



Amen.

Your avatar.  The awesomeness.  I can't...

Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,342
  • Excelsior
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #191 on: October 18, 2015, 06:04:04 PM »
Here is something interesting from the official website of the English royal government.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheAnglo-Saxonkings/HaroldII.aspx

I believe this is where he was buried:

http://www.walthamabbeychurch.co.uk
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #192 on: October 18, 2015, 06:09:49 PM »
Here is something interesting from the official website of the English royal government.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheAnglo-Saxonkings/HaroldII.aspx

I believe this is where he was buried:

http://www.walthamabbeychurch.co.uk

Thanks, biro!  That is interesting.  I was unaware that Harold had no royal blood.
Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,209
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #193 on: October 18, 2015, 07:59:05 PM »
Answer me this: Pray tell, what would you do if Harold II were to be canonized by my Church which you are not even a part of??
FWIW, and yes I am speaking officially in my capacity as a moderator, Antonious Nikolas's membership in the Coptic Orthodox Church does not disqualify him from offering an authoritative opinion on Harold II's qualifications to be a Saint. AISI, his church affiliation is irrelevant to this discussion, and I will deem any further attempts to discredit him on this basis an ad hominem.
Peter,

Antonious certainly has the right to offer his opinion on whether an uncanonized Christian qualifies as a saint. So I agree no one can silence him, and support your moderation. Further, by default I would consider him much more ecclesiastically educated on this kind of question and as a much better academic authority than say, a young man who has just joined our church for a few years. Perhaps that is what you, correctly, meant.

But to clarify in terms of Eastern Orthodox "authority" in the Tradition of our Church, isn't it the case that it is the laity of the Eastern Orthodox Church collectively, and particularly the Church fathers, theologians, clergy, monastics, and hierarchs, who have the authority to speak for our Church on questions of Tradition, Teachings, etc.?


Rakovsky, this should have been directed to me via PM, and you know that. As irenic as your post may appear, you cannot avoid the fact that you still argued publicly with a moderator directive, which is not to be done here. For questioning this moderator directive in public as you did, you are receiving a 20-point warning. Don't do this again. If you must question or criticize a moderator directive posted either to you or to someone else, or you wish to appeal this warning, please do so ONLY via private message.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 12:04:54 AM by PeterTheAleut »

Offline qawe

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #194 on: October 18, 2015, 08:03:15 PM »
"And so the Big G gave his only home-dawg to us, so that we can not die n all dat, but YOLO and have eternal swag." - @Johnny_316

Are you the guy who writes the blurbs for The Well?

What can I say, they're great at communicating with the youth;)
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 08:09:42 PM by qawe »
Visiting this website will change your life: http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Left the forum in October 2015.  To contact me, please use the OC.net email function.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #195 on: October 18, 2015, 08:12:56 PM »
in terms of Eastern Orthodox "authority" in the Tradition of our Church, isn't it the case that it is the laity of the Eastern Orthodox Church collectively, and particularly the Church fathers, theologians, clergy, monastics, and hierarchs, who have the authority to speak for our Church on questions of Tradition, Teachings, etc.?

Some random guys on a message board speculating about Harold II and Romulus Augustulus being Orthodox saints ≠ either the Mind or the consensus of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,209
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #196 on: October 18, 2015, 08:14:55 PM »

Some random guys on a message board speculating about Harold II and Romulus Augustulus being Orthodox saints   anything ≠ either the Mind or the consensus of the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Folks....we have the new slogan!
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #197 on: October 18, 2015, 08:17:38 PM »
"And so the Big G gave his only home-dawg to us, so that we can not die n all dat, but YOLO and have eternal swag." - @Johnny_316

Are you the guy who writes the blurbs for The Well?

What can I say, they're great at communicating with the youth;)

That's who that joke was for!!!  ;D
Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,209
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #198 on: October 18, 2015, 10:32:02 PM »
The anathema of 1054 was not against all churches, but against Rome's Norman-controlled* Pope himself.
Whom the Christians of England saw as their spiritual head.  No one ever contended that the anathema of 1054 magically severed communion between all of the Christians of East and West instantaneously, but it would be inaccurate to contend that the Christians of England should be seen as any less a part of the post-schism Western Church than the Christians of any other part of Western Europe.
We agree about the BOLD above. My point is that an anathema against the Pope, which Constantinople levied on him was not automatically an anathema on autonomous bishops connected to him, and who did not trace their appointment to him in his schismatic state. Thus, Harold II is not automatically considered out of communion with Orthodoxy. After the Norman conquest though, the Norman bishops were directly appointed by the Schismated Pope. The end of Harold II's rule therefore marks a major ecclesiastic turning point.
Quote
Orthodox churches have had heretical Popes in the past, but it did not make the whole church heretical. Thus, merely being part of the Roman church did not make one unOrthodox, as Edward's post schism sainthood shows

So what?  You're arguing against a strawman here.  I never contended that "merely being a part of the Roman church made one unorthodox". ...What I said was that the Church of the Anglo-Saxons was a part of the Western Church recognizing the Pope of Rome as its spiritual head.  I never said that made them heretical.
OK, good we agree. I do think though that eventually the Schism has meant in Eastern Orthodoxy at some point that those under Rome, especially supporters of Papal Infallibility, are in a communion outside ours.

I think that in practice the cut off for England came as early as the Schismatic Pope's direct appointment of new bishops in England to replace the pre-Schism bishops.

Quote
The Schism did pertain to the Pope though and those who accepted the Pope's schismatic supremacist ecclesiology, as the Schism was foremost an ecclesiological one.
No.  You're overstating your case.  There were other significant theological differences which contributed to the schism,
Papal supremacy was the crucial issue, according to the Varangian Sagas that reflected the Anglo-Saxons' understanding of it at the time. It wasn't Original Sin, since Augustine remains an EO saint. It wasn't the Filioque either, since that had already been around in the West for centuries before 1054. If you see an issue that was as decisive as papal supremacy, especially one that could disqualify Harold II as a saint for opposing the Schismatic Papal supremacist ecclesiology imposed on Britain, let me know.


Quote
(Except perhaps in the world of fantasy role-playing and a customized world in Crusader Kings XXIV, which might be what matters most to the guy you've got "historygasming" all over himself, which counts for exactly nothing anywhere else.)
Is that what started this whole thread?

Quote
While the west Varangians (and the Anglo exiles counted as Varangians) did occasionally reject the Pope's view of supremacy and accept Constantinople as the center of the church, along with the pre-Schism English ecclesiology of autonomy of England, the Normans did impose the Papal ecclesiology of direct rule.

And none of this proves that they were Orthodox in any other respect that Rome wasn't in this period,
Yes, it shows a difference from Rome, because I don't think Rome considered Constantinople the center of the Church. The Roman schismatic position considered Rome totally supreme.

Quote
does anything to damage the accurate assertions made by podkarpatska, Iconodule, and others that there were no hard and fast lines between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches during this period,
There was a key issue in the schism. To oppose the Roman schismatic position of Papal supremacy and to retain the pre-Schism Orthodox ecclesiology was to stand with the EOs.

Quote
and that your attempts to assign the Church of the Anglo-Saxons to the former category and the rest of the West to the latter are really a stretch.  Most of all, none of this proves that Harold is a saint in any way.
Does dying in defense of pre-Schism ecclesiology against the Schismatics' main change - supremacist ecclesiology count?

Quote
I've asked you to demonstrate that any historical community sought and received his miraculous intervention
Is that a necessary requirement of sainthood?

Quote
No dice.  The Orthodox Church does not recognize saints based on quasi-historical fanboy hobbyist speculation, but through the witness of the living community of the faithful.
Waltham Abbey portrayed him as a saint and attributed miracles to him and there are Orthodox today who venerate him.



Quote
Sorry, Mor.  I thought the SOC and the IOC were the perfect illustration of how two churches could disagree sharply over administrative matters and who is the temporal head of a given community while still holding to precisely the same faith and remaining a part of one communion.
In the case of the EO - Papal Roman split, the administrative disagreement of papal supremacy was too great, Antonious, even if we had the same basic faith. The filioque and Western teaching of Original Sin had already been around for centuries in the West before Papal Supremacy led to the split. I would have a hard time expecting Moscow and Constantinople ready to give fealty to Rome and declare their willingness to obey its churchly and theological decisions even if they could agree on the Filioque.

Quote
There are plenty of righteous kings who the Church never officially recognized as saints, and I am not convinced that we can say that the English Church ceased to be Orthodox immediately after the Norman invasion - a scant twelve years after 1054 - if we simultaneously contend that there was no hard and fast line between the Orthodox East and the Catholic West in general until several centuries later.
Doesn't this raise the following question: If a schismated Patriarch appoints bishops, or a schismatic bishop appoints priests, aren't the bishops and priests in schism too? This seems to be what happens with the vagante groups. Such and such bishop breaks off for some reason from the rest of the church and then appoints priests, but since the priests were ordained by the schismatic bishop, they aren't recognized. For apostolic succession to work, a given bishop must have been ordained by a hierarch or council in communion with the Orthodox Church, or at least must become recognized by the Orthodox Church afterwards. The Norman bishops were newly appointed by a schismatic Pope and I am unaware of them ever establishing communion and recognition with the EO churches. Ecclesiastically then, the post-Schism Norman bishops would have been ordained in Schism as well.

Even if England wasn't heterodox right after the Norman invasion, Harold II was still defending the Orthodox side of the main issue in the Schism - Papal supremacy.



Quote
St. Edward the Confessor lived shortly before and yet after the Schism and wasn't even killed, why is he venerated?
Just because he was recognized by the Church does not mean that Harold necessarily must be.
No, but it shows that Harold II is not disqualified merely by the fact that he belonged to the Church of England after 1054, in case someone were to argue that it disqualified him.

Quote
However, his daughter Gytha and his grandson were especially pious, as she made pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the latter became a Russian saint.
Which means nothing in this discussion.  No one is sainted based on another person's sanctity.
Belonging to a saintly family is circumstantial evidence of piety, although you would be right that this circumstantial evidence is not by itself proof. It does bolster the Vita Haroldi's direct evidence of his piety though.

Quote
Could dying in battle to defend Orthodoxy against the forces Schism and ecclesiastic heresy be sufficient basis? If so, we must consider his case more, because it is at least arguable that he qualifies.
First, we would have to establish that this was indeed what he was fighting for, and thus far, none of his advocates in this thread have offered anything even close to compelling evidence on that score.
Yes, if Harold II was fighting for the Anglo Saxon language, culture, independence, dynastic line, church system, legal system, etc. against Norman, Schismatic Papal-sponsored conquest, then it means that the pre-Schism church system was one of the things he was fighting for, and the forces flying the Schismatic Pope's banner and imposing the schismatic system were what he opposed.

Quote
Is it necessary for Harold to have been Orthodox? Some EO saints belonged to churches outside the EO communion, like St. Isaac of Nineveh, however they are rare. However, since Edward the Confessor was a saint and he had Harold II died soon one after the other not long after Rome schismated, it appears that the conditions in England had not changed enough under Harold II's rule to deny Harold II sainthood on the basis of possible unOrthodoxy. 
No one has ever argued in this thread that Harold should be denied prospective sainthood because he was heterodox.  No one even said that they considered him to be such.  The fact that you keep bringing this up as something between a strawman argument and padding in place of the evidence your cause is lacking speaks volumes.
I think it's relevant, because someone could bring it up. But thanks for clarifying that you are not disqualifying him as heterodox.

Quote
Further, if Harold II was defending the pre-Schism Orthodox ecclesiology against that of Rome as issue 2. proposes above, then Harold II would still be within the pre-Schism fold.
That's a big unproven "if".
Do you see a difference in ecclesiology if a Norman-supported schismatic Pope claims to use his newly claimed supremacist powers to effectively annul the pre-schism autonomy of the AngloSaxon church?

Quote
Is it necessary for there to be a cult that rose up around him?
What if a saint died and it was obvious that he was a saint, and he was canonized quickly before a cult arose? In that case there would be no cult for the simple reason of the lack of time between canonization and death.
That's not what happened with Harold.  He died quickly and was never canonized.
Right. But it proves that a simple, exceptional intervening cause can prevent a cult from rising up, such that the lack of a cult doesn't disprove sainthood.
In this case, there are two natural reasons why there wouldn't be a recorded cult even if he were considered a saint locally.
1. The Roman Pope, Norman bishops, and William's forces weren't going to allow a recognized saint cult to arise. Any such cult would have been underground and centered for example on Waltham Abbey, which did produce a vita and claim his gravesite.
2. The faraway Greek and Russian churches would not be very likely to canonize a local saint of another faraway country when that country had just fallen into schism without canonizing the saint. There are plenty of Greek and Russian local saints that the other national Orthodox church haven't canonized as saints. If a cult for a Christian who resisted pro-Papal forces didn't gain widespread currency in Roman Papal, Norman England, it's hard to expect faraway Russia and Greece to recognize him as their own saints. It wasn't until recently that the Russian and Antiochian jurisdictions even created their own Western Rites.

Quote
except some references I saw for veneration of him among Western Rite Orthodox
Moderns interested in reviving "Celtic Orthodoxy" hundreds of years after the fact don't count.
Those revivalist moderns count toward Orthodoxy, or else even the Western Rite wouldn't exist, since it involves a revival of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy.

Quote
and the quote I posted addressing him directly in a kind of "veneration"
From a t-shirt outlet.
I've seen references to his veneration elsewhere. But yes, if the owner of a Tshirt store venerates Harold II and collects poems about him from the masses of Anglo Saxons that visit and adorn his grave annually, it reflects veneration.

Quote
English have on occasion, though talked about him as a kind of passion-bearer, eg.:
"He obtained the crown, but soon found it to be lined with thorns." (SOURCE: The Britons and the Saxons; or, A history of England).
That sounds more like a poetic description of his reign than anything else.  To say that it's authors viewed Harold as a "passion-bearer" is a stretch.
Doesn't it refer to his death in particular to say his crown was one of thorns, drawing an image of Christ's passion? What else in his reign could be compared to the crown of thorns? Isn't the crown of thorns a reference to Christ's passion?

Quote
The same book noted that the English slogan was "the Holy Cross". There has been a longstanding tradition among the Anglo Saxon people of visiting his purported burial sites (the exact location is debated), but that doesn't necessarily mean veneration as a saint
No, it sure doesn't.  Lot's of people visit the tomb's or Mor's other Dubious Passion Bearers too.
Would their tradition of visitation be relevant if they came to visit an Orthodox king who died resisting the imposition of a Schismatic ecclesiology that was the key issue in the EO-RC split?

By the way, what do you think Grand Prince Mstislav I was canonized for, other than for patronizing the Orthodox Church like normal Christian kings of his era did? The main thing I can think of is that he didn't revert to paganism even though his kingdom had only been Orthodox for about 150 years. It seems to me that the case for canonizing his grandfather Harold II is comparably as strong, although on a different basis - preserving the pre-schism ecclesiology, resisting the imposition of the Schismatic Pope's rule via the Normans.

Quote
although he was apparently considered by some social sector as some kind of saint-king passion-bearer as his Vita Haroldi portrayed him as such.
Nice try, but again a stretch.  The population having a certain reverence for him and his sacrifice against an invading and oppressive foe isn't the same thing as seeking his intercession with God.
Is it necessary to show that the local visitors specially asked for his intercession to show that someone is a saint?

Quote
Although history's record of Harold's defeat can be interpreted to suggest that King Harold and his men died in defense of the Orthodox Christian faith, aside from the undocumented allegation that the Church of Russia has glorified him, there is no record of a cultus developing around Harold. This fact is not necessarily evidence against his place among the saints, especially since the Norman domination of the English church would have utterly squelched the liturgical veneration of the fallen Saxon king.

In our own day, however, some Orthodox Christians—especially those who venerate the saints of the British Isles—have begun to regard Harold as being truly a saint, that he and his men died defending their land from invasion by a foreign faith. Perhaps we may someday see a service written to him and popular veneration grow in the Orthodox Church, especially among English-speaking Orthodox Christians.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England
(I see someone else used the same reasoning I have).

Quote
In the case of Harold II there is a simple stigma against such a cult becoming widespread- he was defeated and his replacement - William - naturally would have tried to prevent a cult from developing. 
More unfounded speculation.
If it were obvious, how would it be "unfounded speculation"?
Do you think William and the Roman Pope would have allowed an Anglo Christian cult for their defeated opponent, Antonious?
Isn't it obvious that they wouldn't?

Do you think the Roman Church and an opposing monarchic dynasty would have allowed a national Christian cult to develop around, say, a defeated king under a formerly autonomous Church whom the Pope opposed and which the Pope unilaterally subjugated, respectively?

By comparison, surviving contemporary portraits of Lady Jane Grey are so extremely rare that we are not even sure what she looked like, since her memory was culturally suppressed. That is, even keeping portraits of her could raise suspicions of dissent. Or would that just be speculation about why we don't have many surviving portraits of the executed, deposed ex-Queen?

Quote
And if there was an "underground" cult in the century after Harold II, it hasn't survived in the surviving records, which have been scant anyway.
Now this is getting silly.  This is all fanfiction.
So reasonable explanations for the paucity of discussions on venerations of the defeated Anglo Saxon leader by the defeated Anglo-Saxons in records from about 1000 years ago is a silly idea of fanfiction, even though his abbey produced a Vita that basically compared him to a saint?

Quote
Further, since England then became part of the Western world, there was not a special impetus for the distant Greeks and Russians to venerate him as their own saint.

Oh geez.  Enough with the unfounded speculation already.
What is speculative about the fact that Russian and Greek churches frequently do not include the saints of other national churches in their own venerations and calendars?
Is that not a reasonable explanation for the lack of Harold II being listed on the calendar of the Greek or Russian churches?

Quote
is it necessary for miracles to be attributed to the saint? There actually are miracles recorded for Harold II in his Vita Haroldi, written by Waltham Abbey, whose patron he was. For example, he had a severe weakening of the body, was turned to a stone cross by the abbey's abbot, requested the clergy's prayers, after which he was completely healed. Before the battle of Stamford Bridge he had a severe pain and then prayed and had a vision of an abbot, after which he was healed.

Even if we trust your synopsis of this account (which given your record on these boards I am not inclined to do)
Isn't that ad-hominem, since we aren't supposed to bring issues from the Moderated forums onto the Public ones? Or do you wish me to repeat my sincerity about the issue we discussed about vagante OO churches?
Quote
none of this sounds like Harold was working any miracles through his intercession with God for others, but rather that he was the beneficiary of the prayers of the clergy.
I think traditionally we consider whether miracles have been connected to a given saint, like a miraculous healing, a victory (like that over the Tatars following a prayer, or in the case of the Vita, Harold II's victory at Stamford following an abbot's apparition), etc. But I think it isn't focused on whether the saint himself was the worker of the miracle. By comparison, as I understand it, Mstislav I found an ikon not made by hands, but I am not familiar with claims that he himself interceded postmortem for others.

Quote
Source: King Harold II and the Bayeux Tapestry By Gale R. Owen-Crocker, p. 65, 67.

This book explains that the Vita portrays Harold II as if he were a saint. The Vita is written from an English POV critical of William, who robbed the abbey.

Different interpretations have been generated by a story in which a large crucifix bowed to Harold II after Harold II had bowed to it.
Source: Cultural Difference and Material Culture in Middle English Romance By Dominique Battles

This bit sounds interesting.  Not enough on its own to see him sainted in the Orthodox Church, but you've finally hit on something that is at least compelling, unlike the bulk of the speculation in this post.  Well done.
Hey, you didn't accuse me of fanfic Orthodoxy or dishonesty, and even gave a sincere compliment. Thanks.

Uh Oh:
Quote
I wonder if we can bring this attention to a council.
Try this one.

Which do you prefer, discussion by a local council - jedi or not, or:



vs.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 10:34:12 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,209
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #199 on: October 18, 2015, 10:40:07 PM »
Furthermore, rakovsky recently messaged me of Harold's cultus, part of which being St. Mstislav being named in his honor who was related to him. In fact, Mstislav is the transliteration of Harold.
First, the canonized saint in that case is Harold, the Prince of Novgorod, who was known in the Russia chronicles as Mstislav I. Mstislav is not the transliteration of Harold, although the prefix Msti- might be related to it etymologically.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 10:55:42 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,209
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #200 on: October 18, 2015, 10:56:43 PM »
Amatorus:
Quote
There is a notation in the English liturgical calendar of ROCOR (don't know about the Russian lang. one) that notes the martyrdom of King Harold and those martyred with him at Hastings - but this notation is classified as a "local" veneration - not something officially recognized throughout the whole Russian Church.

Fr David Moser
http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/1141-king-harold-godwinson

(Feast Day Oct 14)
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 10:57:27 PM by rakovsky »

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,922
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #201 on: October 18, 2015, 11:59:49 PM »
in terms of Eastern Orthodox "authority" in the Tradition of our Church, isn't it the case that it is the laity of the Eastern Orthodox Church collectively, and particularly the Church fathers, theologians, clergy, monastics, and hierarchs, who have the authority to speak for our Church on questions of Tradition, Teachings, etc.?

Some random guys on a message board speculating about Harold II and Romulus Augustulus being Orthodox saints ≠ either the Mind or the consensus of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Why are you writing this? From what I recall Rakovsky's statement is within the mainstream. He wasn't naming names.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,360
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #202 on: October 19, 2015, 12:03:54 AM »
nvm... mispost
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 12:06:51 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,360
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #203 on: October 19, 2015, 12:16:48 AM »
Even if we trust your synopsis of this account (which given your record on these boards I am not inclined to do)
Isn't that ad-hominem, since we aren't supposed to bring issues from the Moderated forums onto the Public ones?
I don't recall Antonious ever saying that he was talking only about your participation on the Private Forum.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline wgw

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,591
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #204 on: October 19, 2015, 12:50:07 AM »
Rakovsky, I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council.  The regional governors will now have direct control over their territories.  [/Tarkin]

On a more serious note, I have concluded that your position and that of Amatorus is essentially wrong for the time being.  The possibility exists that Harold II might well be glorified at some point in the future, but this sort of thing ought to go through the proper channels.  There is also a legitimate concern that glorifing Harold II right now might interfere with the process of ecumenical reconciliation with Rome.  Which may be an unpopular reason to delay glorifying him, but it is not in my opinion simply to be brushed aside.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,922
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #205 on: October 19, 2015, 01:08:28 AM »
but this sort of thing ought to go through the proper channels.

I think Rakovsky (the laity) is historically a proper channel.

Why this thread keeps going on is beyond me. Certainly my objection has not been addressed. I think we should all work on the mystery of St Paul's Law. It is the only interesting aspect of this thread.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,209
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #206 on: October 19, 2015, 01:54:55 AM »
I think we should all work on the mystery of St Paul's Law. It is the only interesting aspect of this thread.
I agree. It's one of the most mysterious and interesting.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 01:55:15 AM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,209
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #207 on: October 19, 2015, 02:17:16 AM »
Quote
35. Staurotheke
Byzantine (Constantinople), ioth century

The Good Friday theme is taken up again on the lid's inner face, where a figure of John Chrysostom holds an open book with Jesus' admonition to his disciples to love one another.

They, in turn, are subtended by Saint Peter, holding a martyr's cross and extending his hand as if in conciliatory speech, and Saint Paul, displaying a book to him. The proximity of Paul's book to that of John Chrysostom, one over the other when the box is closed, suggests they are meant to be one and the same, the Orthodox Church in the persons of Paul and Chrysostom offering an admonition through it to Peter's
heirs in Rome.
THE GLORY OF BYZANTIUM
Edited by Helen C. Evans and William D. Wixom

https://books.google.com/books?id=Caqa12aj55wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=THE+GLORY+OF+BYZANTIUM+HE+GLORY+OF+BYZANTIUM+Art+and+Culture+of+the+Middle+Byzantine+Era+A.D.+843-1261+Edited+by+Helen+C.+Evans+and+William+D.+Wixom&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI1baowfDNyAIVhh8eCh2WfgTH#v=snippet&q=paul%20book&f=false

I think they might be reading too much into it. I didn't get that from looking at the photo.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,209
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #208 on: October 19, 2015, 02:46:59 AM »
Paul of Alexandria was a 4th century Byzantine astrologer, whose writings became current in Byzantium, but I don't think that is what we are talking about.

St. Paul's Rite sometimes refers to the rituals of St Paul's Cathedral in London:

"The Rules of S. Paul's, London, (MS. 45) varied only from thefe, in that the direction is to wear Albes at fuch laft-mentioned times, which fhows that the Albe differed little from the Surplice. ...Alfo, according to the St. Paul's Rite (a.d. 1290) his Benediction is to be fought when the Elements are brought in, and on mixing the water with the wine." https://archive.org/stream/divineworshipine00chamuoft/divineworshipine00chamuoft_djvu.txt
 

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,209
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #209 on: October 19, 2015, 03:07:11 AM »
I think we should all work on the mystery of St Paul's Law. It is the only interesting aspect of this thread.
What makes you think Pals-bok from the Scandinavian sagas is best translated as Paul's law? Shouldn't it be Paul's book, since bok in Swedish (and I think Norwegian, and Icelandic) is book?

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,275
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #210 on: October 19, 2015, 01:01:47 PM »
We agree about the BOLD above.

Which was only necessary for me to state because you erroneously assigned the position to me in the first place.

My point is that an anathema against the Pope, which Constantinople levied on him was not automatically an anathema on autonomous bishops connected to him, and who did not trace their appointment to him in his schismatic state.

I never said it was.  In fact, I never made any attempt to separate any element in the Western Church from any element in the Eastern Church in this era.

Thus, Harold II is not automatically considered out of communion with Orthodoxy.

I never once contended that he was.  Why do you keep belaboring this point?

After the Norman conquest though, the Norman bishops were directly appointed by the Schismated Pope. The end of Harold II's rule therefore marks a major ecclesiastic turning point.

An administrative one, perhaps.  It cannot be said with certainty that there was any substantial difference in faith between the pre-schism and post-schism English Church at this early stage.

OK, good we agree.

I'm glad you finally get it.

I do think though that eventually the Schism has meant in Eastern Orthodoxy at some point that those under Rome, especially supporters of Papal Infallibility, are in a communion outside ours.

At some point, yes.  As others have rightly pointed out, I don't think you can say with certainty where that line was drawn less than two decades after the anathema of 1054.

I think that in practice the cut off for England came as early as the Schismatic Pope's direct appointment of new bishops in England to replace the pre-Schism bishops.

This does not sound entirely unreasonable, but I'm not sure that you're correct.  Has the Church produced anything definitive on this score?  If so, I'll accept it.  If not, your opinion is simply your opinion.

Papal supremacy was the crucial issue, according to the Varangian Sagas that reflected the Anglo-Saxons' understanding of it at the time. It wasn't Original Sin, since Augustine remains an EO saint. It wasn't the Filioque either, since that had already been around in the West for centuries before 1054. If you see an issue that was as decisive as papal supremacy, especially one that could disqualify Harold II as a saint for opposing the Schismatic Papal supremacist ecclesiology imposed on Britain, let me know.

The point is, as Trisagion has already pointed out, you have yet to establish with any certainty that Harold II was chiefly concerned with fighting against a dogmatic form of Papal Supremacy and not merely with maintaining his own crown, with the administrative issue of direct papal appointment of bishops in his land as something of an adjunct.

Is that what started this whole thread?

To the everlasting shame and detriment of this board, yes.  Fantasy role-playing garbage.  Orthodox Christianity is not a hobby or something that people should use to entertain themselves.  I'll call that nerdy garbage out on these boards whenever I feel like it.

Yes, it shows a difference from Rome, because I don't think Rome considered Constantinople the center of the Church. The Roman schismatic position considered Rome totally supreme. 

And I reiterate that none of this proves that they were Orthodox in any other respect (as in other than ecclesiology, which in this case might've been simply an administrative issue for the English) that Rome wasn't in this period

There was a key issue in the schism. To oppose the Roman schismatic position of Papal supremacy and to retain the pre-Schism Orthodox ecclesiology was to stand with the EOs.

Not necessarily so.  They could have just been two Western churches which differed only on an administrative and not a dogmatic issue.

Does dying in defense of pre-Schism ecclesiology against the Schismatics' main change - supremacist ecclesiology count?

Not if it can’t be substantiated that this was a dogmatic and not an administrative issue.

Waltham Abbey portrayed him as a saint and attributed miracles to him and there are Orthodox today who venerate him.

That's not a continuity.  Even if we accept the idea that Waltham Abbey regarded him as a saint (which I don't accept at this point) there's a gulf there of many hundreds of years.  There is no living continuity between the pre-schism Church of the Anglo-Saxons and the Western Rite Orthodox or vagante so-called "Celtic Orthodox" groups today.  None.  Further, the passage you previously posted does not prove decisively that Harold was ever canonized by any group at any time.

In the case of the EO - Papal Roman split, the administrative disagreement of papal supremacy was too great, Antonious, even if we had the same basic faith. The filioque and Western teaching of Original Sin had already been around for centuries in the West before Papal Supremacy led to the split. I would have a hard time expecting Moscow and Constantinople ready to give fealty to Rome and declare their willingness to obey its churchly and theological decisions even if they could agree on the Filioque.

None of which proves that the Church of the Anglo-Saxons viewed itself as being in communion with the East and out of communion with the Pope and the rest of the West at this point in history.  Really, this is becoming quite circular.  You can't prove your conjecture on this point, so I will continue to question it, and you will continue to reassert it without providing the necessary further proof, so what really is the point of this exercise?  Let Amatorus fill in Harold's profile as an Orthodox saint on his video game, while the Orthodox Church continues not to venerate him, and let's move on.

Doesn't this raise the following question: If a schismated Patriarch appoints bishops, or a schismatic bishop appoints priests, aren't the bishops and priests in schism too?

This assumes that there was an all-encompassing hard and fast line between East and West in the years immediately following 1054.  Are the priests appointed by the bishops of the IOC excommunicated by Antioch in schism from the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Church? Are the priests appointed by the bishops of any of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem in schism with the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch?  Your question depends upon the assumption that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches were two churches immediately following the anathema of 1054 and that the Church of the Anglo-Saxons fell into the former category.  I'm not convinced that this is true anywhere other than in the world of Crusader Kings Super Deluxe Edition: One Knight in Bangkok.

This seems to be what happens with the vagante groups. Such and such bishop breaks off for some reason from the rest of the church and then appoints priests, but since the priests were ordained by the schismatic bishop, they aren't recognized. For apostolic succession to work, a given bishop must have been ordained by a hierarch or council in communion with the Orthodox Church, or at least must become recognized by the Orthodox Church afterwards. The Norman bishops were newly appointed by a schismatic Pope and I am unaware of them ever establishing communion and recognition with the EO churches. Ecclesiastically then, the post-Schism Norman bishops would have been ordained in Schism as well.

See above.

Even if England wasn't heterodox right after the Norman invasion, Harold II was still defending the Orthodox side of the main issue in the Schism - Papal supremacy.

You keep saying this, but I've yet to see proof.  Where has Harold ever said that he was fighting against the dogma of Papal Supremacy and that this was a key issue for him?

No, but it shows that Harold II is not disqualified merely by the fact that he belonged to the Church of England after 1054, in case someone were to argue that it disqualified him.

Good thing no one in this thread ever made that silly argument.  Scoring on strawmen doesn't add to your points to your side in this debate, though you may get your friend all worked up into a historygasmic fit again, which also counts for nothing.

Belonging to a saintly family is circumstantial evidence of piety

Not necessarily.  Many saints came from awful, abusive, anti-Christian families.

although you would be right that this circumstantial evidence is not by itself proof.

Dang skippy.

It does bolster the Vita Haroldi's direct evidence of his piety though.

In your opinion.

Yes, if Harold II was fighting for the Anglo Saxon language, culture, independence, dynastic line, church system, legal system, etc. against Norman, Schismatic Papal-sponsored conquest, then it means that the pre-Schism church system was one of the things he was fighting for, and the forces flying the Schismatic Pope's banner and imposing the schismatic system were what he opposed.

No it doesn't.  My point stands:

Quote
First, we would have to establish that this was indeed what he was fighting for, and thus far, none of his advocates in this thread have offered anything even close to compelling evidence on that score.

All evidence thus far seems to point to Harold simply being a king with no royal blood defending his throne against a foreign invader with an administrative church issue as a possible adjunct to the main reasons for the fight.  You've yet to substantiate anything more.

I think it's relevant, because someone could bring it up. But thanks for clarifying that you are not disqualifying him as heterodox.

Thanks for belatedly clarifying that you're not trying to assign this stupid argument to me.  Let's see if you introduce it into the discussion again before someone actually advances it in order to pad your post and appear to score points on a matter that's never once been raised by your opposition.

Do you see a difference in ecclesiology if a Norman-supported schismatic Pope claims to use his newly claimed supremacist powers to effectively annul the pre-schism autonomy of the AngloSaxon church?

Possibly, if proof were provided that this was a dogmatic issue.  I could also see - perhaps more readily - an administrative issue between the bishops of a single Church.

Right. But it proves that a simple, exceptional intervening cause can prevent a cult from rising up, such that the lack of a cult doesn't disprove sainthood.

According to your speculation.  We don't know that any exceptional intervening cause prevented a cult from rising up, and I won't accept the idea merely on your ponderings and postulations.

In this case, there are two natural reasons why there wouldn't be a recorded cult even if he were considered a saint locally.
1. The Roman Pope, Norman bishops, and William's forces weren't going to allow a recognized saint cult to arise. Any such cult would have been underground and centered for example on Waltham Abbey, which did produce a vita and claim his gravesite.
2. The faraway Greek and Russian churches would not be very likely to canonize a local saint of another faraway country when that country had just fallen into schism without canonizing the saint. There are plenty of Greek and Russian local saints that the other national Orthodox church haven't canonized as saints. If a cult for a Christian who resisted pro-Papal forces didn't gain widespread currency in Roman Papal, Norman England, it's hard to expect faraway Russia and Greece to recognize him as their own saints. It wasn't until recently that the Russian and Antiochian jurisdictions even created their own Western Rites.

Conjecture and fantasy.  You have nothing to substantiate your theories.

Those revivalist moderns count toward Orthodoxy, or else even the Western Rite wouldn't exist, since it involves a revival of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy.

It still doesn't constitute a living continuity with any church or demonstrate that there was ever any historical cult surrounding Harold.  Have any of his modern admirers reported his miraculous intervention in their lives?

I've seen references to his veneration elsewhere.

Post them.

But yes, if the owner of a Tshirt store venerates Harold II and collects poems about him from the masses of Anglo Saxons that visit and adorn his grave annually, it reflects veneration.

No, it doesn't.  It's trite, and it reflects mere admiration.

Doesn't it refer to his death in particular to say his crown was one of thorns, drawing an image of Christ's passion? What else in his reign could be compared to the crown of thorns? Isn't the crown of thorns a reference to Christ's passion?

Poetic imagery.  Lot's of people have used the phrase "crown of thorns" to reflect the "passions" of a figure they didn't necessarily consider a saint in the proper sense.  Again, you're hanging your hat on a conjecture, and in this case, your personal interpretation of a bit of writing.

Would their tradition of visitation be relevant if they came to visit an Orthodox king who died resisting the imposition of a Schismatic ecclesiology that was the key issue in the EO-RC split?

It depends on if they regarded him as a saint and came to his tomb to ask for his intervention at the Throne of God or were merely visiting the grave of a historical figure they admired because he fought for a side they identified with historically and culturally.

By the way, what do you think Grand Prince Mstislav I was canonized for, other than for patronizing the Orthodox Church like normal Christian kings of his era did? The main thing I can think of is that he didn't revert to paganism even though his kingdom had only been Orthodox for about 150 years. It seems to me that the case for canonizing his grandfather Harold II is comparably as strong, although on a different basis - preserving the pre-schism ecclesiology, resisting the imposition of the Schismatic Pope's rule via the Normans.

It seems to you indeed.  This is all just your opinion.  As I've said throughout this discussion, it's not on me to defend the canonization of St. Mstislav I or anyone else, and his canonization does not necessarily mean that Harold II should be canonized.

Is it necessary to show that the local visitors specially asked for his intercession to show that someone is a saint?

Otherwise, they're simply visiting the grave of someone they admire.  There's a difference.  You don't simply visit the tomb of someone you consider a saint without asking their prayers.

(I see someone else used the same reasoning I have).

And others have used the same reasoning I have in this very thread.  What's your point?

If it were obvious, how would it be "unfounded speculation"?

Because you cannot prove that a historic cult ever existed to be squelched.

Do you think William and the Roman Pope would have allowed an Anglo Christian cult for their defeated opponent, Antonious?
Isn't it obvious that they wouldn't?

Is there any evidence that they took measures to suppress such a cult?  Speculation and "probably" is not fact.

Do you think the Roman Church and an opposing monarchic dynasty would have allowed a national Christian cult to develop around, say, a defeated king under a formerly autonomous Church whom the Pope opposed and which the Pope unilaterally subjugated, respectively?

Do you have any evidence that such a cult existed and that they took measures to suppress it?  Or just your opinions and speculation?

By comparison, surviving contemporary portraits of Lady Jane Grey are so extremely rare that we are not even sure what she looked like, since her memory was culturally suppressed. That is, even keeping portraits of her could raise suspicions of dissent. Or would that just be speculation about why we don't have many surviving portraits of the executed, deposed ex-Queen?

If you know for a fact - after reviewing the assembled historical evidence - that portraits of Grey are rare because her memory was "culturally suppressed", then the two cases are not at all comparable.  We have evidence in Grey's case, conjecture in Harold's.  The one doesn't necessarily prove the other.

So reasonable explanations for the paucity of discussions on venerations of the defeated Anglo Saxon leader by the defeated Anglo-Saxons in records from about 1000 years ago is a silly idea of fanfiction

What you have are assumptions, not explanations.  Speculative history and wishful thinking.  To call it fanfiction is not an exaggeration.

even though his abbey produced a Vita that basically compared him to a saint?

According to your interpretation of the bits you've paraphrased.  We've been over this.  Produce the document in question and let's see how others view it.  And has Orthodoxy recognized this document as hagiography?

What is speculative about the fact that Russian and Greek churches frequently do not include the saints of other national churches in their own venerations and calendars?

Because by this logic, any figure who does not appear on their calendars and who you think meets the criteria of sainthood must be a saint.  The fact that Harold doesn't appear on Greek and Russian calendars proves nothing.

Is that not a reasonable explanation for the lack of Harold II being listed on the calendar of the Greek or Russian churches?

It's inconclusive.  It might be one explanation.  There could be others.  All speculation on your part based on what you - a man who is not a historian - thinks is reasonable.

Isn't that ad-hominem, since we aren't supposed to bring issues from the Moderated forums onto the Public ones?

Are you telling the mods how to do their jobs, or do you really want an answer?

Or do you wish me to repeat my sincerity about the issue we discussed about vagante OO churches?

Neither.  I'm referring to exchanges we've had in the public fora in which you have been dishonest and tried your darndest to make it out as if the Ethiopian Orthodox Church countenanced the smoking of marijuana because it suited your fantasies of a black, pothead church.  I'm merely clarifying what I was saying since you asked, by the way, not inviting further debate on the subject in this thread.  If you want to get into that again, reboot the other thread and I'll gladly school again you there.  If you hi-jack this thread with crap from the other as you tried to do when attempting to engage Mor on peripheral subjects, I'll be the one complaining to the mods, and not in public.

I think traditionally we consider whether miracles have been connected to a given saint, like a miraculous healing, a victory (like that over the Tatars following a prayer, or in the case of the Vita, Harold II's victory at Stamford following an abbot's apparition), etc. But I think it isn't focused on whether the saint himself was the worker of the miracle. By comparison, as I understand it, Mstislav I found an ikon not made by hands, but I am not familiar with claims that he himself interceded postmortem for others.

Again, nothing conclusive here.  Plenty of figures who are not saints have been the beneficiaries of miracles in hagiography.  The fact that Harold benefitted from the miraculous intervention of others in this document you're referring to doesn't necessarily mean he was any more holy than anyone else a saint has interceded for.

Hey, you didn't accuse me of fanfic Orthodoxy or dishonesty, and even gave a sincere compliment. Thanks.

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Which do you prefer, discussion by a local council - jedi or not, or:



vs.



I don't think real councils debate fanfiction, so the toy council in this case would be the most appropriate venue for speculation based on a "secret mission" video game.  Nothing hyperdox about that.

First, the canonized saint in that case is Harold, the Prince of Novgorod, who was known in the Russia chronicles as Mstislav I. Mstislav is not the transliteration of Harold, although the prefix Msti- might be related to it etymologically.

LOL!  You've harshed his historygasm.

Quote
There is a notation in the English liturgical calendar of ROCOR (don't know about the Russian lang. one) that notes the martyrdom of King Harold and those martyred with him at Hastings - but this notation is classified as a "local" veneration - not something officially recognized throughout the whole Russian Church.

Fr David Moser
http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/1141-king-harold-godwinson

(Feast Day Oct 14)

Maybe that will get him back on track.

Why are you writing this? From what I recall Rakovsky's statement is within the mainstream. He wasn't naming names.

Taken at face value, the statement is indeed correct.  Including speculation based on a gamer's "secret mission" in any of those categories would be a mistake, whether they can be termed an Orthodox layman or not.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 01:05:09 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Offline wgw

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,591
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #211 on: October 19, 2015, 01:36:31 PM »
Surely it would be a more enjoyable way to pass your time Antonious to do what I do and just reject the opposing arguments categorically and without further explanation.  This subject is rather uninteresting in the grand scheme of things; it would be more enjoyable to have an epic throwdown with some Nestorians.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 01:37:04 PM by wgw »
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,741
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #212 on: October 19, 2015, 04:04:22 PM »
Five pages. Huh.

If I were your pastor or spiritual father or some sort of advisor (which I'm not) rather than just some guy on the internet (which I am), I'd suggest you spend your obvious energy, intellect, passion and time on something of use to the Church as well as to your own spiritual well being, like perhaps assisting in implementing the instructions given us in Matthew 28: 16-20.

God Himself knows if good King Harold died a saint or not. At this point in time, it would seem He doesn't need our help in figuring it out.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 04:05:07 PM by podkarpatska »

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Delusional Overlord
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,163
  • And the cat is back again.
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources
« Reply #213 on: October 19, 2015, 04:05:49 PM »
Five pages. Huh.

If I were your pastor or spiritual father or some sort of advisor (which I'm not) rather than just some guy on the internet (which I am), I'd suggest you spend your obvious energy, intellect, passion and time on something of use to the Church as well as to your own spiritual well being, like perhaps assisting in implementing the instructions given us in Matthew 28: 16-20.

God Himself knows if good King Harold died a saint or not. At this point in time, it would seem He doesn't need our help in figuring it out.
pod for the win. Again.
The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,209
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
I'd just like to say that England had not really been independent since 1013 with the invasion of Sweyn Forkbeard.  If anything, the Norman invasion was just switching one foreign invader for another.
Cromwell?