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.
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.
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.
(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?
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.
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.
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?
I've asked you to demonstrate that any historical community sought and received his miraculous intervention
Is that a necessary requirement of sainthood?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Is it necessary for there to be a cult that rose up around him?That's not what happened with Harold. He died quickly and was never canonized.
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.
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.
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.
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.
English have on occasion, though talked about him as a kind of passion-bearer, eg.: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.
"He obtained the crown, but soon found it to be lined with thorns." (SOURCE: The Britons and the Saxons; or, A history of England).
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?
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 saintNo, 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.
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?
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.http://orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England
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.
(I see someone else used the same reasoning I have).
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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: