You can always ask him at Church on Sunday!
<glares with a smirk at ambrosemzv> YES...but as you see, this worked better, now didn't it?!
"Before it came under Rome's influence"? It was influenced by "Rome" from the start.
You are correct, sir, in saying the influence was there; I'm just talking about pre-Whitby synod stuff, before the administration of Britain came under direct Roman responsibility, IIRC. Due to this, some of the original, native Celtic liturgical expression (+ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â la
Saurum and York) was replaced with that of Rome.
This was not an EO site but one that was of the "Real Christianity was driven underground by the Eeeviiilll Catholics" school. Sigh.
Sigh, indeed. And if by "Real Christianity" they mean the original, indiginous stuff that developed from Joseph of Arimathea and Aristobulous, well, it wasn't driven underground -- it was replaced, and not by the "Eeeevilll Catholics" (that's funny) -- but by a bastion of orthodoxy (at the time, at least).
Thanks for the Orthodox /= Byzantine, Pedro. I know about WRO. It's something of a controversy.
I figured I'd get some support from you on that! It seems that the negativity comes from ex-episcopalians I know (though by no means all of them) who feel that they hadn't really "converted" until they changed rites.
That is a point I can definitely see -- you have a long-bearded bishop visit one Sunday, smear oil on a bunch of you, then say, "congrats; you're Orthodox now!" while everything looks, smells, tastes, and sounds almost exactly the same as before. Without a lot
of catechism before chrismation, it's easy to slip into an identity crisis once you've been received.
That in mind, I still think its a wonderful idea to attempt to show the Orthodox Church's catholicity, even if it is only just now coming out of its infant stages and still with some 'bugs' to work out.
OK! Off the soabox, Pedro!