Pre-1066 Orthodox England?

[Aindriú]

I've heard it said in a few places that prior to the Norman invasion of England, when William the Bastard brought differing traditions to the isles, that England was "Orthodox".

What were these changes that were non-Orthodox?

[Shanghaiski]

I've heard it said in a few places that prior to the Norman invasion of England, when William the Bastard brought differing traditions to the isles, that England was "Orthodox".

What were these changes that were non-Orthodox?

Papal supremacy, for one. Then, between the late 11th century and the early 16th century, all the other Latin heresies became entrenched. Liturgically, however, there were few significant differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic England, except that what was left of the native Orthodox rites was suppressed. Still, there was nothing un-Orthodox about the Sarum rite that was imported with the Bastard.

[Shanghaiski]

Filioque already existed in England in Orthodox times. It wasn't until after the schism that it began to be defended vigorously as dogma, in response to Orthodox rebuke.

[Cognomen]

Does anyone have an updated (working) link to the Anglo-Saxon Varangian paper written by the professor (I think he's in New Mexico)?

It mentioned some of the religious differences the Normans brought with them, William's pre-Norman religious affinities, and the Anglo-Saxon connection to the Orthodox East.  Interesting read; I wish I had saved a PDF of it.

[Shanghaiski]

Does anyone have an updated (working) link to the Anglo-Saxon Varangian paper written by the professor (I think he's in New Mexico)?

It mentioned some of the religious differences the Normans brought with them, William's pre-Norman religious affinities, and the Anglo-Saxon connection to the Orthodox East.  Interesting read; I wish I had saved a PDF of it.

There's The Fall of Orthodox England, by Vladimir Moss. Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.

[rakovsky]

Does anyone have an updated (working) link to the Anglo-Saxon Varangian paper written by the professor (I think he's in New Mexico)?

It mentioned some of the religious differences the Normans brought with them, William's pre-Norman religious affinities, and the Anglo-Saxon connection to the Orthodox East.  Interesting read; I wish I had saved a PDF of it.

There's The Fall of Orthodox England, by Vladimir Moss. Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.

I thought Moss's writing about Harold II was at least reasonable. The canonization proposed by Moss seems to be a stretch, but he did defend Orthodox England against the Norman invasion, and others have been canonized for less.

Harold II's grandson Mstislav became the Grand Prince of Kiev (ie the main ruler) and was made a saint, but I really can't find a strong religious reason for Mstislav's canonization.

[Ebor]

Does anyone have an updated (working) link to the Anglo-Saxon Varangian paper written by the professor (I think he's in New Mexico)?

It mentioned some of the religious differences the Normans brought with them, William's pre-Norman religious affinities, and the Anglo-Saxon connection to the Orthodox East.  Interesting read; I wish I had saved a PDF of it.

There's The Fall of Orthodox England, by Vladimir Moss. Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.

Vladimir Moss is not a historian. His interpretations of certain passages are highly questionable and there have been problems with citations to put it bluntly. There are other threads here where his writings have been discussed and problems pointed out,.

 As to the "sane, well-adjusted" crack such scholars do exist and they are ones that take the primary source materials seriously and are careful with what they cite among other things. One such was Frank Barlow, the late professor emeritus of History at Exeter University. He wrote a number  of books, some of which I have on my shelves such as The English Church, 1000-1066, The English Church, 1066-1154, The Feudal Kingdom of England,1042-1216, The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster as well as biographical works of Edward the Confessor, the Godwin family and others.

Ebor

[Ebor]

Does anyone have an updated (working) link to the Anglo-Saxon Varangian paper written by the professor (I think he's in New Mexico)?

It mentioned some of the religious differences the Normans brought with them, William's pre-Norman religious affinities, and the Anglo-Saxon connection to the Orthodox East.  Interesting read; I wish I had saved a PDF of it.

There's The Fall of Orthodox England, by Vladimir Moss. Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.

I thought Moss's writing about Harold II was at least reasonable. The canonization proposed by Moss seems to be a stretch, but he did defend Orthodox England against the Norman invasion, and others have been canonized for less.

Harold II's grandson Mstislav became the Grand Prince of Kiev (ie the main ruler) and was made a saint, but I really can't find a strong religious reason for Mstislav's canonization.

Can you tell us what you found "reasonable" about Moss' statements about Harald II?  Have you read any other works on the period or such source materials as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which has been translated into modern English?

Ebor

[Ebor]

I've heard it said in a few places that prior to the Norman invasion of England, when William the Bastard brought differing traditions to the isles, that England was "Orthodox".

What were these changes that were non-Orthodox?

Papal supremacy, for one. Then, between the late 11th century and the early 16th century, all the other Latin heresies became entrenched. Liturgically, however, there were few significant differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic England, except that what was left of the native Orthodox rites was suppressed. Still, there was nothing un-Orthodox about the Sarum rite that was imported with the Bastard.

Have you read the Ecclesiastical History of the English People by St. Bede the Venerable or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles?  Christianity in England looked to the Bishop of Rome for such things as the making of bishops.  Could you please explain what you mean by "native Orthodox rites"? 

Thank you

Ebor

[Ebor]

I've heard it said in a few places that prior to the Norman invasion of England, when William the Bastard brought differing traditions to the isles, that England was "Orthodox".

What were these changes that were non-Orthodox?

There are some primary source materials that can be find in modern English translations that give accounts of the time, place and some of the situations in England.  There are also some good scholarly works as well, some of which I've mentioned above.

Ebor

[Aindriú]

Papal supremacy, for one.

Papal supremacy in 1066? The Western Kings still had a large hand in the order of things then. It wasn't until really Pope Innocent III that a libertas ecclesiae really began to be achieved. Though certainly Pope Gregory VII made some headway in that regard against the German King Henry IV, but Pope Gregory VII wasn't made Pope until 1073.

The destruction of the synodal structure of bishops who were provincially organized had been destroyed up to this point by the Muslims (destroying the North African church (Carthage) and the Spanish at the end of the 8th century), as well as the corruption of the Metropolitan position by the Kings who used backed the idea that a Metropolitan received his power from the State and not from his other bishops. It was scheming to achieve a transfer of power from the Kings (Visigoths and Franks) that opened the door to more Papal power in the West.

I have to disagree that Papal Supremacy was what they brought. If anything, it was a destruction of traditional collegiality that may have existed and replaced by Frankish state rule over the church. State influence over a church was hardly limited to the West, however. It just manifested in different ways.

Then, between the late 11th century and the early 16th century, all the other Latin heresies became entrenched.

More specifically?

Though I must note this isn't claiming anything about William bringing heresy than it is of growing of heresy.

Liturgically, however, there were few significant differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic England, except that what was left of the native Orthodox rites was suppressed. Still, there was nothing un-Orthodox about the Sarum rite that was imported with the Bastard.

Sarum Rite? That was developed locally in England by the Bishop of Salisbury, which is why it's called Sarum (or otherwise known was "Use of Salisbury").

[Aindriú]

One such was Frank Barlow, the late professor emeritus of History at Exeter University. He wrote a number  of books, some of which I have on my shelves such as The English Church, 1000-1066, The English Church, 1066-1154, The Feudal Kingdom of England,1042-1216, The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster as well as biographical works of Edward the Confessor, the Godwin family and others.

Ebor

Thank you!

[rakovsky]

There's The Fall of Orthodox England, by Vladimir Moss. Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.

I thought Moss's writing about Harold II was at least reasonable. The canonization proposed by Moss seems to be a stretch, but he did defend Orthodox England against the Norman invasion, and others have been canonized for less.

Harold II's grandson Mstislav became the Grand Prince of Kiev (ie the main ruler) and was made a saint, but I really can't find a strong religious reason for Mstislav's canonization.

Can you tell us what you found "reasonable" about Moss' statements about Harald II?  Have you read any other works on the period or such source materials as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which has been translated into modern English?

Ebor

Ebor,

Shanghaiski wrote:

Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.

My reaction is that I read a significant excerpt from Moss' writing about Harold II, and what he wrote made sense to me. So to me, it was "well-reasoned".

To give an example, as I remember, he was relating well-known historical facts, and then pointed out that there was a disagreement and separation from the Pope, who at that time was leading into the Great Schism. Orthodox England had not joined in the Pope's rejection of the Orthodox East as the Pope's power was separated from the Church in England, although I don't remember whether there was a schism at that point. Harold II was politically close with the Orthodox East too, as his daughter went to Russia and married Monomakh, Harold II's grandson becoming Grand Prince (basically the king).

The Pope, leading into schism at that point or already part of it, was backing Norman the Conqueror, making Harold II the defender of the older Orthodox England at that point.

Now what I have just told you is what I remember from Moss' writing about this, but there was alot more. And while I am doubtful whether you can say England was canonically Orthodox simply because it didn't have a falling out with Russia and didn't itself choose to break communion, but did have a falling out with the Pope, it seems at least reasonable.

So for example, ROCOR had a falling out with the Mother Church, and lost communion with the Mother Church and most other churches. But since ROCOR still had communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, then it would be at least reasonable to assert ROCOR was still canonical, if one could add in other things as well.

So if it were reasonable to say the Mother Church (for Orthodox England- Rome; for ROCOR- the Moscow Patriarch) became schismatic or uncanonical, and a group like Orthodox England or ROCOR stayed in communion with the canonical church (for Orthodox England- Russia; for ROCOR- Serbia and Jerusalem), then it sounds reasonable to say this smaller group was still canonical.


Now personally, I am unsure Orthodox England would really be canonical since its Patriarch- Rome wasn't, and I am pretty doubtful that ROCOR was canonical, since it split from the canonical Mother Church. But I am talking about what would be reasonable to propose.

And while I haven't read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I have played the Game 1066, and would be glad to play anyone on the forum:
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/0-9/1066/game/

[Shanghaiski]

Does anyone have an updated (working) link to the Anglo-Saxon Varangian paper written by the professor (I think he's in New Mexico)?

It mentioned some of the religious differences the Normans brought with them, William's pre-Norman religious affinities, and the Anglo-Saxon connection to the Orthodox East.  Interesting read; I wish I had saved a PDF of it.

There's The Fall of Orthodox England, by Vladimir Moss. Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.

Vladimir Moss is not a historian. His interpretations of certain passages are highly questionable and there have been problems with citations to put it bluntly. There are other threads here where his writings have been discussed and problems pointed out,.

 As to the "sane, well-adjusted" crack such scholars do exist and they are ones that take the primary source materials seriously and are careful with what they cite among other things. One such was Frank Barlow, the late professor emeritus of History at Exeter University. He wrote a number  of books, some of which I have on my shelves such as The English Church, 1000-1066, The English Church, 1066-1154, The Feudal Kingdom of England,1042-1216, The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster as well as biographical works of Edward the Confessor, the Godwin family and others.

Ebor

You misunderstood me. Nowhere did I credential Moss as a historian. In many cases, he's downright nuts. As a product of academia myself, the "crack" was self-depricative.

[Ebor]

I beg your pardon for not getting the self-deprecation of your remark.  Lacking such context it seemed more to discount the existence of any serious scholars at all which is not the case.  Unfortunately, the likes of Mr. Moss are at times put forth as reliable because a person likes what is said about a particular subject and not because they have found out that there are, shall we say, problems with the thesis and its supporting evidence (if any).

Ebor

[Aindriú]

I've heard it said in a few places that prior to the Norman invasion of England, when William the Bastard brought differing traditions to the isles, that England was "Orthodox".

What were these changes that were non-Orthodox?

Papal supremacy, for one. Then, between the late 11th century and the early 16th century, all the other Latin heresies became entrenched. Liturgically, however, there were few significant differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic England, except that what was left of the native Orthodox rites was suppressed. Still, there was nothing un-Orthodox about the Sarum rite that was imported with the Bastard.

Have you read the Ecclesiastical History of the English People by St. Bede the Venerable or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles?  Christianity in England looked to the Bishop of Rome for such things as the making of bishops.  Could you please explain what you mean by "native Orthodox rites"? 

Thank you

Ebor

Even more so, it was Anglo-Saxon metropolitans (Canterbury and York) who received the pallium from the pope in 601ad as a sign of their status as metropolitans. By the 9th century, every new metropolitan was required to do the same (became tradition). This tradition didn't catch on elsewhere until later (The Franks started this in the 11th century).

Missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons specifically asked the Pope to authorize their mission. St. Boniface (680-753ad) himself was big on ensuring local practices were identical to Rome. It was a belief that similarity in praxis ensured similarity in faith. (Something that isn't too alien to the East, either.)

[Shanghaiski]

I've heard it said in a few places that prior to the Norman invasion of England, when William the Bastard brought differing traditions to the isles, that England was "Orthodox".

What were these changes that were non-Orthodox?

Papal supremacy, for one. Then, between the late 11th century and the early 16th century, all the other Latin heresies became entrenched. Liturgically, however, there were few significant differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic England, except that what was left of the native Orthodox rites was suppressed. Still, there was nothing un-Orthodox about the Sarum rite that was imported with the Bastard.

Have you read the Ecclesiastical History of the English People by St. Bede the Venerable or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles?  Christianity in England looked to the Bishop of Rome for such things as the making of bishops.  Could you please explain what you mean by "native Orthodox rites"? 

Thank you

Ebor

Those existing in the Isles prior to the Normans.

[Aindriú]

Now personally, I am unsure Orthodox England would really be canonical since its Patriarch- Rome wasn't, and I am pretty doubtful that ROCOR was canonical, since it split from the canonical Mother Church. But I am talking about what would be reasonable to propose.

That is certainly the logical course I was prepared to see your argument. The question then is 'when did Rome stop being Orthodox'?

[Ebor]

My reaction is that I read a significant excerpt from Moss' writing about Harold II, and what he wrote made sense to me. So to me, it was "well-reasoned".

Something a person writes may 'make sense" because they have set up the argument and evidence to fit what they like.  It doesn't mean that it is applicable to real history.

To give an example, as I remember, he was relating well-known historical facts, and then pointed out that there was a disagreement and separation from the Pope, who at that time was leading into the Great Schism.

Do you recall what historical facts?  Have you read anything on the situation with the See of Canterbury in the decades leading up to 1066.  The English Church was not a pristine situation at that time.  Frank Barlow's books have some interesting information on this time and situation.

Harold II was politically close with the Orthodox East too, as his daughter went to Russia and married Monomakh, Harold II's grandson becoming Grand Prince (basically the king)

Harald Godwinson was dead when Gytha left England and first went to the court of Sweyn of Denmark, a relative.  Marriages among royalty and nobility were not necessarily due to any deep religious ties.  On what documentation would a political "closeness" between Harald and Vladimir II be based beyond the posthumous marriage of a daughter.

More later.. things need doing.

Ebor

[witega]

I've heard it said in a few places that prior to the Norman invasion of England, when William the Bastard brought differing traditions to the isles, that England was "Orthodox".

What were these changes that were non-Orthodox?

Papal supremacy, for one. Then, between the late 11th century and the early 16th century, all the other Latin heresies became entrenched. Liturgically, however, there were few significant differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic England, except that what was left of the native Orthodox rites was suppressed. Still, there was nothing un-Orthodox about the Sarum rite that was imported with the Bastard.

Have you read the Ecclesiastical History of the English People by St. Bede the Venerable or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles?  Christianity in England looked to the Bishop of Rome for such things as the making of bishops.  Could you please explain what you mean by "native Orthodox rites"? 

Thank you

Ebor

Even more so, it was Anglo-Saxon metropolitans (Canterbury and York) who received the pallium from the pope in 601ad as a sign of their status as metropolitans. By the 9th century, every new metropolitan was required to do the same (became tradition). This tradition didn't catch on elsewhere until later (The Franks started this in the 11th century).

Missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons specifically asked the Pope to authorize their mission. St. Boniface (680-753ad) himself was big on ensuring local practices were identical to Rome. It was a belief that similarity in praxis ensured similarity in faith. (Something that isn't to alien to the East, either.)

I'd agree with your point while quibbling a little about the phrasing. The original missionaries "to" the Anglo-Saxons didn't simply ask the Pope for authorization but were a personal project of Pope St. Gregory the Great, who handpicked St. Augustine of Canterbury as the first head of that mission and of the resulting church. There was a parallel mission effort that was not tied to Rome coming from Ireland into Scotland and Northern England, but at the Synod of Whitby (664), the Anglo-saxon king at the time decided the bishops (and traditions) of the Roman mission would be the definitive Anglo-Saxon Church with the bishops, monasteries, and parishes established by the Irish missionaries in Anglo-Saxon territory subsumed into it.

So the Anglo-Saxon Church from its beginning was much more tied Rome, which it saw as it's direct and literal Mother Church, than older Western Churches like those of Gaul or Iberia. Then when the English Church began to send out is own missionaries (like St. Boniface), those sub-missions quite naturally looked to Rome and its pontiff as the Mother Church of the new churches they were establishing among the barbarian Germans.

I think Moss hangs his hat on the fact that in the political maneuvering around the fall of the last Anglo-Saxon Kings and William the Conqueror's invasion, the Roman pope backed the Franks while (most) of the Anglo-Saxon bishops supported Harold II as the native claimant. And once he came to power, William made sure that any episcopal vacancies were filled out of his Frankish supporters rather than the native bishops. But there was never a religious divide between the English bishops and Rome (who I doubt had much idea of any controversies going on over on the far side of the world--they had more than enough on their plate dealing with the upheavals at home), nor did English bishops thinking the Pope was making a mistake in approving William's claim ever rise to the level of rebelling/splitting from him over it.

[Aindriú]

I'd agree with your point while quibbling a little about the phrasing. The original missionaries "to" the Anglo-Saxons didn't simply ask the Pope for authorization but were a personal project of Pope St. Gregory the Great, who handpicked St. Augustine of Canterbury as the first head of that mission and of the resulting church. There was a parallel mission effort that was not tied to Rome coming from Ireland into Scotland and Northern England, but at the Synod of Whitby (664), the Anglo-saxon king at the time decided the bishops (and traditions) of the Roman mission would be the definitive Anglo-Saxon Church with the bishops, monasteries, and parishes established by the Irish missionaries in Anglo-Saxon territory subsumed into it.

So the Anglo-Saxon Church from its beginning was much more tied Rome, which it saw as it's direct and literal Mother Church, than older Western Churches like those of Gaul or Iberia. Then when the English Church began to send out is own missionaries (like St. Boniface), those sub-missions quite naturally looked to Rome and its pontiff as the Mother Church of the new churches they were establishing among the barbarian Germans.

Thank you.

I think Moss hangs his hat on the fact that in the political maneuvering around the fall of the last Anglo-Saxon Kings and William the Conqueror's invasion, the Roman pope backed the Franks while (most) of the Anglo-Saxon bishops supported Harold II as the native claimant. And once he came to power, William made sure that any episcopal vacancies were filled out of his Frankish supporters rather than the native bishops. But there was never a religious divide between the English bishops and Rome (who I doubt had much idea of any controversies going on over on the far side of the world--they had more than enough on their plate dealing with the upheavals at home), nor did English bishops thinking the Pope was making a mistake in approving William's claim ever rise to the level of rebelling/splitting from him over it.

So then, do you hold any weight in the theory that England was "Orthodox" before William's invasion?

[witega]

So then, do you hold any weight in the theory that England was "Orthodox" before William's invasion?

I think that the Church of England was always as Orthodox as it's Mother Church in Rome was--and whatever date one sets for no longer considering Rome Orthodox is also the date (give or take a couple of years to account for the speed of communications in the ancient world), is the date England stopped being Orthodox.

[Ebor]

It is also useful to know that Robert of Jumièges (from Normandy) was a friend of king Edward the Confessor who appointed him Bishop of London in 1044 and then Archbishop of Canterbury in 1051.  It wasn't a matter of only Anglo-Saxon clerics.  Robert had conflict after his consecration when he refused to consecrate Spearhafoc as his successor to the see of London. This was not because he was English, but according accounts because of possible "simony" the selling of ecclesiastical office.  Then there were problems with Earl Godwin, the father of Harold and some other sons who were all interested in power, wealth and prestige.

Robert was eventually deposed and declared outlaw, *not because he was Norman* but due to politics.  The next Archb. of Canterbury, Stigand was also involved in politics and power (Barlow writes that he supported Earl Godwin and family) and at one time held two sees at once: Winchester and Canterbury. These were the richest sees in the realm and he also held the title of some abbey's as well.  This made him 1) very rich and 2) a "pluralist" in holding more than one office.  This was not in accord with Church order and that, along with other things such as not going to Rome for his "pallium" didn't help matters. There was a move in Rome to reform certain practices such as pluralism of offices which were the reason behind Stigand's excommunication.  Not because he was Anglo-Saxon/English or somehow "orthodox" where Rome wasn't. Stigand remained ABC until 1070 when he was deposed.

There are records of English bishops refusing to be consecrated by Stigand because they did not think he held the office of Cantuar. They traveled to Rome for this sacrament and recall the difficulty and length of time needed to travel.

So this is historically not a matter of pious England being crushed under dominating Rome. It's a lot more complex with lots of people wanting influence, power, wealth and land and that included Harald Godwinson.
 
Oh yes, and one of the powers desired by kings and nobles was that of appointing their preferred choices to Church offices.  This was not limited to A-S England either.  But one might recall that Henry II had that power still when he put Thomas Becket into the Archbishopric.

Ebor

[Aindriú]

Oh yes, and one of the powers desired by kings and nobles was that of appointing their preferred choices to Church offices.  This was not limited to A-S England either. 

Or certain Bishops/Patriarchs being appointed/deposed in the East by the Emperor. 

[Ebor]

Indeed.  Common, wasn't it? 

This was not any sort of "western" corruption. but another example of the human desire for power and influence.

Ebor 

[lubeltri]

Thanks, Ebor, for a most erudite and fascinating review.

[Cognomen]

Does anyone have an updated (working) link to the Anglo-Saxon Varangian paper written by the professor (I think he's in New Mexico)?

It mentioned some of the religious differences the Normans brought with them, William's pre-Norman religious affinities, and the Anglo-Saxon connection to the Orthodox East.  Interesting read; I wish I had saved a PDF of it.

There's The Fall of Orthodox England, by Vladimir Moss. Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.

I actually wasn't referring to that one, but to an article entitled "English Refugees in the Byzantine Armed Forces" written by Nicholas C.J. Pappas PhD, a professor at Sam Houston State. 

Other than some excerpts or abstracts on webpages, I can't find the actual paper (to evaluate sources and such). 

It looks like it may have been in Greek originally, hence the difficulty of finding it published (it didn't show up in several academic searches, but it's listed on his CV under a Greek title).

[Ebor]

I read the section in the link that you provided.  Interesting and much better than Mr. Moss' work.  I know of the Blondel/Benedkt book on the Varangians but haven't managed to read it for myself as it's not common and the copies I've seen in the used market are expensive.  The saga mentioned isn't common either, but I've seen the title mentioned in discussions on this point. (possibly drawn from this source).  It's a pity that the 'Works Cited' page for this paper isn't available. 

Dr. Pappas was still at Sam Houston State U. as of Fall 2011 and his credentials in history are vastly superior to Mr. Moss'. culminating with a Ph.D from Stanford in 1983.  The paper in question was published according to his C.V. in a Greek journal in 2005.  One wonders if the entire work was translated into English..then again, considering the length of the work in the link, could that be all or most of it?

One point that is useful to this discussion is that Dr. Pappas writes that Gytha's marriage to Vladimir was arranged by the King of Denmark (where she had gone after the death of Harald since the king was a relative).  So Harald had nothing to do with this union.  This makes any asserted "Orthodox connection" between him and Vladimir highly dubious.

Ebor

[rakovsky]

About whether Harold II is considered a saint:

Ebor,

You did a good job summarizing evidence about whether Harold II is currently considered a saint by some, on another thread:

Well, I did some looking. One of the things making it tricky is that in AS times the name is "Harald" but now many spell it "Harold".  There is a reference to Harald Godwinson on "An English Orthodox Calender" at http://www.russianorthodox-roac.com/4.html as well as references to the "King martyr" from Vladimir Moss.

At http://www.saintandrew.net/fr_josiah/st_alexis.htm on a page about St. Alexis Toth it says, in part,
"For British descendants today is particulary significant since it is the memorial of the King-Martyr Harold II, and the Battle of Hastings in 1066."

Someone else on a page on various saint says they saw " a listing for "St. Harold, last Orthodox king of England" in the Calendar printed by St. John of Kronstadt Press", but they can't recall any details.  I have no knowledge of this press myself.

The Wikipedia says that "The Orthodox church recently recognised Harold as a martyr with October 14 as his saint's day." but it give no citation or details as to who/where/when.

I wish to add that the more original spelling seems to me to be Harold, as it appears on the Bayeux Tapestry:

[ialmisry]

So then, do you hold any weight in the theory that England was "Orthodox" before William's invasion?

I think that the Church of England was always as Orthodox as it's Mother Church in Rome was--and whatever date one sets for no longer considering Rome Orthodox is also the date (give or take a couple of years to account for the speed of communications in the ancient world), is the date England stopped being Orthodox.

Starting around 1070, with the deposition and replacement of Stigand.

[Ebor]

I would not call that "evidence" as to Harold/Harald Godwinson's supposed EO sanctity but merely examples showing that there are a few places where this is claimed but (from what I recall from finding them) without any real documentation or serious evidence that what they wrote was true.  They're just statements or assertions from those particular people.

The spelling of the name is not really important and I don't think it's a matter of "Harold" being "original spelling".  In the Norse Saga the Heimskringla it's "Harald" and in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle it's "Harold" and it's the same name. But when searching for accounts one ought to use both spellings. And from what was found different groups use different spellings, too.

That was the point of of mentioning the variations.

So what I found 8 years ago is only that there are some that seemed to think that Harold Godwinson was somehow an E.O. saint but that doesn't mean that it is historically true or if they based this on real history and real evidence as opposed to someone just telling them the tale and it being swallowed without examination.  

Ebor

[podkarpatska]

It is also useful to know that Robert of Jumièges (from Normandy) was a friend of king Edward the Confessor who appointed him Bishop of London in 1044 and then Archbishop of Canterbury in 1051.  It wasn't a matter of only Anglo-Saxon clerics.  Robert had conflict after his consecration when he refused to consecrate Spearhafoc as his successor to the see of London. This was not because he was English, but according accounts because of possible "simony" the selling of ecclesiastical office.  Then there were problems with Earl Godwin, the father of Harold and some other sons who were all interested in power, wealth and prestige.

Robert was eventually deposed and declared outlaw, *not because he was Norman* but due to politics.  The next Archb. of Canterbury, Stigand was also involved in politics and power (Barlow writes that he supported Earl Godwin and family) and at one time held two sees at once: Winchester and Canterbury. These were the richest sees in the realm and he also held the title of some abbey's as well.  This made him 1) very rich and 2) a "pluralist" in holding more than one office.  This was not in accord with Church order and that, along with other things such as not going to Rome for his "pallium" didn't help matters. There was a move in Rome to reform certain practices such as pluralism of offices which were the reason behind Stigand's excommunication.  Not because he was Anglo-Saxon/English or somehow "orthodox" where Rome wasn't. Stigand remained ABC until 1070 when he was deposed.

There are records of English bishops refusing to be consecrated by Stigand because they did not think he held the office of Cantuar. They traveled to Rome for this sacrament and recall the difficulty and length of time needed to travel.

So this is historically not a matter of pious England being crushed under dominating Rome. It's a lot more complex with lots of people wanting influence, power, wealth and land and that included Harald Godwinson.

Oh yes, and one of the powers desired by kings and nobles was that of appointing their preferred choices to Church offices.  This was not limited to A-S England either.  But one might recall that Henry II had that power still when he put Thomas Becket into the Archbishopric.

Ebor

The highlighted text is important as Ebor's point is applicable to the overall development of the -pre-enlightenment as well as the modern Papacy and Orthodoxy's gradual divergence of agreement with Rome's view of herself. History is simply not black and white and cut and dry.

History has often been popularized as being a matter of clear-cut events taken out of their context and that 'dumbing down' of history had led to the passionate acceptance of many half-truths and myths - many of which are accepted as the absolute truth by pious believers and clergy of both the eastern and western Christian world. (Keep in mind that secular and church rulers have always used the perversion of history as a simple right vs. wrong discipline for their own purposes.)

For example, Henry the VIII was certainly versed in the prerogatives of the English throne and aware of his predecessor's actions regarding Becket. (Tsar Peter was likewise well versed in the use of history in relation to the role of the state in the affairs of the church.)

Although east and west had their periods of disagreement prior to the Great Schism, certainly the Church was, for the most part, truly One and Catholic and Orthodox prior to that event. The schism was not an earthquake like event which was immediately visible, it spread out into time from 1054 for the next several hundred years before becoming as firm as it is today.

[Ebor]

Thank you for your support, Podkarpatska.
I try to do Good History with its complications.

Ebor

[WetCatechumen]

It is also useful to know that Robert of Jumièges (from Normandy) was a friend of king Edward the Confessor who appointed him Bishop of London in 1044 and then Archbishop of Canterbury in 1051.  It wasn't a matter of only Anglo-Saxon clerics.  Robert had conflict after his consecration when he refused to consecrate Spearhafoc as his successor to the see of London. This was not because he was English, but according accounts because of possible "simony" the selling of ecclesiastical office.  Then there were problems with Earl Godwin, the father of Harold and some other sons who were all interested in power, wealth and prestige.

Robert was eventually deposed and declared outlaw, *not because he was Norman* but due to politics.  The next Archb. of Canterbury, Stigand was also involved in politics and power (Barlow writes that he supported Earl Godwin and family) and at one time held two sees at once: Winchester and Canterbury. These were the richest sees in the realm and he also held the title of some abbey's as well.  This made him 1) very rich and 2) a "pluralist" in holding more than one office.  This was not in accord with Church order and that, along with other things such as not going to Rome for his "pallium" didn't help matters. There was a move in Rome to reform certain practices such as pluralism of offices which were the reason behind Stigand's excommunication.  Not because he was Anglo-Saxon/English or somehow "orthodox" where Rome wasn't. Stigand remained ABC until 1070 when he was deposed.

There are records of English bishops refusing to be consecrated by Stigand because they did not think he held the office of Cantuar. They traveled to Rome for this sacrament and recall the difficulty and length of time needed to travel.

So this is historically not a matter of pious England being crushed under dominating Rome. It's a lot more complex with lots of people wanting influence, power, wealth and land and that included Harald Godwinson.

Oh yes, and one of the powers desired by kings and nobles was that of appointing their preferred choices to Church offices.  This was not limited to A-S England either.  But one might recall that Henry II had that power still when he put Thomas Becket into the Archbishopric.

Ebor

The highlighted text is important as Ebor's point is applicable to the overall development of the -pre-enlightenment as well as the modern Papacy and Orthodoxy's gradual divergence of agreement with Rome's view of herself. History is simply not black and white and cut and dry.

History has often been popularized as being a matter of clear-cut events taken out of their context and that 'dumbing down' of history had led to the passionate acceptance of many half-truths and myths - many of which are accepted as the absolute truth by pious believers and clergy of both the eastern and western Christian world. (Keep in mind that secular and church rulers have always used the perversion of history as a simple right vs. wrong discipline for their own purposes.)

For example, Henry the VIII was certainly versed in the prerogatives of the English throne and aware of his predecessor's actions regarding Becket. (Tsar Peter was likewise well versed in the use of history in relation to the role of the state in the affairs of the church.)

Although east and west had their periods of disagreement prior to the Great Schism, certainly the Church was, for the most part, truly One and Catholic and Orthodox prior to that event. The schism was not an earthquake like event which was immediately visible, it spread out into time from 1054 for the next several hundred years before becoming as firm as it is today.

I always tell people that it happened somewhere between the ninth century and the fifteenth century and to say that it was AD 1054 is really short-sighted and terrible simplification.

[wainscottbl]

Yeah, I got led to this thread from a question I posted in regards to the same matter with St. Bede's Histories. It seems from my ignorance but reading here a difficult matter to really hit on the head. The problem first of all is the idea that Orthodoxy is simply Eastern and Roman Catholicism simply Western. There is some truth to that but Orthodoxy became Eastern in time for various reasons and the papal issue seems to be the biggest question of whether England was Orthodox before the Great Schism.

The Norman Invasion certainly brought Frankish and thus a stronger political alliance to Rome, but that also has do to with Rome was the closest of the main Sees. There seems to have been no huge desire to continue the faith of the Eastern Church, even when England and Rome disagreed. Other Western European countries had the same sorts of disagreements. And the fact that there was no formal schism until the 15th century. I would say England's pre-11th Century Orthodox is true, but they were still more Latin than Greek. It simply made sense they should be. A lot of problems between 1054 and Trent caused the West to go farther from the Orthodox faith it seems to me. There are so many factors that it's hard to pin it down to a black and white East vs West. I think looking into medieval Western European views of the papacy help because because during that time there were some problems by good Catholics with papal corruption and the arrogance of popes like Boniface VIII.

England was naturally tied to Rome in the middle ages and it would have been very unlikely that it joined the Byzantines because of French threats in the south and their isolation from the East. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that England became anti-papal, but by then they had the benefit of Protestantism on the Continent. And even Protestantism in England was not clear, not until the death of Henry VIII at least. Henry VIII did not think he was leaving the Catholic Church and his feelings may reveal a certain tension English kings had with the Roman Pontiff and the papacy in general. So I'd say there was a pre-1066 Orthodox England, but that it slowly became more attached to the papacy because of politics and so forth. In fact it's hard to say what would have happened if Henry had not gotten the hots for Anne and not had a scruple about his marriage to his sister in law. He was "Defender of the Faith" and used Sir Thomas More in his anti-Protestant campaign. He did not consider his actions after the English schism heretical. Had not all that happened America might not have happened as England would have been Roman Catholic and Protestant/humanist ideas would not have been so strong in the colonies. France after all had its Revolution, but from a straight departure from the Roman Catholic faith. The American Revolution was a mix of Protestant ideas and secular humanist ideas.

England, rather than becoming anti-Catholic might have been very antireformation and a great defender of the papal claim. I would say that England slowly became Roman Catholic for reasons like geography and politics. There was not Orthodox/Byzantine idealism in Anglo-Saxon England, just as there was not right out Great Schism in the 11th century.

[montalban]

I've heard it said in a few places that prior to the Norman invasion of England, when William the Bastard brought differing traditions to the isles, that England was "Orthodox".

What were these changes that were non-Orthodox?

There was a distinctly different church in the British Isles derived from the Celtic missionaries from Ireland.

Opposed to this were the missionaries coming up from mainland Europe. These adhered to the Roman rite

The English kingdoms decided to switch to the Roman rite following the Synod of Whitby in 664
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Whitby

[mabsoota]

yes and the irish church had 7 missionaries from egypt (or from the egyptian church)

church:
http://sevencopticmonkschurch.org/

story:
http://britishorthodox.org/miscellaneous/on-the-trail-of-seven-coptic-monks-in-ireland/

[montalban]

There was much more movement about in those days than people might realise

An English unit formed a guard in Constantinople...Varangian Guard

King Harold II (k. 1066) had a daughter Gytha who married Waldemar, King of Ruthenia

[montalban]

I wish to add that the more original spelling seems to me to be Harold, as it appears on the Bayeux Tapestry:

You are right for the wrong reasons. The proper English spelling is Harold. However the Bayeux Tapestry is French, not English (but the writing is in Latin). It is simply by chance that the tapestry uses the English spelling

He was defeated by William the Conqueror - but who is called Willhelm on the tapestry.



Also the tapestry is actually not a tapestry but is embroidered!

[Iconodule]

There was much more movement about in those days than people might realise

An English unit formed a guard in Constantinople...Varangian Guard

The Varangian guard included some Englishmen but the majority came from Scandinavia.

[Alpo]

Uh oh. You're approaching magical post count. 

[mike]

King Harold II (k. 1066) had a daughter Gytha who married Waldemar, King of Ruthenia

Duke, not king.

[Ebor]

The Norman Invasion certainly brought Frankish

I saw your thread and that you're reading Bede.  That's excellent.   Are you thinking of reading more on Early British/Anglo-Saxon history?  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a primary source.

May I ask what you consider to be "Frankish" things brought to England by the Normans?  Something to keep in mind is that King Edward the Confessor's mother, Emma, was the daughter of Duke Robert of Normandy and that he himself spent much of his early life, more than 2 decades, living in Normandy while Cnut Sweinson, of Denmark ruled.  Just to add to things (history being complicated) Emma married Cnut, her first husband Aethelred "Unraed" aka "the Unready" having died in 1016.

England was naturally tied to Rome in the middle ages and it would have been very unlikely that it joined the Byzantines because of French threats in the south and their isolation from the East.

Indeed, and it's important to keep in mind how different traveling was for much of history. Walking, maybe a donkey or horse if fortunate and ships that were quite small by modern standards and fragile.  

In fact it's hard to say what would have happened if Henry had not gotten the hots for Anne and not had a scruple about his marriage to his sister in law.

Rather the difference would have been based on if Henry had had a legitimate male heir that lived to adulthood.  There is at least one other thread on OC.net on this.  Ensuring a succession was the key point.  As to the marriage to Katherine of Aragon, a papal dispensation had been needed to permit it since she had been married to Henry's elder brother Arthur.  It wasn't a matter o "scruple" but if there had been no surviving sons from that marriage because it was displeasing to God.  

Had not all that happened America might not have happened as England would have been Roman Catholic

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow your thought here.  Do you mean that there would not have been any attempt at English colonization in North America?  There would still have been, I surmise, exploration and searches for resources for economic expansion as well as competition with Spain.  

[wainscottbl]

Yeah, the part about America was sort of a rumination that might have been unclear. Certianly England would have went to the New World, but not with the Protestant ideas at large that eventually, with humanism, gave rise to the American Revolution. England, like Spain, would have made America very much Roman Catholic along with the French and Spanish. The Protestant countries on the continent did not do much colonizing in America and Orthodox Russia did not have much influence in Alaska it seems, but maybe there are other reasons for that. Alaska was pretty much the same as Siberia, not a very inhabitable land like southern Canada and North and South America in in general. But that's all kind of getting off topic.

I think England could have become Orthodox if it was not for Protestant influences in the nobility and clergy. After Henry died the Protestants became more open. Even the later Charles I was clearly a Protestant, even with is Roman Catholic wife. He was high-church, but he was not in cohorts with the Pope. I think the more accurate term is not "Bloody Mary" but "Bloody Bess". The Protestant idea was too strong, I think, to allow the Orthodox Christian way to come into even High Church Anglicanism. But this also shows there was not real Byzantine interest, even among those in favour of High Church Anglicanism. There was not desire to become in communion with the Orthodox Church and their theology was still very Western. Both high and low Church did have the disdain for papalism, but they still were big on original sin, inherited guilt of Adam, Augustine's idea of grace, etc I believe. No, certainly after the 11th century England became more Latin and with the Protestant Reformation we'll just say they stayed Western. I'm not sure in the political turmoil of that time, with the rebellious low churches that Anglo-Catholics could even make communion with the East if they wanted to. Charles I looked bad enough with his push for Anglo-Catholicism to the rebellious commons.

[Ebor]

Yeah, the part about America was sort of a rumination that might have been unclear. Certianly England would have went to the New World, but not with the Protestant ideas at large that eventually, with humanism, gave rise to the American Revolution. England, like Spain, would have made America very much Roman Catholic along with the French and Spanish.

Thank you for explaining a bit more.  This perhaps could have been one possible scenario.  But there were some serious economic reasons behind the American Revolution such as the Navigation Acts and other laws that were not supportive, shall we say, to the colonies.

The Protestant countries on the continent did not do much colonizing in America

Well the Dutch and the Swedes set up trading posts and settlements and claimed good sized areas starting in the early 1600s on North America as well in other areas of the "New World" and the Dutch had a global trade network that stretched to Japan and India and South America.  In some ways they were better established at times than the English at Jamestown and Plymouth.  So things could have worked out differently there.

I think England could have become Orthodox if it was not for Protestant influences in the nobility and clergy.

Considering the differences in liturgy, traditions and that there had been separation for centuries along with the control of the eastern Mediterranean by the Ottoman Empire?   Most people in Europe knew little or nothing about EO.  Why do you think that they would have gone to Constantinople?

Even the later Charles I was clearly a Protestant, even with is Roman Catholic wife.

Well, yes, Royal marriages were made for political reasons such as alliances.  Religion didn't necessarily have much to do with them.  

May I ask if you have come from an Anglican background or have done much reading into the history of the Anglican Church or English History of the Tudor and Stuart periods?  

Charles I looked bad enough with his push for Anglo-Catholicism to the rebellious commons.

It wasn't any "push" for a religious purpose that set off the English Civil War, per se.  It was much more complex than that and involved the King dissolving Parliament, spending money on wasteful military purposes for a court favourite and other things.  

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Pre-1066 Orthodox England?