WRO and "King Martyr" Charles, Edward, and HRE Henry

[Nephi]

I came across icons of King Charles I of England:


From: http://www.andrewespress.com/icon_charles.html

I see that Wikipedia has him listed as an Anglican, and seeing as he is from the 17th century, I wondered if other Western Rite Orthodox venerate him or if this is just an expression of personal devotion?

This website even has his feast day mentioned as January 30th.

[Michał Kalina]

Bad, bad, bad...

[LBK]

Bad, bad, bad...

Yup. The man wasn't Orthodox, let alone an Orthodox saint, so he has no place whatsoever in WRO devotion.

[Nephi]

Before anyone misunderstands, I'm not trying to criticize. I'm just curious.

Anyway, two more peculiar saints:


http://www.andrewespress.com/icon_edward.html
Feast day: October 13th, died 1066 (King of England)


http://www.andrewespress.com/icon_henry.html
Feast day: July 15th, died 1024 (Holy Roman Emperor)

[Michał Kalina]

Wasn't Henry II the one who introduced filioque?

[Nephi]

Wasn't Henry II the one who introduced filioque?

Yes.

Henry II succeeded in persuading Pope Benedict VIII to include the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, stating that the Holy Spirit emanated from both God the Father and God the Son. Together with papal primacy, differences over this doctrine have were among the primary causes of schism between the Western and Eastern churches in 1054.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Ecclesiastical_affairs

[ialmisry]

Before anyone misunderstands, I'm not trying to criticize. I'm just curious.

Anyway, two more peculiar saints:


http://www.andrewespress.com/icon_edward.html
Feast day: October 13th, died 1066 (King of England)


http://www.andrewespress.com/icon_henry.html
Feast day: July 15th, died 1024 (Holy Roman Emperor)

St. Edward is fine, "Emperor" Henry is not.

[LBK]

St Edward the King and Martyr is commemorated as an Orthodox saint, his feastday is March 18. Henry II was Roman Catholic, so he can't be venerated as an Orthodox saint.

[Nephi]

St Edward the King and Martyr is commemorated as an Orthodox saint, his feastday is March 18.

Since the site mentions his death as 1066, I assumed they meant this Edward the Confessor, which is different from Edward the Martyr commemorated on March 18th.

[LBK]

St Edward the King and Martyr is commemorated as an Orthodox saint, his feastday is March 18.

Since the site mentions his death as 1066, I assumed they meant this Edward the Confessor, which is different from Edward the Martyr commemorated on March 18th.

Correct. The Orthodox King Edward was martyred in 978, almost a century before the Confessor's death.

[Nephi]

Correct. The Orthodox King Edward was martyred in 978, almost a century before the Confessor's death.

Meaning the icon is of the Catholic Edward the Confessor. This is confirmed by the feast day being October 13, which is the RCC date as well.

[LBK]

Correct. The Orthodox King Edward was martyred in 978, almost a century before the Confessor's death.

Meaning the icon is of the Catholic Edward the Confessor. This is confirmed by the feast day being October 13, which is the RCC date as well.

The original version of the image posted was painted by an Orthodox iconographer, with this inscription, in English and Slavonic: The Holy Right-believing Edward, King of England, the Passion-bearer.

Here is the original, which the Anglicans have copied (and rather poorly), and changed the inscription to refer to another Edward who is an Anglican saint, but not an Orthodox one. Hence the confusion.

[thetraditionalfrog]

King Charles isn't an Orthodox Saint, although he is venerated in some Anglican circles. King Henry II out as well. However, St. Edward the Confessor so mentioned is Orthodox, and as such may be venerated publicly. Yes, he died after 1054, but it is wise to remember that is an approximate date, as the schism didn't occur uniformly across western Christendom all at once. England didn't succumb to the Papacy until after 1054.

http://www.orthodox.net/western-saints/edward.html

[Fr.Aidan]

1. Icon of the Anglican "St." Charles is shocking and completely inadmissible.
2. St. Edward is a perfectly Orthodox Saint, who constantly knew and used the Filioque.
3. Edward the Confessor is post-Schism, so I don't think it is lawful to hold him forth as an Orthodox Saint.
4. St. Henry II is an Orthodox Saint, whose delightfully pious life was featured in "Living Orthodoxy" years ago. Like St. Edward the Martyr, he knew the Filioque; it is what was used in those days in those lands. But, as Fr. John Romanides clearly pointed out, there is a perfectly Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque theologically, though its addition to the Creed was unlawful.

It seems rather unilateral and personal, for a person to up and decide that St. Edward the Martyr is okay while St. Henry II is not okay. They both used the Filioque, and their life spans overlap from 972 to 979 or 981. They were both very pious and pure of heart.

Someone wrote that England didn't "succumb" to the Papacy at the same time as the rest of Europe. But that is just emotion in search of a history and a theology. England and Norman France were identical as to dogma, identical in all important church practices, and the only major difference between them (as to the Papacy) was that Anglo-Saxon England was much more devoted to the institution of the Papacy than Normandy was.

[Michał Kalina]

Someone wrote that England didn't "succumb" to the Papacy at the same time as the rest of Europe. But that is just emotion in search of a history and a theology. England and Norman France were identical as to dogma, identical in all important church practices, and the only major difference between them (as to the Papacy) was that Anglo-Saxon England was much more devoted to the institution of the Papacy than Normandy was.

I understood:

"England was as papist as France except for not being as papist as France"

[Fr.Aidan]

Is that like, "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others?"

[Maria]

1. Icon of the Anglican "St." Charles is shocking and completely inadmissible.
2. St. Edward is a perfectly Orthodox Saint, who constantly knew and used the Filioque.
3. Edward the Confessor is post-Schism, so I don't think it is lawful to hold him forth as an Orthodox Saint.
4. St. Henry II is an Orthodox Saint, whose delightfully pious life was featured in "Living Orthodoxy" years ago. Like St. Edward the Martyr, he knew the Filioque; it is what was used in those days in those lands. But, as Fr. John Romanides clearly pointed out, there is a perfectly Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque theologically, though its addition to the Creed was unlawful.

It seems rather unilateral and personal, for a person to up and decide that St. Edward the Martyr is okay while St. Henry II is not okay. They both used the Filioque, and their life spans overlap from 972 to 979 or 981. They were both very pious and pure of heart.

Someone wrote that England didn't "succumb" to the Papacy at the same time as the rest of Europe. But that is just emotion in search of a history and a theology. England and Norman France were identical as to dogma, identical in all important church practices, and the only major difference between them (as to the Papacy) was that Anglo-Saxon England was much more devoted to the institution of the Papacy than Normandy was.

Thanks, Father Aidan.

[LBK]

4. St. Henry II is an Orthodox Saint,

Fr Aidan, then when is his feast day? I have been unable to locate his name in any Orthodox calendar I have. Even the St Herman's Calendar, which has the most comprehensive listing of Western saints of any calendar I have come across, has no mention of him, neither does Fr Andrew Philips' list mention him.

[Agabus]

3. Edward the Confessor is post-Schism, so I don't think it is lawful to hold him forth as an Orthodox Saint.

Post-schism for Rome and Constantinople, but pre-schism for Rome and Antioch.

[ialmisry]

4. St. Henry II is an Orthodox Saint, whose delightfully pious life was featured in "Living Orthodoxy" years ago. Like St. Edward the Martyr, he knew the Filioque; it is what was used in those days in those lands. But, as Fr. John Romanides clearly pointed out, there is a perfectly Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque theologically, though its addition to the Creed was unlawful.

It seems rather unilateral and personal, for a person to up and decide that St. Edward the Martyr is okay while St. Henry II is not okay. They both used the Filioque, and their life spans overlap from 972 to 979 or 981. They were both very pious and pure of heart.

Someone wrote that England didn't "succumb" to the Papacy at the same time as the rest of Europe. But that is just emotion in search of a history and a theology. England and Norman France were identical as to dogma, identical in all important church practices, and the only major difference between them (as to the Papacy) was that Anglo-Saxon England was much more devoted to the institution of the Papacy than Normandy was.

Not to get sidestepped into the question of whether an Orthodox interpretation of the filioque exists or not, Father, the fact remains that when the German Emperor Henry forced the Pope of Rome to insert the filioque into the Creed at Rome-something thereto resisted at Rome-the Church of Constantinople et alia responded by striking the name of the Pope of Rome from the diptychs.  I don't know if St. Edward did anything so egregious as personally dictating heresy as the rule of Faith.  I think it is assumed he "knew and used filioque," like many in the West excused for their ignorance.

For one thing, technically St. Edward the Confessor was communing with his Archbishop of Canterbury Stigand, whom the Popes of Rome had excommunicated.  St. Edward's successor, Harold Goodwinson, fell at Hastings.  His heirs fled to Denmark and thence to Kiev, where his daughter married Grand Prince Vladimir Monomarch, descendant of both the Grand Princes of Kiev and the Emperors of New Rome, and produced his heir.  Other Anglo-Saxons followed the same route to New Rome to serve in the Varangian Guard, and Constantinople continued to recruit for the guard back in Britain until it became the émigré England in exile from the Normans, who had started the whole affair of 1054, as I've posted before:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28727.msg454094.html#msg454094
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39261.msg631168.html#msg631168
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21518.msg326435.html#msg326435
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26209.msg413115.html#msg413115
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29268.msg501049.html#msg501049

[Ebor]

Correct. The Orthodox King Edward was martyred in 978, almost a century before the Confessor's death.

Meaning the icon is of the Catholic Edward the Confessor. This is confirmed by the feast day being October 13, which is the RCC date as well.

The October 13 date doesn't make sense when tied to 1066 because if it's supposed to be King Edward the Confessor, he died in January of that year while the 13th is the day before the Battle of Hastings in which he, obviously, took no part.  The link for information on that page then goes to an account of the 10th century Edward, not the Confessor.

[Ebor]

Stigand was not persecuted by the Bishop of Rome for religious belief or practice. He was one of the wealthiest people in England, holding two major sees (both Winchester and Canterbury) which is "pluralism" of office. There were bishops who traveled to Rome to get their pallium/consecrated because they did not think that Stigand was the true Archbishop of Canterbury. There was also the case of driving out Robert of Jumieges  There are threads on the forum where I have provided links to this information in the past as well as references to the work of such scholars as the late Frank Barlow.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44962.0.html


The real information about Harald Godwinson and his offspring is also more complicated and has been discussed before.  Many Anglo-Saxons either stayed in England, went to Scotland or, after leaving for a while came back.  Those who joined the Varangian Guard generally went because that's where they would be paid to be the emperor's own force and not for religious reasons,
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2714.msg32336.html#msg32336
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39261.0.html

There are other threads that have material on Anglo-Saxon history that can be gotten if desired.

[Nephi]

The October 13 date doesn't make sense when tied to 1066 because if it's supposed to be King Edward the Confessor, he died in January of that year while the 13th is the day before the Battle of Hastings in which he, obviously, took no part.  The link for information on that page then goes to an account of the 10th century Edward, not the Confessor.

It does make sense when tied to 1066, since the RCC and CoE celebrate the Confessor's feast day on Oct 13 as the date of his translation (to the shrine built in his honor, I believe).

It means that the site either linked to the wrong saint for info, or gave the feast day and year of death for the wrong saint.

[Ebor]

The October 13 date doesn't make sense when tied to 1066 because if it's supposed to be King Edward the Confessor, he died in January of that year while the 13th is the day before the Battle of Hastings in which he, obviously, took no part.  The link for information on that page then goes to an account of the 10th century Edward, not the Confessor.

It does make sense when tied to 1066, since the RCC and CoE celebrate the Confessor's feast day on Oct 13 as the date of his translation (to the shrine built in his honor, I believe).

It means that the site either linked to the wrong saint for info, or gave the feast day and year of death for the wrong saint.

Except that the saint's relics weren't translated to Westminster Abbey until October 13, 1163 after being canonized in 1161. http://www.westminster-abbey.org/worship/st-edward-the-confessor
 
So there's some confusion/mistyping on the site, it seems.

[Nephi]

The October 13 date doesn't make sense when tied to 1066 because if it's supposed to be King Edward the Confessor, he died in January of that year while the 13th is the day before the Battle of Hastings in which he, obviously, took no part.  The link for information on that page then goes to an account of the 10th century Edward, not the Confessor.

It does make sense when tied to 1066, since the RCC and CoE celebrate the Confessor's feast day on Oct 13 as the date of his translation (to the shrine built in his honor, I believe).

It means that the site either linked to the wrong saint for info, or gave the feast day and year of death for the wrong saint.

Except that the saint's relics weren't translated to Westminster Abbey until October 13, 1163 after being canonized in 1161. http://www.westminster-abbey.org/worship/st-edward-the-confessor
  
So there's some confusion/mistyping on the site, it seems.

No confusion, they gave his feast day (Oct 13) and year of death (1066), which both belong to the Confessor. Wikipedia mentions the same day being used for a previous translation as well.

[Ebor]

There is still a wrong link when the "Info" goes to the page about the 10th century Edward not the 11th century one.  

as to the OP that depiction is ummm unfortunate.  While there has been small set that have a devotion to Charles I amongst some Anglicans, the situation is, as usual in history, complicated and more involved in politics and power.

[mabsoota]

wow, thanks everyone for the british history lesson.
 
it was fashionable when i was in school (in britain) to study 'modern' history, so i missed out on most of these interesting characters you discuss here.

the only ancient british saint i know well is saint alban, and i have been to venerate a relic of his!
 

i am trying to learn the others, but a lot of them have difficult names.

[augustin717]

At least that's a "matryred" king. The only good kind.

[ialmisry]

At least that's a "matryred" king. The only good kind.

kommissars aren't even good dead.  If it were not for kings and princes, there would be no Great Britain, or England for that matter. Nor any Romania.

[Shanghaiski]

I came across icons of King Charles I of England:


From: http://www.andrewespress.com/icon_charles.html

I see that Wikipedia has him listed as an Anglican, and seeing as he is from the 17th century, I wondered if other Western Rite Orthodox venerate him or if this is just an expression of personal devotion?

This website even has his feast day mentioned as January 30th.

What is your proffe WRO venerate him in the first place? Lancelot Andrewes Press, while run by WRO, is not a WRO press, specifically. They do not publish officila AWRV materials, but things which are used by traditional Anglicans and others, as well as WRO. Traditional Anglican converts to Orthodoxy may have a reverence for King Charles I from their Anglican days, but AFAIK, his feast is not kept in the churches.

[Shanghaiski]

Before anyone misunderstands, I'm not trying to criticize. I'm just curious.

Anyway, two more peculiar saints:


http://www.andrewespress.com/icon_edward.html
Feast day: October 13th, died 1066 (King of England)


http://www.andrewespress.com/icon_henry.html
Feast day: July 15th, died 1024 (Holy Roman Emperor)

They're Orthodox. They're saints. So....?

[Shanghaiski]

Wasn't Henry II the one who introduced filioque?

Only to Rome itself. It had already been around for centuries in the West before then. AFAIK, there was not the theological defense of filioque which came after the schism and entrenched it as indispensible dogma, at least until later centuries when it was supposedly made non-indispensible.

[Shanghaiski]

Someone wrote that England didn't "succumb" to the Papacy at the same time as the rest of Europe. But that is just emotion in search of a history and a theology. England and Norman France were identical as to dogma, identical in all important church practices, and the only major difference between them (as to the Papacy) was that Anglo-Saxon England was much more devoted to the institution of the Papacy than Normandy was.

I understood:

"England was as papist as France except for not being as papist as France"

Except that the nature of the papacy was quite different due to the Gregorian Reformation.

[Shanghaiski]

4. St. Henry II is an Orthodox Saint,

Fr Aidan, then when is his feast day? I have been unable to locate his name in any Orthodox calendar I have. Even the St Herman's Calendar, which has the most comprehensive listing of Western saints of any calendar I have come across, has no mention of him, neither does Fr Andrew Philips' list mention him.

Orthodox calendars are hardly complete, even St. Herman's.

Also, there is the matter of the endless controversialists.

[Shanghaiski]

The October 13 date doesn't make sense when tied to 1066 because if it's supposed to be King Edward the Confessor, he died in January of that year while the 13th is the day before the Battle of Hastings in which he, obviously, took no part.  The link for information on that page then goes to an account of the 10th century Edward, not the Confessor.

It does make sense when tied to 1066, since the RCC and CoE celebrate the Confessor's feast day on Oct 13 as the date of his translation (to the shrine built in his honor, I believe).

It means that the site either linked to the wrong saint for info, or gave the feast day and year of death for the wrong saint.

Except that the saint's relics weren't translated to Westminster Abbey until October 13, 1163 after being canonized in 1161. http://www.westminster-abbey.org/worship/st-edward-the-confessor
 
So there's some confusion/mistyping on the site, it seems.

That the translation date is post-schism doesn't matter. It's about the saint, not the heretics moving his body.

[Nephi]

That the translation date is post-schism doesn't matter. It's about the saint, not the heretics moving his body.

That's not the point. It was that it seemed that there was an error in the translating occurring after the canonization. Point being that the feast day couldn't have been for the translation if it hadn't happened yet, until I pointed out it happened before (the canonization, presumably) using the same day. Nothing to do with "heretics" moving him.

[Shanghaiski]

That the translation date is post-schism doesn't matter. It's about the saint, not the heretics moving his body.

That's not the point. It was that it seemed that there was an error in the translating occurring after the canonization. Point being that the feast day couldn't have been for the translation if it hadn't happened yet, until I pointed out it happened before (the canonization, presumably) using the same day. Nothing to do with "heretics" moving him.

Not sure I follow. Oh well. Oct. 13 is more liturgically convenient than his death date.

[ialmisry]

Someone wrote that England didn't "succumb" to the Papacy at the same time as the rest of Europe. But that is just emotion in search of a history and a theology. England and Norman France were identical as to dogma, identical in all important church practices, and the only major difference between them (as to the Papacy) was that Anglo-Saxon England was much more devoted to the institution of the Papacy than Normandy was.

I understood:

"England was as papist as France except for not being as papist as France"

Except that the nature of the papacy was quite different due to the Gregorian Reformation.

Indeed! And Abp. Anselm imposed it with all its fury.

[ialmisry]

That the translation date is post-schism doesn't matter. It's about the saint, not the heretics moving his body.

That's not the point. It was that it seemed that there was an error in the translating occurring after the canonization. Point being that the feast day couldn't have been for the translation if it hadn't happened yet, until I pointed out it happened before (the canonization, presumably) using the same day. Nothing to do with "heretics" moving him.

somewhere I've seen the argument that the Rus' were in communion with Rome after 1054, because the stealing, er, translation of the relics of St. Nicholas (1087) comes on the Russian calendar.

Btw, the Turkish Republic had the gall to demand the return of the relics in 2009.

[Nephi]

somewhere I've seen the argument that the Rus' were in communion with Rome after 1054, because the stealing, er, translation of the relics of St. Nicholas (1087) comes on the Russian calendar.

That's interesting.

Btw, the Turkish Republic had the gall to demand the return of the relics in 2009.

Yeah, like anyone would.

[Nephi]

Not sure I follow. Oh well. Oct. 13 is more liturgically convenient than his death date.

If he was canonized in 1161, and the translation that we were talking about happened in 1163, then the feast day (which would be established by 1161) would not be from a translation that hadn't happened yet.

However, there had been previous translation(s) on the same date in previous years which served as the basis for the commemoration date, so no problem.

[ialmisry]

somewhere I've seen the argument that the Rus' were in communion with Rome after 1054, because the stealing, er, translation of the relics of St. Nicholas (1087) comes on the Russian calendar.

That's interesting.

Btw, the Turkish Republic had the gall to demand the return of the relics in 2009.

Yeah, like anyone would.

I don't know.  The Vatican just gave the TR the Ottoman banners captured at the breaking of the seige of Vienna, I hear.

[Fr.Aidan]

Yes, except that in 1066, when the post-Orthodox Norman French invaded the post-Orthodox Anglo-Saxons, the Gregorian reforms had not openly begun, and so there was no difference between the 1065 Papacy and the 1067 Papacy, if y'all get my drift.

Someone said, of Anglo-Saxon rulers, "i am trying to learn the others, but a lot of them have difficult names."  My reply: I'm sure they feel the same way about you...

I personally have no problem with having post-Schim translation feasts of pre-Schism Saints. I guess if you wanted to split hairs, you could shrink from such laxity. But the Russian Church's preservation of the Feast of the Translation of St. Nicholas seems to set a precedent for allowing such commemorations in the Church.

[Nephi]

Father, how do you feel about saints that are within a couple centuries after the schism? For example the veneration of Francis and Clare of Assisi.

Sometimes I see saints like these referred to as being in a "grey area" before the schism was cemented (Lyons, Florence, etc.) and so more acceptable for personal veneration in contrast to later post-schism saints like John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Therese, and so on.

I'm just curious about your thoughts as a WR priest.

[ialmisry]

Yes, except that in 1066, when the post-Orthodox Norman French invaded the post-Orthodox Anglo-Saxons, the Gregorian reforms had not openly begun, and so there was no difference between the 1065 Papacy and the 1067 Papacy, if y'all get my drift.

Someone said, of Anglo-Saxon rulers, "i am trying to learn the others, but a lot of them have difficult names."  My reply: I'm sure they feel the same way about you...

I personally have no problem with having post-Schim translation feasts of pre-Schism Saints. I guess if you wanted to split hairs, you could shrink from such laxity. But the Russian Church's preservation of the Feast of the Translation of St. Nicholas seems to set a precedent for allowing such commemorations in the Church.

except that the relics were indeed transferred, Father.  And now it's mute, given that there is an Orthodox shrine in Bari.

As for the Gregorian papacy and its program, I don't know about how secret it was.

William accepted "the Banner of St. Peter" and ring from Pope Alexander II of Rome as King of England, with a papal edict to the Church of England acknowledging him as such.  William, however, wasn't in England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, wasn't in communion with Rome (in part over issues involved in the "Gregorian Reform").  This changed in 1066: Stigand was deposed and the papacy began to demand that the King of England come to Rome to pay homage for his fief-i.e. the Kingdom of England-on the model of the Donation of Constantine (which had played a large role in the break with New Rome in 1054 and Old Rome going into heresy and shcism). A totally new set of circumstances had ensued in England.

[Fr.Aidan]

Not that the Kings of England did so.

In 1066 things changed majorly in England, of course. But nothing changed as to faith. Nothing changed as to theology. Nothing changed as to ecclesiastical communion (with Rome rather than Constantinople). Nothing changed in liturgy but in the tiniest details in the same mold as things had been being adjusted since the mid-10th century. What changed was the language, and the rulers, after an invasion by co-religionists.

The Papacy had a long-standing animosity towards the Normans and vice-versa. It was a love-hate relationship. The Papacy traded off England for its own protection and its own benefit. The Papacy was equally venal in the 10th century, probably it's nadir until the Renaissance debaucheries made an appearance.

But it's not like the religion changed in 1066. Far from it.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: WRO and "King Martyr" Charles, Edward, and HRE Henry