Well, here comes, if you will forgive me, the problem of nomenclature. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Some EO persons refer to pre-1066 as "Orthodox England" and say that all of Christendom was "Orthodox". (Though there are others who do not.) ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š RC people refer to all of Christendom being "Catholic". ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Just to be clear, I am neither nor have I ever been. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I am Anglican, but I came to that Church in my college years, over 31 years ago. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š In the early thread, I asked what is the purpose of using either of those words as opposed to just "Christian" and that there were many ways in which Christianity was expressed. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š There are connotations and meanings that come with today's ideas of "Catholic" and "Orthodox", I would suggest that are unknown in the world of 1000 years ago.
Let me say, that I agree with you completely that there were many ways in which Christianity was expressed. Sorry, I thought I had made that clear in my post.
And definitely you are correct about the connotations and meanings regarding "Catholic" and "Orthodox" and perhaps working on the nomenclature is a desperate need. ("Christian" might not work, as there are some within the EO who would not consider those outside their Church to be Christian, but I'm not one of them - so moving right along.)
I was also Anglican and have never been Roman Catholic, though I did consider moving in that direction in my early days of discontentment. (An aside)
However, I'm going to have to approach your questions from the EO point of view, as best I can. If we assume that the whole of Christendom at the time of 1066 (apart from those which had separated for whatever reason - something else that needs to be resolved - somehow!) was indeed "catholic"; universal in dogma set down by the seven Ecumenical Councils, then each of the five Patriarchs, the Roman included, was "kept honest" by his fellow Patriarchs. If one Patriarch steps out of agreement with the others, as happened with the Roman Patriarchate with introduction of the filioque, Papal Supremacy, etc, then the union falls. The reasons for this are numerous and occured over a long period, but at some point the West begins to see doctrine differently than the East. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
Also, as to not looking to one patriarch, there are numerous references in things like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and some of the Sagas to people in the northern parts looking to the Bishop of Rome.
Yes, and naturally so - and as long as the Roman Patriarch is in union with the others, correct dogma is preserved and understood in a certain way. The EO claim is that the Roman Patriarchate "lost the plot", no longer understanding dogma in the sense that the Church had universally understood it, and could no longer be considered part of what is truly "catholic"; ie universal in Dogma.
Of course, terms like Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic are forced upon us by the break. The EO claims to be the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and it seems, to me at least, that if there is One, it should be of one mind on Dogma as St Paul suggests it should be. As I said in the earlier post, differences on minor traditions are acceptable, but deviation from the thought of the Church on dogmatic issues aren't.
I've been reading EO fora and writings for over 15 years. I know of the different traditions and forms and (unfortunately) some of the disagreements that have occurred. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š On your saying that Augustine attempted to "force" them to surrender: St. Augustine of Canterbury died in 604. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š He did try to get the Celtic bishops to change but the accounts seem to suggest that personalities may have conflicted. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Here is one brief telling of his life:
Now the Council of Whitby was in 664 and was, at least in part, brought about for a similar reason to the discussions of setting the calender to calculate Easter at Nicaea, as there might be some people still in lent while others in the family were celebrating the Resurrection. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book2.html ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š (near the bottom of the page, Ch. xix.)
I'm afraid I don't quite follow how such councils could be trying to "force" change as opposed to working on matters such as has happened in many Church councils and synods etc when there is a point of disagreement. I suppose that there might have been Arians who looked on Nicea as "force". ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Otoh, I recall reading about the troubles that arose in Russia from the "Nikonian Reforms" of the 1650's. That was a matter of force, I think.
I must apologise for not making it clear that I used "force' in a tongue in cheek manner.
And that is a place where it might be questioned. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š My apologies, but I do not assume that the EOC is correct on that matter. Different sides of an issue see things from different angles (no pun intended. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ) Also, if how would the rulers of England post 1054, specifically Harald Godwinson, not be in the "Roman net"? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š What might be the marks or indications that they were or weren't?
You don't have to apologise for not assuming that the EOC is correct. And yes, there are many angles (smirk) to see this issue from. First of all, I personally don't see 1054 as the point of no return for the Roman Patriarchate and his Eastern compadres to reconcile. I know that most people seem to use it as a cut off point, but it seems rather artifically contrived. Of course, there were the excommunications, but that was between two of the five Patriarchs, and so many other issues come into play (personality clashes, lack of diplomacy, unwilliness to understand each side's point of view, etc). Yet I do believe that there was hope for reconciliation and an eventual happy outcome. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š (Just as there were hopes of eventual understandings between Chalcedeons and Non-Chalcedeons. But history isn't a smooth ride; it is a road full of pot-holes and unexpected hazards and often events come of the blue to prevent easy communication and there was a kind of shut down. Then each side falls into the habit of considering others "heretics" without the compassion to examine the facts and hope of future communication and resolution is lost ----another aside). Who knows what might have happened if Christian charity had prevailed. As is so often the case, Christian charity flies out the window when a threat is perceived.
With regard to England not being in the Roman net, I'll have to work on memory here (groan), because it's such a long time since I really looked into this carefully. I might venture to suggest that at that time there would have been certain freedoms in England which were curtailed following the Norman conquest. From what I remember (Lord have mercy) of the history of this time, there's a vaguely similar thing going on in Europe to that which transpired during the years leading up to WWII. A particular group of people, the Normans, have gained supremacy and are establishing themselves as a political force to be reckoned with. Now, you would think that little England and her Celtic neighbours aren't all that important, but history tells us that even the ancient Romans recognised her potential for various reasons and from all the later interest in England we can see that her colonisation was considered very desirable.
Still, at that point, the English and Celtic churches were relatively free of the control established in Europe, and hence somewhat independant of the political machinations within the Roman Church. English/Celtic Bishops still had the ability to disagree with the Roman Patriarch if they considered him to be heretical/schismatic/whatever and continue on a path that they considered to be correct. With the Norman conquest this ended. Conformity to all the conditions of the Roman Church were implimented. Papal authority became absolute.
But there is also secular power or influence as opposed to something like "those English are part of the EOC, we must take over".
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury did not die until 1070 and Ealred of York in 1069, they was not killed by the Normans though Stigand was deposed and excommunicated (have to check that for why). (ASC) Are you thinking of some particular bishop(s) that I could look for specifically in the works? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š (sidebar: Did you know that a French Abbot, Robert of Jumieges, was the ABC (archbp of Cant) from 1050-1052? But he fled and Stigand took office. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I love history. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ) ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š http://www.btinternet.com/~timeref/hstt42.htm#J254
Yes, I love history, too. It can be consuming!!!! My main area of interest used to be Ancient Rome - especially the Julian-Claudian period. When the kids were young, I would read into the early hours of the morning and then have to drag myself out of bed to greet them with a happy face (usually already at the breakfast table with hubby).
Then I expanded my interests to include Roman Britain - the Boudiccan rebellion is a particular fascination of mine. (Oh dear, another aside)
I'll have to search for some references regarding the replacement of Anglo-Saxon Bishops. I just can't remember details off the cuff.
What doctrines of the 11th Century are you thinking of that are "Latin" as opposed to "English" or "Celtic" please? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Aside from the Filioque, what ones might be unique to those countries/cultures as doctrines rather then customs or practices? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š (Just when the Filioque reached England or Scandinavia is rather tricky to find out, I'm still working on it.)
Well, I don't see the issue regarding the English and Celtic churches as being merely a question of 11th Century doctrines, but the ongoing lack of freedom to reject what the Roman Patriarchate decides in later years. The Filioque was flitting about the place for some time before being adopted as absolute dogma by the West.
I know that often people look at the EO and see only the infighting. But, to me, this is one of the attractive features of the Orthodox Church; the freedom of all the laity to speak out and reject what is perceived as doubtful within the heirarchy. If one of our bishops, or even a Patriarch, is out of line on dogma, there will be a hew and cry. The belief that Christ left a Church, a community, rather than a single representative to decide doctrinal issues is very much ingrained in the EO psyche. And, I believe, that this would have been the case in the 11th Century English/Celtic churches. However, that freedom was denied them with the developing militant approach of the Papacy, installed in England by the Norman conquerors.
Well, that is a point that I cannot see *how* Harald is taken as being "Orthodox". ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š In what way was he different in being "Christian" (allowing for the battles and skirmishes and politics) then Olaf of Norway or William of Normandy?
All three were "Christian", ie: believers in Christ, unless God judges them by their actions in this life to be otherwise. Naturally, this applies to us all.
From my studies, I see that at the time of the invasion of England, the developing ecclesiology of the Norman/Frankish influenced Western Church on the continent was more aggressive, more authoritarian, more centred of the single representative of Christ and how he could be manipulated to use his absolute authority for political gain, or how he could manipulate others to use his absolute authority for political gain.
As the English/Celtic churches are pulled into that net they could do nothing but change from what amounts to an Orthodox mindset of ecclesiology (any hew and cry regarding perceived heresies would not have been tolerated). The freedom to speak out against innovations is removed, until finally Anglo-Saxon and Celtic objections, in a Norman dominated society, to the new "Christianity" surplanting their own are curtailed; either by force, or by the eventual and inevitable loss of contact with their original Christian roots. Though this was forced (no tongue in cheek this time) upon them, the face of the English/Celtic ecclesiology changed, as had the face of the Western ecclesiology in previous centuries. The community aspect of the Church is replaced by a single representative and those who follow him without question.
It is in the ecclesiological sense that Harald would have been Orthodox; ie, part of the Church that saw itself as a community of believers who followed the seven Councils on dogmatic issues. Obviously, as long as the Roman Patriarch was “Orthodox” in ecclesiology, so were those under his jurisdiction — as this changed, so did those who followed or were forced to follow suit.
(Time for a disclaimer - I'm not an expert and even if I were I could still be partially or even completely incorrect in my assessment of what I believe to be the historical situation. After all, one can only study so much and come to conclusions to the best of one's ability and knowledge, which is always going to be limited. I was once assured that if I studied Epistemology I would know
that I was right in what I believed. So I did, and still I came to the conclusion that I can only believe according to my knowledge and not know that I am right - knowing is for God, who knows all things. Which is why I must emphasise that I make no judgements against those who disagree with my
conclusion to believe in favour of Eastern Orthodoxy).
I hope I have answers all your questions with lucidity.