Moderator: Mark Templet
Rostislav, I don't think you answered many of CGW's quite convincing arguments.
I think it is really absurd to claim that England was "Orthodox" in a modern ROC sense, at any time.
England always accepted Rome as Mater et Magistra. She never had any part in the Great Schism, mercenary guards notwithstanding.
Henry VIII started England's real problems . . .
LatinTrad
"Mater et magisterium" is quite interesting as it is clearly vatican I terminology, but I think you mean "allegiance to rome and her authority". Yes and no. The filioque did exist in england at this time. The rite was a latin/frankish rite ascribed to the church of Rome, although Fr. Hilarion of New Amalfion maintains it was a romanized Gallican rite. Don't see it, neither in its Canon/anaphora nor in its structure for Liturgy of the Catechumens. The rite of Sarum is frankish. But it is interestingly identical to that of Trondheim. So is the rest of its liturgical redaction. I cited a bevy of sources, the "bibliography" some felt was unnecessary, to establish the fact that there was much more than a "few mercenaries" involved. Again, there is Mr. Moss' website. Again, one can go and visit Fr. Hilarion of New Amalfion at his egroup, Occidentalis on yahoo. The fact of the matter is that not all churches in the west recognized "mater et magisterium" of rome especially in the sense of hildebrand. The Mozarabic Church did not recognize rome until reconquista, and then its noteables were quoted as saying, "They are destroying the Orthodox Faith."" The Church of Norway did not and was in Communion with Constantinople until the fourteenth century partly because of the links with the Rurik dynasty in Russia and partly in opposition to papal "mater et magisterium" and the frankish despotism of the "holy roman empire". The Church of England was dependent on Norway prior to the conquest and that is why the pope empowered the franks to LAUNCH A CRUSADE AGAINST THE SCHISMATICS. You can obtain the sources cited above to determine the extent of the Saxon immigrations east. I rest on that. It seems you have none. A mere fact is that the daughter of the last Saxon King of England becomes the grandmother of Grand Prince Vladimir Monomakh. I guess the Saxon royalty were now "mercenaries". That is utter nonsense.
Orthodox in the sense of the modern day ROC , yes, in the sense that it shared the Faith of the undivided church, definitely. Orthodoxy is the Church of the Apostles and the survivor of it to the modern day. The papacy is a false religion of men, heretical precisely because of your concepts of "mater et magisterium", magisterium in the Orthodox sense rightly is understood as the infallible teaching of those speaking in the phronema, enhypostasized in Christ Jesus, which the latin heretics can only believe in the person of the pope of rome. No, there were no jesuit theories in this era. papal despotism was more political, a "divine right of Peter", founded on FORGERIES, the "donation of constantine" and the "isidorian decretals". Indeed, the West, despite being enslaved to papal frankish despotism did not recognize at this time that one man "was the vicar of Christ" and "mediator of His will on earth" and "superior to all councils". That came later as the darkness thoroughly engulfed the latin heresy. Illustrative is the survival of "gallicanism". LOL!
I have provided sources and a bibliography. Tolle lege.
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
bogatyr wrote:The Citations were from educational institutions and I've referred you to Meyendorff on YOUR OWN and, specifically, I made it a point to put forward WESTERN scholars to deflect any charges of "Orthodox apologetics". I'm finished with this as I've supported my points of contention in the face of your lack of sincere scholarship in this arena. The bibliography was provided as A REFERENCE OF THE MULTITUDE of works out there which support what I have said. Tolle lege. The end.
Hardly "the end"-- you've already posted something else in this thread.
At any rate, what I don't see any evidence of is that you've actually read any of these things. Throwing someone else's college course syllabus at me hardly counts, especially since I don't think you've read any of the documents listed. Excluding Moss, the few firm citations you've given all argue against you, suggesting that you didn't read them either. You still haven't given a specific citation from Meyendorff, suggesting that you haven't really read him either, but are merely name-dropping.
When we get away from the Varangian distraction, we keep coming back to the same point. The only actual source presented is Moss, and he is no good, for reasons which I don't care to keep repeating. Nobody else I've come across, including primary sources, seems to care about the filioque as an issue, leading to the deduction that it wasn't an issue at the time. If that be "the end", that's fine with me. (But I expect it won't be.)
George wrote:In one of the earlier posts in this thread, CGW wrote "Viking was something one did, not something one was by tribe or nationality."
I would beg to differ. The word Viking is not a verb in Swedish, it is a noun, and refers to the same as it does in English. The word 'Vik' means something like the English words coast, beach or seaside, so a viking is basically a "Coastal Dweller" in its literal sense, and these vikingar (the plural in Swedish of viking) being coastal dwellers were pretty good boatsmen.
I've seen several explorations of the significance of "vik", but I'll accept the correction within limits. The point is, not every Norseman was a Viking. Farmers and farriers weren't vikings, at least not until they took up weapons and got on a boat.
Latin Trad:
well yes britain was under the Patriarchy of the West, when that said patriarchy was Orthodox, and sadly it apears to have remained with that cruel mistress.
However I agree that Henry VIII wa a significant problem in english religion, particularly when he gave birth to modern iconoclasm there adn tossed the relics of the saints into the streets. However the many treasures of Orthodox England that remained in the hands of the schismatic and heretical Rome and what few have now fallen to the anglican heretics matter not a fig since they possess not the true faith. Just as the copts are not truly orthodox, even though they possess the relics of St. Athanasius and many others.
Nicholas Zollars
Well, I think I have done enough work.
Besides real citations to support your claims, the other thing that is conspicuously lacking from your assertions is any sense of how the study of history actually works. Anyone can see, if they care to wade through all the various links that have been posted, that nearly every issue is a point of greater or lesser contention. Take that word "Varangian". Dispute over its etymology is pretty wide-ranging; it's right there in the various links that have been posted. There is also dispute over whether the Varangian Guard was so called because of the origin (at some time) of its members or because of the armament and tactics it used.
What real historians don't do is wave Meyendorff or Moss or someone else as an unassailable authority. And if they do mention Meyendorff, they give actual citations. I do not doubt that Meyendorff addressed the issue of the Varangians, but since you don't provide any citations I see no reason to beleive you have represented him accurately-- and that is the way real history is done. I sincerely doubt that in seminary they taught you to do history as you "do" it, and if they did, I've lost respect for them. And surely they didn't teach you to call people "hack", "dilletante", "inane", "ignoramus", "craven", tacky", "obtuse", "puerile", or "obstinantly obtuse". And then there are all the other insults you used. (I'm beginning to wonder why the moderators allow you to continue in this pejoration.)
And as far as my "eighth grade education" is concerned, I sign myself
Charles Glenn Wingate
BS 1981 Math & Computer Science University of Maryland College Park
MS 1985 Computer Science University of Maryland College Park
You can check it with the registrar's office if you don't believe me.
Bogatyr,
Is it possible for you just to make your point without mingling it with slanders againtst the person with whom you are discussing?
Nicholas Zollars
