The Orthodoxy of England before 1066

[尼古拉前执事]

Perhaps it should be brought up that that Vladimir Moss, as I recall has a doctorate in History and live, in of all places, England.

NZ: He was ROAC, but now he is GOC: Lamian Synod I believe.

[Bogatyr]

:ohvey: The use of the term "varangian" itself implies a different reality. Firstly, it is SPECIFIC to certain Norsemen, those who organized Rus'. Secondly, FROM ALL READABLE DOCUMENTATION, after the conversion of Kievan Rus', A VARANGIAN-Slavic state, there was a great religious fervour and, indeed, a sort of a golden age of culture. The era we are speaking of is shortly after the good and pious rule of Jaroslav The Wise, the FATHER-IN-LAW of Europe. The Varangians were very much affected by this, those who lived in Rus' and their relations in Norway--WHERE TRONDHEIM IS--and Denmark and Sweden. This is WHY the Norwegian church maintained COMMUNION with the See of Constantinople until the 14TH CENTURY. The English church, prior to 1066, maintained the same position because the Saxons were related to the Varangians and Rus' BY MARRIAGE and their church was DEPENDENT UPON TRONDHEIM. This was the era of hildebrand. Western historians can duly testify of his power lust and bloody measures that he had taken. The franks were blessed to go and convert "schismatics". Afterward a sizeable immigration from England went to Constantinople and Rus'. I believe Mr. Moss has an essay on the extent of it. This was the era of "true belief" in Europe and to divorce the religious fervour of the people involved is simply secular humanist revisionism, unworthy of true scholarship and Orthodox Christian discourse. It's as legitimate as asserting the tensions of dialectical materialism during this feudal era and the resulting unrest and emigrations. ANACHRONISTIC pseudo-scholarship. Even Meyendorff remarks upon the qualities of the Varangian legion. Your comments are fuelled by heterodox speculation and not fact.
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[CGW]

Perhaps it should be brought up that that Vladimir Moss, as I recall has a doctorate in History and live, in of all places, England.

NZ: He was ROAC, but now he is GOC: Lamian Synod I believe.

This is a quote from an article posted on Romanitas:

I was born in 1949 in London into the family of a British diplomat, and was educated in the British public school and university system. I have a first degree in philosophy and psychology, and a doctorate in psychology.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

NZ: He was ROAC, but now he is GOC: Lamian Synod I believe.

He joined the GOC of Greece under Archbishop Chrysostom II, not the Lamians.

Mt whole point with regard to the "Western Rite", someone will have to explain to me what that is, "Western Rite" - Do they mean the ever changing Latin system? If so, what did it look like back then, when they were still Orthodox.

CGW: I'll try and stop "talking through my hat", ASAP.

[CGW]

:ohvey: The use of the term "varangian" itself implies a different reality. Firstly, it is SPECIFIC to certain Norsemen, those who organized Rus'.

This is not true.

One can find references in the sagas to certain people going to join the guard. These are people from Scandinavia proper. In the Laxdaela Saga, for instance, the story is told of one Bolli who went to join the guard and returned later (see especially chapters 73 and 77). Also in Grettir's Saga (section 85 and onward) it is described how Angle went to join the Guard as essentially an outlaw, and how Thorsteinn Dromund also joined the Guard in order to kill Angle, thus avenging his brother's death.

In identifying a "Varangia", the same error was made as when people called all the Norse "vikings". Viking was something one did, not something one was by tribe or nationality. I have found other citations on-line which suggest that the Byzantines did not think of Varangia as a specific place, but simply assigned a wide variety of foreign "barbarians" to that group.

Secondly, FROM ALL READABLE DOCUMENTATION, after the conversion of Kievan Rus', A VARANGIAN-Slavic state, there was a great religious fervour and, indeed, a sort of a golden age of culture.

Could you produce a citation for this?

This is WHY the Norwegian church maintained COMMUNION with the See of Constantinople until the 14TH CENTURY.

Again: citation?

The English church, prior to 1066, maintained the same position because the Saxons were related to the Varangians and Rus' BY MARRIAGE and their church was DEPENDENT UPON TRONDHEIM.

The problem is that there is no English church in the sense that you are using. There is only a Roman church in England. A separate church in England is something of an Anglican fantasy used to help buttress the Church of England.

Even Meyendorff remarks upon the qualities of the Varangian legion. Your comments are fuelled by heterodox speculation and not fact.

I do not have Meyendorff's book at hand, but the citations from the two sagas I gave should show, I believe, some of the qualities of the Norsemen who went to Constantinople.

[CGW]

It is true that the pope blessed William's of England. Its significance is purely political. The papacy at this time was tied to the Normans.

While I'm at it, here's another link discussing the Varangian Guard. Note especially how one group of Saxons from England imported RC priests!

[CGW]

This was the era of "true belief" in Europe and to divorce the religious fervour of the people involved is simply secular humanist revisionism, unworthy of true scholarship and Orthodox Christian discourse. It's as legitimate as asserting the tensions of dialectical materialism during this feudal era and the resulting unrest and emigrations. ANACHRONISTIC pseudo-scholarship.

I don't know about anachronism. In any case, there is plenty of documentation that England of the time was not a Woebegonia where all the men were reverent, the women pure, and the piety above average. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle testifies to the innumerable squabbles among the many petty and not-so-petty rulers, while the sagas recount in detail the blood feuds and revenge killings of the "pious" Norse.

Anyway, dialectical materialism has a better chance here than projecting a modern theory of early medieval piety onto the canvas of West European politics. None of this discussion does anything to address the central question: was the Norman Conquest carried out in order to bring the filioque to England? Actual direct evidence of this is completely lacking. We do have the Creed in Anglo-Saxon, but it's in verse and I don't know its age. (I also don't do Old English well enough to attempt a translation.) I haven't investigated the issue of exactly what Latin missals of the era said, but I also do not have the resources to pursue the issue. It appears that Moss and his ilk haven't pursued it either, or else they would mention it.

What any serious investigation uncovers almost immediately, however, is how the Normans fit into the center of the power politics of the era, and how the papacy fits into those same politics alongside the Normans. We have some record of the arguments made against Harold in Rome, and they don't mention any theological issues as best I can tell. (It's also clear that the accusations made against Harold were unfounded in many respects.)