Posted on 11/22/2002 10:22:39 PM PST by Destro
THE FALL OF ORTHODOX ENGLAND
Vladimir Moss
It is true what I say: should the Christian faith weaken, the kingship will immediately totter.
Archbishop Wulfstan of York, The Institutes of Polity, 4 (1023).
INTRODUCTION: ENGLAND, ROME, CONSTANTINOPLE, NORMANDY
On October 14, 1066, at Hastings in southern England, the last Orthodox king of England, Harold II, died in battle against Duke William of Normandy. William had been blessed to invade England by the Roman Pope Alexander in order to bring the English Church into full communion with the “reformed Papacy”; for since 1052 the English archbishop had been banned and denounced as schismatic by Rome. The result of the Norman Conquest was that the English Church and people were integrated into the heretical “Church” of Western, Papist Christendom, which had just, in 1054, fallen away from communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, represented by the Eastern Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Thus ended the nearly five-hundred-year history of the Anglo-Saxon Orthodox Church, which was followed by the demise of the still older Celtic Orthodox Churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
This small book is an account of how this came to pass.
The Beginning of the End
Now the English had been perhaps the most fervent “Romanists” of all the peoples of Western Europe. This devotion sprang from the fact that it was to Rome, and specifically to Pope St. Gregory the Great and his disciples, that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes owed their conversion to the Faith in the late sixth and early seventh centuries. From that time English men and women of all classes and conditions poured across the Channel in a well-beaten path to the tombs of the Apostles in Rome, and a whole quarter of the city was called “Il Borgo Saxono” because of the large number of English pilgrims it accomodated. English missionaries such as St. Boniface of Germany carried out their work as the legates of the Roman Popes. And the voluntary tax known as “Peter’s Pence” which the English offered to the Roman see was paid even in the difficult times of the Viking invasions, when it was the English themselves who were in need of alms.
However, the “Romanity” to which the English were so devoted was not the Franco-Latin, Roman Catholicism of the later Middle Ages. Rather, it was the Greco-Roman Romanitas or Romiosini of Orthodox Catholicism. And the spiritual and political capital of Romanitas until the middle of the fifteenth century was not Old Rome in Italy, but the New Rome of Constantinople. Thus when King Ethelbert of Kent was baptized by St. Augustine in 597, “he had entered,” as Fr. Andrew Phillips writes, “‘Romanitas’, Romanity, the universe of Roman Christendom, becoming one of those numerous kings who owed allegiance, albeit formal, to the Emperor in New Rome…” Indeed, as late as the tenth century the cultural links between England and Constantinople remained strong, as we see, for example, in King Athelstan’s calling himself basileus and curagulus, titles ascribed to the Byzantine emperor.
We may tentatively point to the murder of King Edward the Martyr in 979 as the beginning of the end of Orthodox England. Only six years before, his father, King Edgar the Peaceable, had been anointed and crowned as head of the Anglo-Saxon “empire” in Bath Abbey, next to the still considerable remains of Imperial Rome. And in the same year he had been rowed on the River Dee at Chester by six or eight sub-kings, including five Welsh and Scottish rulers and one ruler of the Western Isles. But then the anti-monastic reaction of King Edward’s reign was followed by the murder of the Lord’s anointed. “No worse deed for the English was ever done that this,” said the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; and while it was said that there was “great rejoicing” at the coronation of St. Edward’s half-brother, Ethelred “the Unready”, St. Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury, sorrowfully prophesied great woes for the nation in the coming reign.
He was right; for not only were the English successively defeated by Danish pagan invaders and forced to pay ever larger sums in “Danegeld”, but the king himself, betrayed by his leading men and weighed down by his own personal failures, was forced to flee abroad in 1013. The next year he was recalled by the English leaders, both spiritual and lay, who declared that “no lord was dearer to them than their rightful lord, if only he would govern his kingdom more justly than he had done in the past.” But the revival was illusory; further defeats followed, and in 1017, after the deaths both of King Ethelred and of his son Edmund Ironside, the Danish Canute was made king of all the English. Canute converted to the faith of his new Christian subjects; and the period of the Danish kings (1017-1042) created less of a disruption in the nation’s spiritual life than might have been expected. Nevertheless, it must have seemed that God’s mercy had at last returned to His people when, in 1043, the Old English dynasty of Alfred the Great was restored in the person of King Ethelred’s son Edward, known to later generations as “the Confessor”.
It is with the life of King Edward that our narrative begins.
(Excerpt) Read more at romanitas.ru ...
But, both churches, regardless of the wording or the legal nicities, teach that the substance in the bread and wine is changed or alterered living flesh and blood of Jesus -- whose appearance and taste is altered to make it palatable.
The difference between the Catholic and Orthodox teachings is in line with their approach to theology: the Catholic Church developed a philosophical dogma, based on the original Church teachings, trying to "explain" this miracle, magic, whatever you want to call it, while the Orthodox Church continues to use the traditional approach of the original Church by simply calling it a "mystery" that is beyond our comprehension.
Jesus said we should do this in memory of Him, not as a supreme act of thanksgiving.
And our terminology -- calling it simply a "mystery" we cannot explain but somehow "know" that it is so -- is much stronger?
Filioque" was therefore ... rationalistic
The "Filioque" was introduced by the Spanish clergy to offset Arian heresy, which teaches that Jesus is a lesser God than the father.
The phrase is unscriptural and is contrary to the understanding of Trinity, but pope Leo III -- while not outright approving its use -- tolerated it as a lesser evil.
Thus, the Latin church was fighting heresy with heresy that was only later rationalized by some in the West as "and through the Son."
That still does not address the issue of literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of any man, which to me remains repugnant, and unscriptural. Eating the bread and drinking the wine in His memory is a noursihment for our souls.
The last thing I would want to do is put Christ through the same ordeal over and over.
The idea that Christ is still suffering is contrary to the Creed and the fact that Christ was a Man who died once for our sins past and present (never mind the sacriptural issues raised by that).
Christianoty is not a cult of cannibalistic passions, or masochistic abuse
Yes. Truth is truth and it is always more pure than man-made explanations and best-guesses. Have you never experienced truth directly from God? It is the most pure explanation of what our Holy Mysteries are, and yet there are no man-made words to express this.
Kosta, the west seeks answers here in this world, but we seek them from and in the next. This is why I asked you awhile back if you had been hanging out with protestants much lately, as much as I love many,many freeper protestants. It is not our way to require all of these rock-solid answers and it is especially not our way to require them from fellow human beings.
Is there a similar council, catechism or creed for the Orthodox Church?
No. Yes. No. The Church teaches that the bread and wine are "changed" or "altered" and become His Flesh and Blood without going into "how." It is a Mystery (Sacrament) and is beyond our comprehension. The Orthodox Church has not changed its teachings since the Seventh Ecumenical Council (when the Church was still visibly one).
The Orthodox Church sees the Eucharist as a symbol of praise and thanksgiving, not of continuous suffering and torture.
Do remember that the Last Supper was a Passover meal -- Passover is a commemorative observance, and that the Passover lamb is eaten but without its blood in the meat or separately.
OT laws prohibit Jews from eating flesh, or meat with blood or drinking blood, which is why the Apsotles reacted with unease at Jesus' words.
The Creed is the Nicene Creed (unaltered). It says that Christ suffered, died, and was buried and resurrected on the third day.
The Creed makes it cleared that the suffering part is in the past tense. Theologically Jesus is a man as well as God in the full sense of both. As a Man, Jesus died like all humans, once, not over and over. As God, He never died. God doesn' die or suffer.
I've always wondered why Roman Catholics say the Mass is a "bloodless" sacrifice
Can't help you there. You will have to ask an un-orthodox Catholic (?) for an answer. Why is it a sacrifice and how can drinking blood be bloodless? Hmmm.
I've got several difficulties concerning the Roman Mass, and I'm wondering if they applicable to the "Orthodox" church as well.
First why place Orthodox in quotation marks? It's orthodox, because it has kept Christianity as it was defined up to and including the Seventh Ecumenical Council. It has thereby safeguarded the Holy Tradition and the worship of the original Church as defined and taught by Church Fathers, using the Scriptuires in their original language and understanding. And, because it's the only one and unique and original and the oldest, it is spelled with "O," and because it is its official name.
Second, unless you specify what these "difficulties" are, how can I answer your question?
BTW, kosta50, why call the Orthodox, orthodox, if you are under the conviction that Christ taught something different?
I think you are confusing the "un-orthodox" with anti-orthodox or non-orthodox. I am Orthodox and could not imgaine not being Orthodox. I am inquisitive not in order to 'disprove' the Orthodox faith or to deny its orthodoxy, but in order for me personally to know it better.
Christ didn't teach anything different. We humans interpret what He said differently. The error is always on us. It would be too presumptious of us to assume otherwise.
The beauty of Orthodoxy is that it does not offer "rational" answers for things we cannot understand but only have a notion of -- like God for starters. Instead, it fully admits our mental depravity when it comes to God.
Orthodoxy does not have the vain streak of claiming to "know" God, or "understand" the mysteries of God's teachings.
Now, why don't you tell us more about yourself?
Both teachings say the same thing -- bread is Flesh and wine is Blood. We "know" it in ways we know of God -- we simply don't know.
The difference between the East and the West is that we save paper and energy trying to "figure out" God through philosophy and logic (!), and spend that energy in adoration od his Glory, because the Truth revealed to the Apostles that has been passed on to their successors is unchangeable and our lack of understanding doesn't make it less true. But our rendering of that Truth is not perfect and is subject to scrutiny.
By the way, I had the incredible opportuniy to attend the Holy Liturgy in Tokyo of all places. It was a three-hour pontifical liturgy, with the Metropolitan leading the bishops. No words could explain the beauty that it was. There must have been a thousand beeswax candles lit in the Cathedral and the singing, which was absolutely intoxicating, was in Japanese with an occasional Slavonic introjection -- especially the Trisagion. Except for the very, very old, everyone stood throughout the service. There were many prostrations. It was simply divine for the lack of a better word.
How can one avoid Protestants or Catholics? But, the point is that one's faith does not grow by being smug about it. One has to die in order to be resurrected. :-)
Suit yourself. :-)
Orthodoxy is above all, an experiential faith, so I cannot even conceive of why you would say what you have said above.
"Genuine Orthodox theologizing is theologizing on the basis of spiritual experience."
"Where shall we seek criteria of truth? All too often men seek these criteria in what is lower than truth, in the objective world with its compulsions, seek criteria for spirit in the material world. And they fall into a vicious circle. Discursive truth can provide no criteria for final truth: it is only at the half-way mark, and knows neither the beginning nor the end. Every proof rests upon the unproven, the postulate, the created. There is risk, and no guarantee. The very search for guarantee is wrong and really means subjecting the higher to the lower. Freedom of the spirit knows no guarantees. The sole criterion of truth is truth itself, the light which streams out of it. All other criteria exist only for the every-day, objective world, for social communication."
Nikolai Berdyaev
What I said is true, MarMema. That's why I could say it. The truth is that borth the Catholic and the Orthodox teachings teach the same thing. They have arrived at that by taking a different approach.
If the arrive to the same truth, both are equally valid unless you can show the flaws in one or even in both. Consequently, if both arrive at the same truth but in different way, one way is no more valid or truthful than the other, unless you can show flaws in one or both.
A couple of comments about the link:
The Orthodox Church was never subject to a single externally authoritarian organization and it unshakenly was held together by the strength of internal tradition and not by any external authority.
That is historically incorrect! The Greek-rite Church was under complete control of Byzantine Emperors. The very name "Ecumnical" meaniny "worldly" stood also for the "Roman Empire" which was considered to rule the world. Thus the name assumed the meaning of "imperial." The Ecumenical Councils were called and presided by the emperors, and many an emperor or his wife had a lot to do with the church, the various heresies they brought in and so on.
[Orthodox] Christianity has not been so rationalized as it had been rationalized in the West."
Read John of Damascus and then tell me the same thing. Don't get me wrong -- he makes perfect sense, like none other, but rationalization is it supreme.
Finally, the final and most important feature of Orthodoxy is its eschatological consciousness
Absolutely! The whole purpose of the faith is our salvation. The unworldyness of Orthodoxy is one of its most prominent feateres. This is just a passing moment in eternal life, a chance to become human being palatable to God. And the good Lord showed us the way.
This is your opinion. The clergy I rely on would speak much differently about this, as would several websites.
I vehemently deny that we teach the same thing as the Council of Trent. But you may believe what you like.
Read John of Damascus and you shall see the truth in the way God made us understand things. It doesn't take a whole page of unbroken pragraphs to convince people of truth -- truth is somethng that comes by elimination, by deduction, by apophatic thinking. If God is Love, that love, by definition must be absolute, and in absolute love there can be no room for evil. If God is Wisdom that Wisdom cannot be without a Word. And the Word is generate and not the cause of the Wisdom, and is co-substantial with it, and coeternal with eternal Wisdom.
We can at best approach the truth if we do nothing but incessently try to find fault in our own thinking and hope to fail.
What is my opinion? Do we or do we not say that bread is the Body and wine is the Blood? Do the Catholics say that, when all is said and done, the bread is the Body and the wine is the Blood?
Are they not the same Body and Blood of Christ?
Where is my opinion in all this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.