| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/14/2009 10:19:45 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 08/11/2009 6:54:49 AM PDT by Wife of D
Shame on you for claiming a PhD and then not backing it up. Until you do otherwise I consider your claim to a PhD in history as a lie said to impress people online. I know PhD candidates when I see one and Sir, you are not one in the way you write. My apologies will be forthcoming and public if you verify your PhD.
My statement regarding the local disfavor towards the Latin church was a supposition based on the fact that a bloody religious rebellion was quelled there. If you had earned a PhD you would know what a supposition was.
You’re still failing UTTERLY to post evidence of your statement - you know, the statement you now claim you didn’t write.
You posted:
“Jan Hus simply wanted to return the church in Bohemia and Moravia to the practices it had under Orthodoxy;”
1) Completely unsubstantiated.
2) Written by? No one apparently knows.
3) It doesn’t say what YOU claimed. You claimed this:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
To substantiate that statement - the statement you now deny ever posting - you must prove the following:
1) There was long “simmering” “resentment” against the Catholic Church.
2) That the long “simmering” “resentment” against the Catholic Church was a DIRECT RESULT of what happened to the church in Moravia AFTER the time of Sts. Cyril and Methodius.
3) That the long “simmering” “resentment” against the Catholic Church lasted - some how - lasted 500 years.
And:
4) That the long “simmering” “resentment” against the Catholic Church DIRECTLY - after 500 years - led to the revolts of Jan Huss, the Hussites, and the conception of the Moravian sect.
Your quote showed exactly NONE OF THAT.
Any and all claims that Huss was an Orthodox Christian in no way, shape or form serves as evidence that he knew, was informed by, or cultivated a supposed 500 year old “simmering” “resentment” against the Catholic Church that some how led to the formation of the Moravian sect.
Do you have any evidence for your claim or not?
Are you now at least going to admit that these are your words?: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
My statement was a re-wording of the statement the Moravians themselves make - I linked to that statement.
It is how the Moravians view their origins from their own website - posted once again:
http://www.moravian.org/history/
The name Moravian identifies the fact that this historic church had its origin in ancient Bohemia and Moravia in what is the present-day Czech Republic. In the mid-ninth century these countries converted to Christianity chiefly through the influence of two Greek Orthodox missionaries, Cyril and Methodius. They translated the Bible into the common language and introduced a national church ritual. In the centuries that followed, Bohemia and Moravia gradually fell under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome, but some of the Czech people protested.
“Shame on you for claiming a PhD and then not backing it up.”
No shame at all. You claimed to love history. I see no evidence of that and certainly no familiarity with it or the methods of studying it. What would be shameful would be for me to now claim I don’t have a PhD in history when I do. You know, kind of like how you posted a statement and then said you never said it? Yeah, shameful. Really shameful.
“Until you do otherwise I consider your claim to a PhD in history as a lie said to impress people online.”
Great. And I’ll lose exactly no sleep over that. But I know I didn’t lie, and so do some other posters here who know me well. On the other hand, people will look through these posts and see you posted this statement: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church,” and are now denying that you did so. Gee, who is telling the truth here?
“I know PhD candidates when I see one and Sir, you are not one in the way you write.”
I am not a candidate. I was a candidate. Now I am just a PhD. See, a person is usually considered a PhD candidate after finishing their exams and all their course work. I finished all of that YEARS before I finally got around to finishing my dissertation. I’m a PhD, not a PhD candidate. In the same way, for a number of years I could have referred to myself as ABD (All-but-Dissertation; or All-but-Done!). Now, however, and for some years, I have been just a PhD.
“My apologies will be forthcoming and public if you verify your PhD.”
Your apologies are meaningless to me.
You wrote:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.” in post #51.
Now you’re denying you ever said it: “It is not my claim but it is the Moravians own claim.” in post #57.
“My statement regarding the local disfavor towards the Latin church was a supposition based on the fact that a bloody religious rebellion was quelled there.”
Ohhhhhhh, so now it’s a supposition.
So, in the hierarchy of evidence you went from:
1) posting an unsubstantiated claim
2) calling it a plausible scenario when you could find no evidence at all for it
3) to denying you posted the claim in the first place and claiming it belonged to the sect in question
4) to now saying it is a “supposition based on the fact”
This is hilarious!!! This is like watching Gibbs trying to explain away Obama’s plain-as-day comments!!!
“If you had earned a PhD you would know what a supposition was.”
I know exactly what a supposition is in historical research. In history, without corroborating evidence, a supposition is WORTHLESS
Liberal 'Presbyterian Church USA' or Conservative 'Presbyterian Church in American?'
Just wondering...:)
You wrote:
“My statement was a re-wording of the statement the Moravians themselves make - I linked to that statement.”
Were these words your own or not?:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
This is a yes or no question. Claiming that this is a rewording of something, 1) doesn’t change the fact that those are your words, and 2) is not in any way supproted by the Moravian statement you posted.
Are those your words? Yes or no?
The ever changing story:
In post 51, you wrote: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
So you started off with
1) posting an unsubstantiated claim
2) then called it a plausible scenario when you could find no evidence at all for it
3) then denied you posted the claim in the first place and claimed it belonged to the sect in question
4) then said it is a “supposition based on the fact”
5) now it “was a re-wording of the statement the Moravians themselves make”
Gibbs would be soooooo proud. Like I said, by next month it will be an “old wives tale”.
The Moravian Church in America-Northern Province is listed as a pro-choice group on this website.
I left the Presbyterian Church USA because it’s pro-choice and considered the Moravian Church until I found out it’s pro-choice. I settled on the Wesleyan Denomination, which is pro-life and very conservative.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist1.htm
Wow, I didn’t know the Moravians had gone that far to the left. Thanks for the info.
I will repeat that I consider your claim of a PhD to be a boastful lie.
You are engaging in pettifoggery.
I reworded the statements made by the Moravians themselves to describe their origins.
You have no evidence of their claim of origins (evangelized by Greeks and resentful of the later Latin imposition) being in error.
My supposition based on the historical personage of John Hus and what followed is proof enough to my thesis that the Slavic people of Moravia chaffed under the Papal yoke.
http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/misc/smith_czechoslovaks/
Conversion to Christianity
The Czechs became Christian long after the British, and even after the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain, but their Christianity came to them so romantically that the tale of it reads like some long-forgotten fiction of old folk-lore. But that the story is true, the witness of an ancient language testifies; for the Old Slavonic used in the Eastern Orthodox Churches still lives in the form that it had when it issued warm on the breath of the first Czech Christians a thousand years ago. Christianity came to the Czechs from the East, from Constantinople, and from Christian Greece. Two young men, consecrated missionaries, came out from Salonica with their learning and their zeal for Christ, and went up the Danube River past many a Slavic tribe and beyond the knowledge of man, until they found the pleasant and fertile valleys of Moravia. These were Cyril and Methodius, ambassadors of Christ to the Czechs. They brought the story of the Cross to these people in their own tongue, and Cyril wrote out the Gospel for them that they might read it for themselves. Because they had no alphabet, Cyril made one for them, and invented [3/4] quaint letters which helped out the Greek alphabet to express Slavic sounds. Today the Cyrillic alphabet is universal in Eastern Europe, and is familiar to most of us in Russian print. This conversion of the Czechs occurred in the year 860.
Greek, not Roman
German missionaries representing the Church of Rome, had, before that, tried to convert the Czechs in Bohemia, but even at that early date Czechs and Germans found themselves inexorably and permanently opposed. So in Bohemia and Moravia were established Greek rather than Roman rites and doctrines. The gift of the Roman mind is law and the duty of submission to authority, while the Greek mind offers to the world the freedom of the human soul; this is true even in the Christian Church. So the gift of the Church of Rome through German missionaries, the Czechs flung back, and turned with joy to spiritual liberty and living faith which the Eastern Church brought them.
Revolt--John Ziska
War flamed up in Bohemia, and four great German armies marched upon the Czechs at intervals of two or three years, only to be hurled back utterly defeated by the Czech armies led by Ziska, one of the most picturesque figures in all history. An old man, short and broad, with long, slender nose and a fierce red moustache, blind in one eye, over which he wore a patch, he called himself "John Ziska of the Chalice, commander in the Hope of God." The people were fighting for their religious liberty, for the free reading of the Holy Bible, for the receiving of the chalice by the lay people in the Holy Communion, so that the chalice became their standard, and they wore it embroidered on their banners and tunics. In the year 1436, antedating the Reformation in the Church of England by a century, Christendom accredited to the Czechs a national Church, independent and self-organized, with bishops, priests and deacons, possessing an inherent vitality. The people sang themselves into religious fervor, and transformed the ancient Greek Church custom of singing Easter hymns, [5/6] into singing hymns the year round. Nothing like it had been known before in the world. Little do we think as we sing hymn after hymn in church and at home, whence came this gift to Christendom. The hymn, "Christ the Lord is risen again," is one of the Czech Easter hymns. Not a Roman priest was to be found in Bohemia or Moravia, and only the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 prevented reunion with the Greek Church.
It's the origin of the Southerm Province of the Moravian Church in the United States.
Count von Zinzendorf's ancestral home and estate was named der Wachau. In 1753 Moravians bought a 100,000 acre tract of land in the piedmont backcountry of North Carolina. They called it der Wachau (now “Wachovia”) in honor of Count von Zinzendorf, who in 1722 had offered them refuge on his lands in Saxony and had become the patron of their church.
The first North Carolina arrivals walked there from Pennsylvania, and built a small village surrounding by a wooden paling fort, called Bethabara, Hebrew for "House Of Passage." They eventually built four other towns, one of which was Salem, founded in 1766.
Salem remained a church-governed town for over 100 years. In 1913 it merged with Winston to become Winston-Salem.
You wrote:
“I will repeat that I consider your claim of a PhD to be a boastful lie.”
That’s fine. I will not lose sleep over your considerations in the least. What is a greater issue is that you are denying that you posted a statement that you posted.
“You are engaging in pettifoggery.”
No. You made a statement in post #51. I tried repeatedly to get you to post evidnece of that statement and you UTTERLY and COMPLETELY failed to offer any evidence whatsoever. What you posted as evidence did not even address the statement you made. You now even deny making the statement. Anyone can look at post #51 and see that you wrote: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
“I reworded the statements made by the Moravians themselves to describe their origins.”
No, you did not. The Moravians no where in that statement claim this: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
“You have no evidence of their claim of origins (evangelized by Greeks and resentful of the later Latin imposition) being in error.”
You just made several claims:
1) I have no evidence of their claim of origins.
2) Evangelized by Greeks
3) Resentful of later Latin imposition
4) that all of that is not in error.
Well, let’s look at that:
1) I already showed that - and posted - evidence about the Catholic roots in Moravia and that Sts. Cyril and Methodius were Catholics. Period.
2) I never said anything EVER about Sts. Cyril and Methodius being non-Greeks so why you now say that I would claim it was an error to say they were Greeks is beyond anyone’s comprehension.
3) There is no evidence - none presented by you or anyone else here - that there was any “resentment” 500 years after the fact. Period. Irrefutable.
4) Your priginal statement, “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church,” is still very much in error and has not been shown to hold any water whatsoever.
“My supposition based on the historical personage of John Hus and what followed is proof enough to my thesis that the Slavic people of Moravia chaffed under the Papal yoke.”
Wow. YOUR SUPPOSITION based on YOUR UNDERSTANDING of a 500 year old dead and WHAT YOU BELIEVED FOLLOWED HIS DEATH is proof enough OF YOUR THESIS that you can’t offer a single, solitary shred of evidence for. Amazing. In your world, apparently, supposition based on opinion is king. How convenient.
Still. No. Evidence.
Here again is what you said...and then denied ever saying...and then claimed was just a deduction based on someone else’s baseless and unsubstantiated opinion:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
The question to be answered is this: Does anything you post support this assertion: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
Let’s look at what you highlighted, shall we?
Your first two quotes say nothing even remotely close to what you claimed. Let’s look at your last two quotes:
“The people sang themselves into religious fervor, and transformed the ancient Greek Church custom of singing Easter hymns, [5/6] into singing hymns the year round.”
Irrelevant. The fact that they sang songs - even if in a Greek style - which is debateable does not prove this: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
Your quote shows nothing about simmering, or resentment or 500 years of either. You lose...again.
“Not a Roman priest was to be found in Bohemia or Moravia, and only the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 prevented reunion with the Greek Church.”
Nonsense. 1) There were Catholic priests in both Bohemia and Moravia in the 1430s. If there were none then there would have been no need for the Compacta of 1433. 2) More than the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Turks prevented any “reunion” between the Hussites and the Byzantines. For one thing, the Byzantines, under Turkish pressure were much more interested in reunion with THE CHURCH than with the quickly fading Hussites.
Also, your source is USELESS. It is nothing but an Anglican missions report from the early 20th century and it doesn’t even say what you claim. A highly polemical Anglican account from a hundred years ago that doesn’t even say what you said doesn’t help your case at all.
Sheesh!
You. Still. Can’t. Seem. To. Prove. This:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
You wrote:
“You forget your lies which is the problem with being a liar.”
I never lied. And calling someone here is a good way to get in trouble. I suggest you prove your claims rather than just make them.
“Your Obfuscation fails you.”
(sigh) Obfuscation?
In post 51, you wrote: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
So you started off with
1) posting an unsubstantiated claim
2) then called it a plausible scenario when you could find no evidence at all for it
3) then denied you posted the claim in the first place and claimed it belonged to the sect in question
4) then said it is a “supposition based on the fact”
5) now it “was a re-wording of the statement the Moravians themselves make”
6) and now you’re claiming I am indulging in Obfuscation?
“I mentioned Sts. Cyril and Methodius in the context of showing the eastern origins of Moravian Christianity.”
What you did was post this: “In post 51, you wrote: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
And then you denied posting that. And so on. And so on.
“I also posted from 2 non-Orthodox Christian sources - The Moravian Protestant Church’s web site and an Anglican web site that refute your false charge that the Moravians do not have Orthodox Christian roots and that any claim that they did was started by the newly formed Czech Orthodox Church as a claim to legitimacy.”
1) You are conflating many things into one. Perhaps you are desperate.
2) I pointed out the missionaries to Moravians - both Sts. Cyril and Methodious (and the ones there before them) were Catholics.
3) They were not Orthodox Church members because no such Church existed. This was BEFORE 1054.
4) Their missionary efforts were approved of by the pope.
Those are the facts. Thus, the medieval Moravians have no Orthodox roots, but Catholic ones. The modern Moravians - and that’s called the Moravian Church - have EXACTLY zero Eastern or Orthodox roots. Irrefutable.
“This is the false charge of yours I refuted from your statement at post # 30 where you wrote: Neither the Moravians, nor the Hussites nor Herrnhuter had Orthodox roots. That is a relatively recent revisionist idea put forward by some Orthodox - especially the Czech Orthodox Church which is deperately trying to create a history since it practically lacks one.”
And that statement is absolutely true. Neither the Moravian Church, nor the Hussites nor the Herrnhuter have and Orthodox roots. Zero. The first missionaries were Catholics. The second missionaries were Catholic. The Hussites were an indigenous heretical and schismatic group with only Catholic roots and the Moravian Church came even later in the 18th century. All true. All irrefutable. End of story.
“Unless you will now claim the American Moravians and the Anglicans are in cahoots with the Czech Orthodox.”
Nope. Just none of those groups proved this statement: “In post 51, you wrote: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.” You cited several things and none of them actually made the claim that you made...and then denied...and then claimed someone else made...but really you deduced it from someone else...etc., etc., etc.
But they were emissaries of the emperor at Constantinople - of eastern Rome.
And the rite they imparted on the Moravians was not the Latin one. I also posted that at first Rome went along with that but within a generation of the deaths of the saints the Latin Church suppressed the Moravian Greek rite inspired rite.
Here is the part which you lied about (or to be fair to you you think this is the case and are in error) in your claim that the Orthodox Czech church made up:
That the Moravian Protestants are the end result of a long process originating from the Greek eastern church tradition.
I produced the Moravians own source indicating that they make this claim themselves and which I re-worded (where you are being a pettifog about) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
And then I posted an Anglican statement which also states that the Moravians fought to return to the 'eastern Greek rite'.
You know as well as I do that orthodox and catholic apply to the church in the west and east until the Great Schism and what is meant is the Greek tradition/rite vs the Latin tradition/rite.
The rest is pettifoggery and obfuscation on your part.
I repeat, the Moravians THEMSELVES hold the view their origins like in the Greek Eastern Christianity not in the Latin Western Christianity. The Moravians themselves say that the Latin forced out this eastern tradition and this created resentments.
It is their claim - Protestants that they are - that their movement had their foundations in the resistance to Latin Rite Christianity and the restoration of Eastern rite Christianity which over time became the foundation of their church.
You placed a false charge against the Czech Orthodox Church and I called you out on it.
Neither the Moravians, nor the Hussites nor Herrnhuter had Orthodox roots. That is a relatively recent revisionist idea put forward by some Orthodox - especially the Czech Orthodox Church which is deperately trying to create a history since it practically lacks one.
Jerome of Prague is often held up as if he were a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy - yet his “conversion” went unnoted by everyone in his day including by Jerome himself. Not even his enemies, such as John-Jerome of Prague, ever mentioned it.
30 posted on August 11, 2009 9:48:11 PM EDT by vladimir998
The first part is your opinion Neither the Moravians, nor the Hussites nor Herrnhuter had Orthodox roots. and you can keep it but the second part of your statement is an ACCUSATION That is a relatively recent revisionist idea put forward by some Orthodox - especially the Czech Orthodox Church which is deperately trying to create a history since it practically lacks one.
Since I posted a Moravian Protestant source that highlights the history of the Moravians and the evangelism to them from the eastern rite Greeks AND an Anglican source which also makes the same claim do you take back your charge that this is a recent claim originating by the Czech Orthodox to shore up their church since such claims are not coming from the Czech Orthodox?????
I have to call you out on that and am waiting, 'doc'.
You’re welcome...It’s too bad about the Moravians...
The Protestant Evangelical churches in my area are thriving because they’re conservative and pro-life...IMO.
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.