| 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
I don’t have time to read the long discussion on this thread, but as far as what’s happening in the PRESENT, the Moravian Church is considered to be a part of the Mainline Protestant churches.
The Mainline Protestant churches have been in decline because of their liberalism.
Once proud denominations have been taken over by liberals at the ‘highest levels.’
You wrote:
“Regarding Sts. Cyril and Methodious - I also stated that you were correct that Sts. Cyril and Methodious were evangelists of a united universal (Catholic is Greek for universal) church.”
If you believe they were Catholic, then don’t claim they were Orthodox. And none of that changes the fact that you incorrectly stated in post 51: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
“But they were emissaries of the emperor at Constantinople - of eastern Rome.”
And of the pope. And none of that changes the fact that you incorrectly stated in post 51: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
“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.”
And none of that changes the fact that you incorrectly stated in post 51: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
“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.”
Wait. First, you earlier accused me of lying about something else and then failed to show at all how I could possibly have lied. Now you’re claiming I lied about something else. Second, you are talking about the “Orthodox Czech church” which I have never mentioned in my life as far as I can remember. I mentioned the Czech Orthodox Church. To you that might seem like a small difference, but there might be two different churches with very similar names. Get it right. Third, I never said that any Orthodox Church claims the “Moravian Protestants are are the end result of a long process originating from the Greek eastern church tradition.” Fourth. what I claimed was this, in post #39, “I was referring to the ahistorical revisionist idea that Jerome of Prague, John Huss, and other Hussites were really Eastern Orthodox. I first encountered this idea about 8 years ago among some Eastern Orthodox. If I recall correctly, it was actively promoted by the Czech Orthodox Church which is actually less than a century old. I may be confusing the COC with some other church, however. I could find none of the old websites that used to promote the Hussite-became-Orthodox idea.” That is EXTREMELY different than what you are claiming I said.
I never once, ever, claimed that any Orthodox Church says the Moravian Protestants are the “end result of a long process originating from the Greek eastern church tradition.”
You, not surprisingly, are confusing two different issues. To say that the Orthodox claim a false Eastern Orthodoxy for Huss is entirely different than saying the Moravians claim ANYTHING. The Orthodox, Czech or not, are no Moravians, who are Protestants nor vice-versa. You are in way over your head and clearly cannot distinguish between the most simple of things.
“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.” “
No. You posted a source that said exactly NOTHING even remotely like you supposed rewording which you even denied making. Only later did you then claim you were rewording something which is a fable nonetheless, because no such rewording is possible since the source says NOTHING of the kind!
“And then I posted an Anglican statement which also states that the Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
That is not what your Anglican source said. Here, I’ll prove it to you. Here are your four highlighted quotes:
1) “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.”
Now, no where in there does it say “the Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
2) “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.”
And, again, no where in there does it say, “the Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
3) “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.”
And nothing at all in there says anything remotely about the “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
4) “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.”
And nothing in there at all says anything about the “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
Now, I think the word, “Greek” is used six times in the passages you posted from your Anglican source and no where does the phrase or idea of “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’” appear.
You’re apparently making it up because your own cited source doesn’t back you up in the least.
“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.”
What I know is that nothing you have ever cited in anyway proves this: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
Nor can you seem to find anything that proves this either: “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’”
“The rest is pettifoggery and obfuscation on your part.”
Again, you have made claims and are apparently unable to back them up. Just post the evidence if you have it. If you really believe in what you claim, then find some evidence for it. If you can’t find any, then why do you believe it?
“I repeat, the Moravians THEMSELVES hold the view their origins like in the Greek Eastern Christianity not in the Latin Western Christianity.”
Even if they believed that, that neither proves that claim to be true nor have you posted evidence of it being true.
“The Moravians themselves say that the Latin forced out this eastern tradition and this created resentments.”
And again, even if they believed that, that neither proves that claim to be true nor have you posted evidence of it being true. Also, you have never yet posted a single scrap of evidence to back up this claim: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
“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.”
Nope. That is not what they claim nor have you posted evidence of it. You are actually claiming that PROTESTANTS became PROTESTANTS because they wanted to become EASTERN ORTHODOX. Why didn’t they just BECOME Eastern Orthodox rather than Protestants? Also, you’re forgetting (apparently) that the Moravians - that is the Protestant Moravian sect - we’re talking about didn’t exist until the 18th century. If they didn’t exist until then, and they didn’t, and we know they came out of previous Protestant groups, and we do know that, then they can’t even technically be said to have left the Catholic faith. Their immediate ancestors were Protestants and they lived in a time and place where they probably could have become Eastern Orthodox if they had a mind to. They didn’t. They were not apparently interested.
“You placed a false charge against the Czech Orthodox Church and I called you out on it.”
No you didn’t. 1) I said nothing that was false. 2) You couldn’t even get the name right. Earlier you said “Orthodox Czech Church”. When you can get the name consistenly right all you will have done is learned their name.
Maybe you can answer this for me, I claimed - CORRECTLY - that the Czech Orthodox Church FALSELY claims that John Huss and Jerome of Prague were Eastern Orthodox. You deny that they do so. Well, then explain to me why COC celebrates them as martyrs on July 6th each year. Can you do that for me?
You wrote:
“You placed a false charge against the Czech Orthodox Church and I called you out on it.”
Really? Well, here’s an article in Czech, placed on a Czech language Eastern Orthodox website, about the veneration of John Huss and Jerome of Prague as SAINTS.
http://www.pravoslav.gts.cz/hus_hp.htm
Feel free to explain that to me anytime you come up with something new. You know, the next version of your ever changing story.
You wrote:
“The first part is your opinion Neither the Moravians, nor the Hussites nor Herrnhuter had Orthodox roots.”
No, it is a fact. Irrefutable. That’s probably why you have failed to overturn it.
“...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.”
I wasn’t wrong. You’ll see.
“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 can’t take back what I never said. Again, we see you are claiming one thing is another. Honestly, I can’t help but think that this is deliberate on your part. Let’s first look at exactly what I said, shall we?
Here is what I said:
“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.”
Now, what I wrote was precise and clear. Neither the Moravians (18th century Protestants), nor the Hussites (15th century heretics), nor the Herrnhuter (Protestants) had Orthodox roots. Such claims are put forward by groups who want to create false church histories. Baptists do the same thing with their idiotic “Baptist Successionism” theory. And I posted proof of exactly what I said:
Here’s an article in Czech, placed on a Czech language Eastern Orthodox website, about the veneration of John Huss and Jerome of Prague as SAINTS by Orthodox Christians - meaning primarily CZECH ORTHODOX members.
http://www.pravoslav.gts.cz/hus_hp.htm
Thus, when I said, “That is a relatively recent revisionist idea put forward by some Orthodox - especially the Czech Orthodox Church,” I was clearly in the right.
“I have to call you out on that and am waiting, ‘doc’.”
Your wait is over, and you’ve been proven wrong yet again.
Could you please get around to showing evidence for either one of these claims of yours?:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
I’d love to see how you explain how 18th century Protestants fought to get back to their ‘eastern Greek rite’.
You wrote:
“The Mainline Protestant churches have been in decline because of their liberalism.”
True enough. Catholics have really suffered from it too since the turn of the last century. So many souls have been lost. What a pity!
Could you please get around to showing evidence for either one of these claims of yours?:1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
That is pettifoggery (you do know what that word means, right, 'Doc'?) I just stated in my own words what the Moravians themselves say. Once again here is the source and the highlighted words for your ease or reading:
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.
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.” I’d love to see how you explain how 18th century Protestants fought to get back to their ‘eastern Greek rite’.
Are you sure you want to still claim you have earned doctorate (You won't even name the university in question that bestowed your PhD? What was your thesis title?)? Because your reading comprehension is very poor. I posted a passage from the Robert Keating Smith from the Anglican web site which clearly states the 1400's. Here is the link again. Read slowly, OK?
http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/misc/smith_czechoslovaks/
The Czecho-Slovaks
By Robert Keating Smith
New York: The Board of Missions, no date.
Transcribed by Wayne Kempton Archivist and Historiographer of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, 2008
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.
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Moravian/
The establishment of the Moravian
church as a Christian church occurred as a reaction against certain alleged errors within the Roman Catholic church. This movement was started by a priest named Jan Hus. Bohemia and Moravia had been Orthodox, and had been forced to convert to Catholicism, even though Rome said that it recognized the Orthodox presence in the area. Jan Hus simply wanted to return the church in Bohemia and Moravia to the practices it had under Orthodoxy; namely married priests, liturgy in the language of the people, lay people receiving communion in both kinds, and the elimination of indulgences and the idea of purgatory. This movement had royal support and a certain independence for a while but was eventually forced to be subject to Rome. Some of the Hussites struck a deal with Rome that allowed them most of what they wanted. These were called the Utraquists. The other followers of Hus remained outside Roman Catholicism and within fifty years of Hus's death organized the Bohemian Brethren or Unity of the Brethren. The Moravians were some of the earliest Protestants, rebelling against the authority of Rome more than a hundred years before Martin Luther.
Could you please get around to showing evidence for either one of these claims of yours?:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
Now, you wrote:
“It is clear that the ancestors of the Moravian Christians were brought into Christianity by eastern rite Christians.”
No one here has ever said differently. Well, you said they were Orthodox, when they were not. Now you’re saying “eastern rite Christians” which is not necessarily the same thing. This is yet another change for your story.
“But the crux of the matter is YOUR LIE that declared the origin of the belief that the Moravians (including what became the the Moravian Protestant church) were once Orthodox was something the Czech Orthodox invented to gain acceptance.”
1) I did not lie.
2) I already proved my point about the HUSSITES being said to be Orthodox by the COC. You denied that. I showed you were wrong. End of story.
“I showed two cases of an Anglican and the actual Moravian Church (I guess they view each other as sister churches) proclaiming this. So you are proven as bearing FALSE WITNESS in your accusation.”
You proved nothing. No site that you have cited yet showed this:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
“That is pettifoggery (you do know what that word means, right, ‘Doc’?) I just stated in my own words what the Moravians themselves say.”
And once again, you need to prove the following:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
“Once again here is the source and the highlighted words for your ease or reading:”
The site and quotes in no way prove either of these two claims by you:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
“Are you sure you want to still claim you have earned doctorate (You won’t even name the university in question that bestowed your PhD? What was your thesis title?)?”
It’s usually called a dissertation, not a thesis on the PhD level. And the title is none of your business. Notice, while I have ALWAYS in this thread stuck to the issues, you have repeatedly tried to make this personal about my degree. I suggest you stop trying to hide your embarrassment of failing to prove your statements such as these:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
and instead just post some evidence to actually bolster your claims. Can you do that or will you utterly fail again? If you keep whining about my degree, we’ll know you have failed yet again. That’s exactly what I expect you to do.
“Because your reading comprehension is very poor. I posted a passage from the Robert Keating Smith from the Anglican web site which clearly states the 1400’s. Here is the link again. Read slowly, OK?”
The quote you posted says nothing that proves either one of these claims you made:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
I just read through your Anglican source - for at leats the fourth and fifth time - and no where in it is either of these two statements from you, or their content, addressed in the least:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
Where did Smith address thow two statements from you or their content? Where EXACTLY? I want you to take each statement and then direct under it post a quote from Smith that shows his quote addressing the EXACT content of your statement with the same import. Can you do that?
“This movement was started by a priest named Jan Hus. Bohemia and Moravia had been Orthodox, and had been forced to convert to Catholicism, even though Rome said that it recognized the Orthodox presence in the area.”
That is a completely nonsensical statement. 1) We already know that Moravia was Catholic and not Orthodox. Even you now say “eastern rite Christians” which is not automatically the same as “Orthodox”. 2) Moravians could not possibly have been forced to “convert” to Catholicism. How do we know this? Simple. They were not newly baptized by Catholics because they had already BEEN BAPTIZED by Catholics. They were not newly confirmed by Catholics because they had already BEEN BAPTIZED by Catholics. They were not required to make a statement of faith either. Hence, there was no conversion, nor reversion. They were already viewed as Catholics. Period.
“Jan Hus simply wanted to return the church in Bohemia and Moravia to the practices it had under Orthodoxy;”
And, as I already showed, this statement is completely false. There is no evidence whatsoever that John Huss was an Orthodox Christian. The fact that people have made up phony histories and you believe them doesn’t bolster your case in the least. Notice how that statement was taken from a wikipedia like website that anyone can write or post? Notice how you have utterly failed to find a single reputable historian who can bolster these wild and bizarre claims of yours:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
I don’t mind pointing out that you have utterly failed. I don’t mind pointing out that you have refused to post evidence for your claims. I don’t mind pointing out that you keep changing your story in just about every post. And I don’t mind pointing out how you apparently are so desperate that you attack my degree rather than prove your bizarre points. I don’t mind pointing out any of this.
How much do you mind your failure to prove the following:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
Oh, and Nikas, I want you to look at this and tell me what it proves:
http://www.pravoslav.gts.cz/hus_hp.htm
You completely ignored it so far this morning. Gee, I wonder why?
Tell us what it all means, Nikas. Okay?
Robert Keating Smith from the Anglican web site whose link is above clearly states that the men in question championed EASTERN ORTHODOX Christian principals. Since the Anglicans also say these men and movements were a rejection of Latin Christianity in favor of the Greek rite they qualify for Orthodox sainthood.
Are you being dense on purpose. You are repeating the same questions I answered with links above. The claim that they Moravians revolted against ROme in the 1400s in favor of Eastern Christianity is from Robert Keating Smith from the Anglican web site, etc, etc.
The claim that the Moravian Protestant church of today was once eastern Christian (aka Orthodox) comes from the Moravian’s own web site.
Yes, I think you lied regarding your PhD. I don’t even think you cheated on yours like Martin Luther King did - I don’t think you have one outright at all. It is clear from even your questions to me you do not possess a doctorate.
Let me know what university you went to and the title of your thesis. This will not reveal any private information like your real name, etc. In fact You could attach your thesis - deleting your name, etc and email it to me or freepmail it to me.
You wrote:
“Robert Keating Smith from the Anglican web site whose link is above clearly states that the men in question championed EASTERN ORTHODOX Christian principals.”
What he didn’t champion was evidence for you two statements:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
Oh, and Nikas, I want you to look at this and tell me what it proves:
http://www.pravoslav.gts.cz/hus_hp.htm
You completely ignored it so far this morning. Gee, I wonder why?
Tell us what it all means, Nikas. Okay?
“Since the Anglicans also say these men and movements were a rejection of Latin Christianity in favor of the Greek rite they qualify for Orthodox sainthood.”
What? 1) Who are the Anglicans to decide who can become an Orthodox saint? Seriously, that’s like saying Swedish Lutherans get to decide who becomes a Chaldean Catholic saint. How do you figure that? 2) That still doesn’t address the two statements you have repeatedly dodged posting evidence for. Here they are again:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
and
2) “Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
The Anglicans provide a neutral third party corroborating evidence that the Orthodox did not make up their claim that the Moravians of the 15th century that revolted against Rome did so as orthodox Christians (that is for the church established by the Greek missionaries).
I don’t care if you don’t like the evidence. I am not trying to change your mind I am trying to show you for a fraud. From your claim to a PhD to your claim that the Orthodox pulled out of thin air any link to the Moravians.
Anyone reading this will now see my evidence and judge accordingly that those making the link to the Moravian people’s Christian origins are justified to include their Greek Christian roots (by Greek I mean eastern Roman Greek rite - which is labeled “orthodox” these days by laymen.
You wrote:
“Are you being dense on purpose.”
I am not being dense at all. And again, you’re making this personal which I advise you not to do. Stick to the issues. Where is your evidence for the two bizarre statements you made?
“You are repeating the same questions I answered with links above.”
No, you are claiming you answered them with links when you have never answered them at all. The links don’t answer the questions at all. They don’t even remotely come close to offering evidence for what you claim.
Take, for instance, your first bizarre, and thus far, completely unsubstantiated, claim:
1) “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
Not a single link you posted addressed - at all - the idea that there was a 500 year long simmering resentment against the Catholic Church because of something that happened in the 9th century.
“The claim that they Moravians revolted against ROme in the 1400s in favor of Eastern Christianity is from Robert Keating Smith from the Anglican web site, etc, etc.”
That isn’t what Smith claimed. Here is EXACTLY what Smith wrote and it is exactly the two passages you highlighted that deal with the 15th century:
“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.”
That quote says absolutely nothing, and I mean it says NOTHING, about a 500 year long resentment going back to the 9th century. NOTHING.
“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.”
That too says NOTHING about a 500 year long resentment going back to the 9th century. It also says NOTHING about Huss being Orthodox and he died almost 40 years BEFORE Constantinople fell to the Turks!!!
You highlighted exactly four passages from Smith. Please cut and paste the passage that talks about the supposed 500 year long resentment and explain to us all how it shows there was a 500 year long resentment. Can you do that? I really wish you would. I don’t think it’s going to happen. The ball is in your court. Let’s see if you utterly fail yet again.
“The claim that the Moravian Protestant church of today was once eastern Christian (aka Orthodox) comes from the Moravian’s own web site.”
And again, it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t prove this:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
nor this:
“Moravians fought to return to the ‘eastern Greek rite’.”
“Yes, I think you lied regarding your PhD. I don’t even think you cheated on yours like Martin Luther King did - I don’t think you have one outright at all. It is clear from even your questions to me you do not possess a doctorate.”
If you want to believe that you go right ahead. I have one, and am secure in that knowledge. I feel no need to prove it to you nor have I ever felt any compulsion about proving my accomplishments to anyone. See, I have no reason to think you have a PhD or much knowledge about history either. I don’t have to go on and on about it though. I just focus on the issues at hand and how you are failing to prove your baseless claims. You, however, apparently think your best tactic is to say I have no PhD degree after all. Guess what I lose in that? Nothing. You lose the argument, and I lose nothing. I can live with that. And the best part is, I still have a PhD.
“Let me know what university you went to and the title of your thesis. This will not reveal any private information like your real name, etc.”
Yeah, right. Telling someone the name of your dissertation (you keep mistakenly calling it a thesis even after correction) will tell that same person your name as well. It’s on the internet, Nikas. If the title is given, so is my name. That’s how it works. Also, these days, just about anyone who completes a PhD dissertation is required by their university to send a copy (nowadays in PDF format) to ProQuest - UMI Microfilms. That way scholars and libraries can buy copies, bound or unbound, for research. It’s actually kind of nifty because they let you buy a copy of your own dissertation in almost commercial book format at a one time discount price. What that means, however, is that, if you have a dissertation title, then you can discover the author’s name.
“In fact You could attach your thesis - deleting your name, etc and email it to me or freepmail it to me.”
Nope. 1) I see no reason to do that. I owe you nothing since you can’t even attempt to back up your claims, 2) I see no reason to share my personal info with people I have no trust in online, 3) I think it is just smarter for me to allow you to go on and on in your obvious attempts to avoid posting evidence that back up your claims. I benefit in this debate when you fail to post evidence because you keep making it personal about my degree. Win-win.
You wrote:
“The Anglicans provide a neutral third party corroborating evidence that the Orthodox did not make up their claim that the Moravians of the 15th century that revolted against Rome did so as orthodox Christians (that is for the church established by the Greek missionaries).”
Incorrect. 1) the Anglicans who wrote the volume in question - I looked at the whole book while you looked at a snippet from Smith apparently - were missionaries. They were not third party. They were actively seeking to overturn the faith of Catholics. This can be seen in Smith’s use of the term “Romanists” which then, as now, was a pejorative term applied to Western Catholics loyal to the pope. Smith was clearly a bigot and it may very well have colored his understanding of history. 2) Smith no where claims in the passages you posted that either John Huss or Hussites were Orthodox.
“I don’t care if you don’t like the evidence.”
It has nothing to do with what I like. What you have posted from Smith DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU KEEP CLAIMING IT SAID. That’s not about my likes of dislikes. That’s what it says. Another source you posted was written by God only knows who and was completely unsubstantiated. It’s useless at best. That’s all you’ve got really.
“I am not trying to change your mind I am trying to show you for a fraud.”
Then you have already failed. Failing to bolster your claims about history in no way proves anything about me. It only proves something about your claims. If you are here to post against me, then you are not only wasting your time. You would also be making it personal, which is a serious mistake on your part.
“From your claim to a PhD to your claim that the Orthodox pulled out of thin air any link to the Moravians.”
Whatever you think about my PhD is completely immaterial to this debate. I already showed - proved conclusively - that the COC claim John Huss as a martyr. You have proved nothing. It’s all on you now. You have failed repeatedly. Will you continue to fail? Do I even need to ask?
“Anyone reading this will now see my evidence and judge accordingly that those making the link to the Moravian people’s Christian origins are justified to include their Greek Christian roots (by Greek I mean eastern Roman Greek rite - which is labeled “orthodox” these days by laymen.”
What? Now, it’s “eastern rite Christians” or even “Orthodox” but “Roman Greek rite”? Your story keeps changing. There was no such thing as “Roman Greek rite”, Nikas. You’re just making stuff up out of thin air.
I repeatedly told you that when I wrote “This laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church." I was re-wording using my own words what the Moravian Protestant Church itself says on its website - see the lines highlighted.
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.
[OK, here it comes]
In the centuries that followed, Bohemia and Moravia gradually fell under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome, but some of the Czech people protested.
Now the Moravain words with my own so all can see. "This [gradually fell under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome] laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church [but some of the Czech people protested.]."
Here is what Robert Keating Smith then adds - I did not post all the words because that is what the link was for. Clearly you did not click the link to read it all.
By Robert Keating Smith
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.
John Hus [Here Robert Keating Smith is stating that the Moravians were PREDISPOSED to resisting Rome because of their eastern Christian origins]
No wonder that when the Reformation began in England and "The Morning Star of the Reformation," John Wycliffe, preached, another answered him from Bohemia--John Hus, preaching in the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. It was as though once more the morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy! John Wycliffe died in peace in his own little parish, but John Hus was reserved for martyrdom. To his own amazement, and to the amazement of both England and Bohemia, John Hus was brought by German intrigue before a council summoned by the Pope at Constance, and that council declared Hus a heretic. Never was there a more infamous council nor a wickeder sentence. John [4/5] Hus was burned at the stake July 6, 1415. The authorities ordered his body burned and his ashes thrown into the river Rhine. Strange to relate, the same council condemned Wycliffe as a heretic (although he had been thirty years dead), and ordered his ashes cast into the river Avon. When the commission appointed to dig up the bones of Wycliffe, came to the little English village of Lutterworth and disturbed the graveyard of Saint Mary's Church, there must have come to the hearts of the plain English folk a bitter desire to be freed from such foreign desecration of their religion.
Are you sure you still want to claim you hold a PhD in history?
You know as well as I do that the eastern Roman empire out of Constantinople was fully THE Roman empire.
What people today call the Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church is officially called The One Catholic Apostolic Church and that Greeks up until recently self-identified as Romans.
In some nations (Arabs, Turks, Persians) variations of the name Roman is what they called the Greeks or "Greek Orthodox Christians".
Greek Rite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic (as opposed to Latin Catholic) all are interchangeable, etc.
See also Mosocow's claim to be the "Third Rome".
What was your thesis on, 'doc'?
You wrote:
“You are peettifogging again. pettifogger - a disputant who quibbles; someone who raises annoying petty objections.”
You made two completely outlandish claims and have completely failed to back them up. Why don’t you back them up. They were YOUR words.
“I repeatedly told you that when I wrote “This laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.” I was re-wording using my own words what the Moravian Protestant Church itself says on its website - see the lines highlighted.”
But that wasn’t the case. As I demonstrated NOTHING in the passage you supposedly reworded actually said what you claimed. NOTHING. You made up a quote to say what you wanted it to - and that was after denying that you ever said it first.
“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.
[OK, here it comes] In the centuries that followed, Bohemia and Moravia gradually fell under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome, but some of the Czech people protested.”
Notice, it no where says, nor can it be honestly summarized to have said, “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
There is nothing, and that means NOTHING, in the passage you cited about “groundwork” or “resentment” or “long” simmering or 500 years or Huss being Orthodox. There’s nothing there. NOTHING.
“Now the Moravain words with my own so all can see. “This [gradually fell under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome] laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church [but some of the Czech people protested.].””
Oh, my gosh. So now you’re making up quotes to try and get a third party to say what you apparently wish they said? Some people protesting is not the same thing as 500 years of long simmering resentment. If anyone protested - and notice no one is listed - that was BACK IN THE 9TH CENTURY. You’re now making up quotes to suit your needs. If that isn’t desperation, what is?
“Here is what Robert Keating Smith then adds - I did not post all the words because that is what the link was for. Clearly you did not click the link to read it all.”
I did. And I looked at the actual book too - which you did not do, right?
“So in Bohemia and Moravia were established Greek rather than Roman rites and doctrines.”
Which says NOTHING about long simmering 500 years of resentment.
“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.”
Which as I have already pointed out several times says NOTHING about about long simmering 500 years of resentment.
NOTHING!
“John Hus [Here Robert Keating Smith is stating that the Moravians were PREDISPOSED to resisting Rome because of their eastern Christian origins]”
Nope. That is NOT what he says at all. Look for yourself:
“No wonder that when the Reformation began in England and “The Morning Star of the Reformation,” John Wycliffe, preached, another answered him from Bohemia—John Hus, preaching in the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. It was as though once more the morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy! John Wycliffe died in peace in his own little parish, but John Hus was reserved for martyrdom. To his own amazement, and to the amazement of both England and Bohemia, John Hus was brought by German intrigue before a council summoned by the Pope at Constance, and that council declared Hus a heretic. Never was there a more infamous council nor a wickeder sentence. John [4/5] Hus was burned at the stake July 6, 1415. The authorities ordered his body burned and his ashes thrown into the river Rhine. Strange to relate, the same council condemned Wycliffe as a heretic (although he had been thirty years dead), and ordered his ashes cast into the river Avon. When the commission appointed to dig up the bones of Wycliffe, came to the little English village of Lutterworth and disturbed the graveyard of Saint Mary’s Church, there must have come to the hearts of the plain English folk a bitter desire to be freed from such foreign desecration of their religion.”
Note, Smith never once mentioned the “East”, or “Orthodoxy” or “resentment” or “long simmering”. As I have already demonstrated now several times, the passages you cite say NOTHING like you claim they do. The words you use appear no where in the passages you copied. The IDEAS you claimed appear NOWHERE in the passages you copied.
No where in the passages you copied and pasted does it say what you claim. NOWHERE. You have AGAIN failed utterly to post any evidence to bolster you claim:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.”
Excellent histoical summary.
Thank you for posting it.
Click here for guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
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.