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?