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 ...
Certainly.
Concerning Justification by Faith Alone, The Death of Free Will in the Fall, Absolute Double Predestination, and Baptism: HISTORY OF THE SCOTTISH NATION, Volume 2 Chapter 23, J.A. Wylie
Concerning the Eucharist: HISTORY OF THE SCOTTISH NATION, Volume 3 Chapter 7, J.A. Wylie
In Presbyterianism also, we believe that the Bread and Wine are Under the Blessing during the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
Yet they remain -- Bread and Wine:
With the Real Presence of Christ.
The Real Presence totally contradicts the statement "The Sacraments of the Altar are not the real Body and Blood of Christ, but only the commemoration of his Body and Blood."
If it is "only" a commemoration, there is no presence. It is bread and wine and nothing more. I guess the author and I agree as to what is on his altar table. ;-)
Yes, Wylie provides a proper footnote for every single quotation.
Correct attribution of cited materials.
Okay, so you're acknowledging that the Celtic Orthodox taught the Calvinist, not the Greek or Latin, view of the Eucharist.
Well, yes, that's exactly what I have been saying, isn't it?
No, I'm acknowledging that the author is attempting to wrongly portray that as so.
And I'm acknowledging that he allow his own beliefs to color his research. A tragic though not uncommon occurrence.
Anyone who has spent any amount of time on this forum has become very familiar with observing this practice. I've even seen folks "cherry-picking" quotes from Scripture to support the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura.
And I note that many members of the British royal family fled to Kievan Rus' following 1066, where they undoubtedly found a familar faith being proclaimed.
Indeed, he can cite another Presbyterian author with whom he agrees! ;-)
And you'll have to excuse me, but that leaves me categorically unconvinced.
It is heartening to do a Google search on "Celtic Orthodoxy" however and see how many are re-connecting to their Eastern Orthodox roots.
Alright, well, let's ask a simple question:
Is this statement closer to:
Well?
If you mean that Wylie's (numerous) direct citations of Sedulius Scotus are "another Presbyterian author with whom he agrees"...
...You're largely right!! Sedulius Scotus WAS essentially Calvinist Presbyterian in his theology. Nice of you to admit it.
Not to mention Wylie's direct and properly footnoted citations of Claudius Scotus, Gallus the fellow-labourer of Columbanus, et cetera...
I guess we can chalk up these Celtic Orthodox Fathers as "yet more Presbyterian authors" with whom Wylie agrees! Just as you say.
Or D.) Heresy!
Wait, we have a winner!
Actually, I referenced that when I talked about how quotes can be found to support the pre-supposed, and erroneous, conclusion.
I see that you like to twist my words into agreeing with you. I believe the time has come for me to shake some dust off my sandals and allow you to twist all the words that you wish, though I can't imagine whom you believe that you are convincing (or serving) with such a tactic.
Good day!
Is this statement closer to: A.) Greek Orthodoxy? or... B.) Latin Catholicism? or... C.) Calvinism? ~~ Or D.) Heresy! Wait, we have a winner!
Well, heresy according to FormerLib's denomination.
But, since that means we have the Celtic Orthodox teaching this "heresy"... AND the Calvinist Presbyterians teaching this same "heresy"...
Just exactly as I have maintained all along.
Translation: "I, FormerLib, cannot bear to see, in their own words, what the Celtic Orthodox Fathers actually preached to their flocks."
I'm "twisting" nothing. I am QUOTING. Directly.
And since you have accused me of "twisting" words, with ZERO evidence that I have done so -- you have Borne False Witness, violated the Law of Love, and engaged in willful slander.
I have done none of these things to you. Nowhere have I made (totally unsubstantiated) accusations against your Honesty, just because I was utterly unable to argue your Evidence (you never presented any, at all).
You have done so to me, sir.
And in so doing, you have certainly provided a powerful demonstration of Eastern Orthodox Love in action.
Meditate on that.
Meanwhile, I will pray that God enlightens your understanding... and I wish you the best.
Cordially, OP
And here we have OrthodoxPresbyterian bearing false witness and misrepresenting the words of others. Apparently, this is the only way that he can win an argument.
Ok, so you poke your nose into an Orthodox thread, vomit forth this Calvinist rah-rah nonsense, and misrepresent everyone foolish enough to converse with you. I hope you are proud of yourself but I do wish the moderators would delete your "contributions" to this thread.
Get thee behind me, Satan.
Translation: "I, OrthodoxPresbyterian, have Borne False Witness, violated the Law of Love, and engaged in willful slander."
And in so doing, you have certainly provided a powerful demonstration of Calvinist Love in action (preaching down to us reprobates, undoubtedly).
You accuse others of that which you know yourself to be guilty. The meditation ball is in your court, sir.
The Gospels contain just a few direct references to Holy Communion, perhaps because the practice was only established on the night before Christ surrendered himself. However in the Gospel of John, Chapter 6, Christ speaks of spiritual nourishment and says the following:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. (John 6:47-59)
Now one could easily argue that Christ was speaking figuratively about the nourishment a man derives from faith in Him. But the Jews who were listening did not seem to interpret his statements figuratively. They asked, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Further, when these remarks are viewed in light of Christ's words at the Last Supper, we can see he was speaking directly.
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:26-29)
Mark's account is almost identical to Matthew's (Mark 14:22-25). In Luke's account, Christ also tells his disciples, "Do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) Many who reject the divine nature of Communion, including Mr De Hann, argue that Christ was speaking figuratively here as well. But this argument has at least two weaknesses. First, Christ uses no words that suggest he was using a metaphor. He says directly, "This is my body," and "This is my blood." The context provides no evidence which shows that Christ really meant "This bread symbolizes my body," and "This wine symbolizes my blood." Those who interpret these phrases as symbolic cannot do so based on this piece of scripture.
Second, and more importantly, we must look at how the disciples who were present interpreted Christ's words. In addition to the continuing witness of the Orthodox Church with regard to this sacrament, the definitive scriptural statement on their interpretation appears in Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 10. Here Paul is warning the Corinthians against sinful practices, and against participation in non-Christian sacrifices in particular:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (I Corinthians 10:16-21)
Mr De Hann, though he quotes from Chapter 11 of I Corinthians, never makes mention of this passage in Chapter 10.
Paul continues speaking of Communion in Chapter 11, explaining that he is passing on the instructions of Christ. When passing on Christ's words to the Corinthians, Paul never explains that they are to be understood symbolically.
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (I Corinthians 11:23-26)
Mr De Hann quotes verse 26 ("For as often as ye ..."), but skips over Paul's literal rendering of the words of Christ.
After describing the basis for the practice of Communion, Paul explains the reverence with which the sacrament should be approached.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (I Corinthians 11:27- 30)
Mr De Hann quotes the last two verses ("For he that eateth ...") and says that celebrating "The Lord's Supper" is a solemn matter, but he fails to address why a symbolic gesture would carry such a heavy penalty (damnation and sickness) when abused.
The historic term used by the pre schisim Church was the Greek rite and the Latin rite of the Universal or Catholic faith. The English were Latin rite Orthodox and the article is designed to show that the English Church pre Norman invasion was in communion with the Greek Rite church in Constantinople because they did not accept the Filioque clause in the Nicean creed amongst other Papal innovations until the comming of William the Bastard aka Conqueror.
Few understand that the Orthodox do not consider themselves broken from Rome only that Rome broke away from the Church.
Well, if you're going to accuse me of False Witness, prove your charges.
That is a DIRECT QUOTATION from Erigena. How have I "twisted" it in any way? If I have done so, provide evidence that I have done so.
On the other hand, if you ADMIT that Calvinists teach that "The Sacraments of the Altar are not the real Body and Blood of Christ, but only the commemoration of his Body and Blood", and we have seen above that Erigena teaches this, then it is unavoidably true that Erigena is preaching the same Eucharistic Doctrine as the Calvinists.
Ok, so you poke your nose into an Orthodox thread, vomit forth this Calvinist rah-rah nonsense, and misrepresent everyone foolish enough to converse with you. I hope you are proud of yourself but I do wish the moderators would delete your "contributions" to this thread.
I poked my nose into a Scottish thread, posting DIRECT QUOTATIONS from the Scottish Fathers as to what they actually believed.
If you just don't LIKE what they believed, that's one thing. But if you accuse me of having "twisted" their words, then you must provide evidence that I have done so -- or else you are Bearing False Witness and Slander.
You accuse others of that which you know yourself to be guilty. The meditation ball is in your court, sir.
MORE Accusations of Dishonesty from you with ZERO evidence.
IF you can bear to see the Beliefs of the Celtic Fathers posted, why do you accuse me of Dishonesty in posting their directly stated beliefs?
And having Accused me of Dishonesty, why are you unable to provide any evidence that I have misrepresented their beliefs in any way? I have simply DIRECTLY QUOTED the beliefs of the Scottish Fathers in their own words.
You have provided NO evidence that I have mis-represented their beliefs in any way whatsoever -- you have only provided evidence of your own willingness to level accusations of dishonesty, without a shred of proof.
If you accuse me of Dishonesty in simply posting DIRECT QUOTATIONS from the Scottish Fathers, and yet you have provided ZERO evidence that I have quoted them dishonestly in any fashion, what does that make you?
Dishonest, perhaps?
So, again, let's test your accusations of "Dishonesty" --
Is it not TRUE, that a Calvinist Presbyterian would affirm this very statement as being True; whereas a Roman Catholic or a Greek Orthodox would deny it as being False?
Well?
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.