Church of England Orthodox?

[Dewi Sant]

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while.


Why didn't the church just return to the Orthodox roots instead of creating a synthetic root of its own?


I know my faith Icon says Orthodox but I do go to a Church of England church with my family and Orthodox on my own...family matters.



I have been to a high church of England which apart from the differences in liturgy and the lack of greek it felt very Orthodox.

The only reason I can see is politically.

The Church of England was established by the King of England (Henry VIII....not that we need to be reminded).
In protest to the Roman "Catholic" Church.
As the Orthodox church was pretty much non-existant at the time because of the banishing of any heretical churches ie: those that are not in communium with Rome there was no Orthodox church in mainstream England if at all.

Is it simply because King Henry VIII didn't know about the Orthodox church?


Also I ask, is there any possiblity of a union or is that a little too much on the far-fetched scale?


This feels like a very awkward post, please forgive me if it doesn't read well.

[SeenAndUnseen]

I never realized the Anglican church had any Orthodox roots to return to. I am familiar with the similarities you allude to, but the Anglican church is a break off from the Roman church (as you also said) as far as I am aware, and was never part of the Orthodox church.

[AngCath]

all too often those efforts are halted by the demand that the Anglicans submit to the Orthodox bishops

[SeenAndUnseen]

As for the matter of possible union, one of the big things keeping the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches apart (aside from papal infallability) is that little clause in the creed:
"...proceeds from the Father and the Son..." in reference to the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox contend that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son -- a deeply theological riff.

Like the Roman Catholic Church from which the Anglican church broke off, the Anglican churches do say the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

[higgs2]

all too often those efforts are halted by the demand that the Anglicans submit to the Orthodox bishops
Funny how that sort of thing just tends to sink the ship :D

[PaladinValer]

Anglicanism has been "seperate" since Day One.

We do have Eastern influence and roots, but we were never a part of the East.

One could say the Church now exists like a compass with four cardnal points:

To the North are the Anglicans
To the East are the Eastern Orthodox
To the South are the Oriental Orthodox
To the West are the "Western" Catholics (VCs and OCs)
To the Center are Apostolic Lutherans (note: center doesn't mean right)

[AngCath]

Interesting Compass illustration

[Bonifatius]

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while.


Why didn't the church just return to the Orthodox roots instead of creating a synthetic root of its own?


I know my faith Icon says Orthodox but I do go to a Church of England church with my family and Orthodox on my own...family matters.



I have been to a high church of England which apart from the differences in liturgy and the lack of greek it felt very Orthodox.

The only reason I can see is politically.

The Church of England was established by the King of England (Henry VIII....not that we need to be reminded).
In protest to the Roman "Catholic" Church.
As the Orthodox church was pretty much non-existant at the time because of the banishing of any heretical churches ie: those that are not in communium with Rome there was no Orthodox church in mainstream England if at all.

Is it simply because King Henry VIII didn't know about the Orthodox church?


Also I ask, is there any possiblity of a union or is that a little too much on the far-fetched scale?


This feels like a very awkward post, please forgive me if it doesn't read well.

Why should Anglicans return to the Orthodox Church? They did not run away from it, so they do not have to return to it. ;)

When Henry VIII separated the Englisch Church from Rome the Church of England remained part of the Church Universal in the same right and standing as the Orthodox Churches of the East.

It would be good to reach a state of visible unity with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople though. There have been efforts in the early 20th century, but as we have introduced the priesting of women that seems unlikely at the moment.

Best
Boni

[Dewi Sant]

It suprises me that the CofE retains the Filioque (the added words in the creed).

I would have assumed that would have been abolished with the seperation from Rome.



I would love there to be a council between all churches that truely wish for unity.
For all churches that truely believe in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church becomming one Church rather than many churches that are called the Church. (please note the Capitol C's)

[Dewi Sant]

Anglicanism has been "seperate" since Day One.

We do have Eastern influence and roots, but we were never a part of the East.

One could say the Church now exists like a compass with four cardnal points:

To the North are the Anglicans
To the East are the Eastern Orthodox
To the South are the Oriental Orthodox
To the West are the "Western" Catholics (VCs and OCs)
To the Center are Apostolic Lutherans (note: center doesn't mean right)

Of course we musn't forget how strong the Anglican church is in Africa.

Good illustration though.

I think that the Roman Catholic church acted as a sort of Wall between East and West, stopping the Eastern church from continuing its journey West.

[Dewi Sant]

all too often those efforts are halted by the demand that the Anglicans submit to the Orthodox bishops


Surely there could be a period of both Church of England and Orthodox bishops in union.

An idea would be that the Orthodox Bishops retain the Orthodox parishes and the CofE the same until the new Bishops are appointed. Otherwise you could divide the diocese but that could be more risky.

Alternatively the Church of England could become the English Orthodox Church, this would mean that the current Bishops and Arch-Bishops would remain where they are as they are but under a new title.


However the "English Orthodox Church" without proper unity with the East may neither be accepted by either former Orthodox or CofE.





We need a council...we are sort of overdue by 1650 years;)

[gtsecc]

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while.


Why didn't the church just return to the Orthodox roots instead of creating a synthetic root of its own?


I know my faith Icon says Orthodox but I do go to a Church of England church with my family and Orthodox on my own...family matters.



I have been to a high church of England which apart from the differences in liturgy and the lack of greek it felt very Orthodox.

The only reason I can see is politically.

The Church of England was established by the King of England (Henry VIII....not that we need to be reminded).
In protest to the Roman "Catholic" Church.
As the Orthodox church was pretty much non-existant at the time because of the banishing of any heretical churches ie: those that are not in communium with Rome there was no Orthodox church in mainstream England if at all.

Is it simply because King Henry VIII didn't know about the Orthodox church?


Also I ask, is there any possiblity of a union or is that a little too much on the far-fetched scale?


This feels like a very awkward post, please forgive me if it doesn't read well.
I wish more thought like you.

[Dewi Sant]

If there is one thing I don't like on forums it is a blood bath.


I like a debate but not an arguement.

[gtsecc]

I never realized the Anglican church had any Orthodox roots to return to. I am familiar with the similarities you allude to, but the Anglican church is a break off from the Roman church (as you also said) as far as I am aware, and was never part of the Orthodox church.
We are not a break off.
We have Orthodox roots, and were part of the Orthodox Church until 1066.

[gtsecc]

I am sure we will remove the filioque in the next BCP.
It is italisiced in the book my parish uses.

[Dewi Sant]

Wonderful!

[SeenAndUnseen]

We are not a break off.
We have Orthodox roots, and were part of the Orthodox Church until 1066.

Not according to the history on the CofE website:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/

It clearly states that until the time of the 16th century Reformation, the Church of England acknowledged the authority of the Pope. Where did you get this other history?

[Dewi Sant]

I think gtsecc was making the point that the Church of England is basically a reformed Western Church.

The Roman Catholic church Archbishop (Pope) was known as the Patriarch of the West in the Orthodox church. Yes the Roman church started to change doctrine and such, the Church of England is a church that was established in the aim to remove heresy from the Church.


If you were to look far enough back at most churches you will find the Orthodox church.

[SeenAndUnseen]

I think gtsecc was making the point that the Church of England is basically a reformed Western Church.

The Roman Catholic church Archbishop (Pope) was known as the Patriarch of the West in the Orthodox church. Yes the Roman church started to change doctrine and such, the Church of England is a church that was established in the aim to remove heresy from the Church.


If you were to look far enough back at most churches you will find the Orthodox church.

I should think it all depends on what you believe the first and most orthodox church to be. Naturally, the Roman Catholics would disagree with you and would instead suggest it was the Eastern church that failed to remain true to the faith.

But back to the issue of the Anglican church's initial nature -- I don't believe there is anyone who truly imagines its sole purpose at the outset was to battle heresy; everyone knows there is no such concept as heresy in the Anglican church. We have bishops who are openly atheist. If that is not heresy, then nothing can be.

[Colabomb]

I knew it, this thread only confirms it.

We protestants are the redheaded stepchildren of Anglicanism. The sore spot in the side that many wish we were not here.

[Dewi Sant]

I should think it all depends on what you believe the first and most orthodox church to be. Naturally, the Roman Catholics would disagree with you and would instead suggest it was the Eastern church that failed to remain true to the faith.

But back to the issue of the Anglican church's initial nature -- I don't believe there is anyone who truly imagines its sole purpose at the outset was to battle heresy; everyone knows there is no such concept as heresy in the Anglican church. We have bishops who are openly atheist. If that is not heresy, then nothing can be.


And I believe that it is this academic approach to ordination in the Church of England that creates its weakness.

How can a man have a flock to look after if he himself is not part of the flock?
How can the flock see him as their spiritual father if all he is going to do is regurgetate a theology lecture or something he has read out of a text book.


Obviously there is no way to be certain if a person is Christian but this is the one thing that annoys me about the church.



If there is a shortage in vicars simply do this: have two parishes in one building or alternatively have one vicar for two parishes.


To be honest I can't see why anyone without a conviction of calling would choose to become a vicar, the pay is very low.

[Ebor]

We are not a break off.
We have Orthodox roots, and were part of the Orthodox Church until 1066.

May I ask what your reasoning or understanding of this is, please?

I have had several threads over the years with EO people claiming that the Anglo-Saxons were "Orthodox" in some kind of way that is like EO today and that Harald Godwinsson died as a martyr and "Last Orthodox King of England" in a religiouss struggle and more. (And then there's the "Deathbed of King Edward the Confessor" that is promulgated by some EO such as Vladimir Moss with no citations and errors.)

Ebor

[Ebor]

If there is a shortage in vicars simply do this: have two parishes in one building or alternatively have one vicar for two parishes.


Just as a data point, such a situation, one priest for 2 parishes has been known to happen, for example in my home state of Montana. 2 parishes about 40 or so miles about (not much at all by Montana standards :) ) and 1 priest who visited each of a Sunday.

Ebor

[PaladinValer]

We were never a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The Anglican Church has not been seperate from THE Church ever. However, it has always been "seperate" in terms of being outside direct authority from Rome for, well, ever!

[pmcleanj]

2 parishes about 40 or so miles about and 1 priest who visited each of a Sunday.

And as you go north from there, three, four and even five point parishes aren't uncommon. I think the technical term for a priest who covers a five-point parish is "hero".

[SirTimothy]

Pamela, in the CofE, there are priests who cover up to fourteen parishes. I believe that title is "Superhero"

[Torah613]

Ahem Ramesses, I hide my faith Icon on this forum for a reason--it is so I can say the following without hopefully too much retribution.

The Anglican Church has no reason to "return" to its "eastern" Orthodox roots. Yes there are a great many liturgical parallels (particularly with the American prayerbook) to Orthodox liturgical services and the Filioque is optional in some provinces of the communion. However the Anglican Church is in no way some sort of prodigal son of Orthodoxy. It never was a part of the Eastern Orthodox chruch.

It was however part of the undivided church. For that matter it continues to hold to the principles espoused by that church and is therefore part of the Church Catholic.

Oh and Colabomb, I for one greatly value the evangelical expression of the anglican tradition. IMHO it is an equally valid and equally catholic interpretation of tradition. I even admit to having been spiritually fed by more evangelical style services in my day, while preffering more High Church styles.

Fraternally in Christ,
Joe Zollars

[Ebor]

And as you go north from there, three, four and even five point parishes aren't uncommon. I think the technical term for a priest who covers a five-point parish is "hero".

"Circuit Rider" :)


Ebor

[gtsecc]

It clearly states that until the time of the 16th century Reformation, the Church of England acknowledged the authority of the Pope. Where did you get this other history?
The entire chruch, accept for the Oriental Orthodox, was "Orthodox" until 1054 or 166 dependign upon geography and how you define things.

All Churches have recognized this to some degree or another - even the Eastern Orthodox. read the Council of Calcedon - that is a major point of that council.

[Ebor]

The Anglican Church has no reason to "return" to its "eastern" Orthodox roots. Yes there are a great many liturgical parallels (particularly with the American prayerbook) to Orthodox liturgical services


Well, one reason is the BCP compilers draw from many sources (We'll bag things from anybody:D )


and the Filioque is optional in some provinces of the communion. However the Anglican Church is in no way some sort of prodigal son of Orthodoxy. It never was a part of the Eastern Orthodox chruch.


I'll bet you remember some of the threads I mentioned with me providing links to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Norse Sagas and more. ;)

Ebor

[gtsecc]

May I ask what your reasoning or understanding of this is, please?

I have had several threads over the years with EO people claiming that the Anglo-Saxons were "Orthodox" in some kind of way that is like EO today and that Harald Godwinsson died as a martyr and "Last Orthodox King of England" in a religiouss struggle and more. (And then there's the "Deathbed of King Edward the Confessor" that is promulgated by some EO such as Vladimir Moss with no citations and errors.)

Ebor
I have always heard this, from Anglicans, Orthodox, and Atheiststs, and it is a very reasonable asserion. Basically EVERYONE was Orthodox until 1054, but we made it till 1066 - Look at Walsigham, a Marian Shrine for all 3 Chruches.

[Ebor]

The entire chruch, accept for the Oriental Orthodox, was "Orthodox" until 1054 or 166 dependign upon geography and how you define things.


One could also say that it was "Catholic". In discussions on this I have asked 1) What is the definition of "Orthodox" such that the EO posters can claim that it is the same as the EO jurisdictions now and 2) What about all of "the entire Church" was *Christian*. Since both "Catholic" and "Orthodox" are words with certain, shall we say, connotations.

Ebor

[gtsecc]

The Church is Catholic and Orthodox.
In modern time, these terms are generally used to denote differnt parts of the Church.

ALL Christians trace their roots back to the Jews, whether they knwo it or not - even the Baptists.

[Ebor]

I have always heard this, from Anglicans, Orthodox, and Atheiststs, and it is a very reasonable asserion. Basically EVERYONE was Orthodox until 1054, but we made it till 1066 - Look at Walsigham, a Marian Shrine for all 3 Chruches.

Atheists said that the Christian Church in England was "Orthodox"? Could there be maybe be a misplaced capital letter "o"?

Might one ask for some souces that say this? Thank you.

I know of Walsingham. It was started in 1061 AD by a vision to one Richeldis de Faverches. After a bit less then 500 years as a site of devotion it was umm dealt with during Henry VIII's reign. It was restored in the late 1800's
"The first modern-day pilgrimage to Walsingham took place in 1897"

"
In 1921 the Anglican parish priest had visions of reinstating Walsingham as a pilgrim destination for Anglicans. The story of his building up of the Anglican chapel as a focus of international interest is truly remarkable, and thus Walsingham became a centre with two shrines."

http://business.netcom.co.uk/walsingham/history/hstry4.html

http://www.stpauls-kst.com/walsingham.htm

The EO presence at Walsingham dates from 1931
http://www.jchristmas.fsnet.co.uk/orthodox.htm
about half way down the page

Ebor

[Ebor]

The Church is Catholic and Orthodox.
In modern time, these terms are generally used to denote differnt parts of the Church.

ALL Christians trace their roots back to the Jews, whether they knwo it or not - even the Baptists.

I would hazard that posters here do know that Christianity has its roots in Judaism.

And it is the modern definitions that seem to be thought of in claiming that Anglo-Saxon England was "Orthodox". If, as you write "The Church is Catholic and Orthodox" how did the Church in England stop being "Orthodox" after 1066? What is the definition? Thank you.

Ebor

[AngCath]

Walsingham is trully amazing and shows that when we focus on God, our divisions fade.

[gtsecc]

Atheists said that the Christian Church in England was "Orthodox"? Could there be maybe be a misplaced capital letter "o"?

I am not sure what you mean.
I don't believe in Santa Clause, but I can also tell you the names of all his rain deer.

Are you denying the Orthodoxy of the Church?
I suppose you could make a case that since Calcedon, the church has been spilt, and therefore no one is Orthodox. Is that where you are going with this?

[Colabomb]

I have always heard this, from Anglicans, Orthodox, and Atheiststs, and it is a very reasonable asserion. Basically EVERYONE was Orthodox until 1054, but we made it till 1066 - Look at Walsigham, a Marian Shrine for all 3 Chruches.
That is the Basic assumption that gets people in trouble.

If you believe that the Orthodox church is the Original Church, you are intellectually dishonest to be an Anglican. Instead of looking over this comment like you have several times, Please address this.

If you believe that the RCC or the Orthodox are closer to Christian Truth than Anglicanism, WHY ARE YOU ANGLICAN?

[gtsecc]

If you believe that the RCC or the Orthodox are closer to Christian Truth than Anglicanism, WHY ARE YOU ANGLICAN?
I often wonder.
My family is Anglican - I don't want to break communion with them.
I was raised Anglican.
We have better Hymns, chants, and Liturgy.
We have a history of being Christian.
I have hope that we will return to our orthodox roots.
I like our more open communion.
If I converted to Orthodoxy, I would have to go to the early Christmas eve service, and then catch the midnight Mass at an Anglican Church.

[gtsecc]

I was taught the faith by Anglican Nuns.
I will remain Anglican until I die, or come to believe Christianity and Anglicanism are incompatable.

[Colabomb]

I often wonder.
My family is Anglican - I don't want to break communion with them.



This one I can understand. Although some would point out Jesus' words concerning leaving behind your family for him.

I was raised Anglican.

I was raised a Fundementalist Protestant


We have better Hymns, chants, and Liturgy.

Liturgy I can agree with, but I can't stand Anglican hymns lol


We have a history of being Christian.

This one I obviously Agree with. But I will take it further and say that we are legitimate on our own, not just as a technicality due to the schism.

I have hope that we will return to our orthodox roots.

That's not fair to the rest of us who believe Anglicanism is legitimate on its own merit as a Christian Church. Not only legitimate, but superior to Eastern Orthodoxy.

If we are only an offshoot of Orthodoxy that is stubbornly hanging on to sovereignty against the Will of God, we have no Right to exist, and the wise will flee.


I like our more open communion.

This one is very important, I agree with this one.

If I converted to Orthodoxy, I would have to go to the early Christmas eve service, and then catch the midnight Mass at an Anglican Church.

You are basing your faith on convienience?

[pmcleanj]

I will remain Anglican until I die, or come to believe Christianity and Anglicanism are incompatable.
Well, while you are making up your mind, please do your best to refrain from bitter anti-Anglican remarks.

[gtsecc]

Well, while you are making up your mind, please do your best to refrain from bitter anti-Anglican remarks.

Our diversity is wonderful, but we have to be honest - it also hurts us.
Our message is not as clear.

While one Anglican is fasting from meat in lent, and is supported by his Roman Catholic and Orthodox Friends, he gets an invite to a pig pickin from his Anglican Friends for a Church function.

My inability to say things lovingly and clearly and inoffensively is my brokenness. I don't want to hurt anyone.

[Ebor]

I am not sure what you mean.
I don't believe in Santa Clause, but I can also tell you the names of all his rain deer.

Are you denying the Orthodoxy of the Church?
I suppose you could make a case that since Calcedon, the church has been spilt, and therefore no one is Orthodox. Is that where you are going with this?

I am speaking of the difference in definition and meaning caused by a capital letter.


No. "Orthodox" capitalized is a name, a title, with one definition of:

"One of the major divisions within Christianity (the others being Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism and Protestantism). It consists of 15 autocephalous churches. Each is headed by a bishop; most are related to a specific country, as in Serbian, Russian and Greek Orthodox. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches had been drifting apart in belief, practice and ritual for centuries before they formally split in 1054 CE. Each now regards themselves to be the only true Christian church."

"orthodox" is an adjective for believing the right things. such as
"That which is consistent with correct doctrine and practice as established by the authority of Scripture."

Ebor

[gtsecc]

Ebor, I suppose I am saying that Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox were all the same thing until 1054 and until 1066 in England. Can you live with that?

[Torah613]

Well, one reason is the BCP compilers draw from many sources (We'll bag things from anybody:D )



I'll bet you remember some of the threads I mentioned with me providing links to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Norse Sagas and more. ;)

Ebor

indeed I do, Indeed I do.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

If I converted to Orthodoxy, I would have to go to the early Christmas eve service, and then catch the midnight Mass at an Anglican Church.

What kinda Orthodox church has two services for Nativity? do you mean the vesperal divine Liturgy? If so, I should point out that I've seen it starting as late as 10:30 PM here in the west where people are used to "Midnight Mass" etc. As that is the Liturgy of St. Basil and you account for veneration of the cross etc, that would put you getting out of church at roughly halfway through midnight mass.

Maybe you should go Old Calander. ;)

Seriously though, the decision to be Orthodox or not be Orthodox (or be Anglcian or not be Anglican) should not be based on such a matter of convenience but rather deep thought, prayer, and conviction that the branch you are going to represents what you feel the church is and spiritually feeds your soul.

Joe Zollars

[Ebor]

Ebor, I suppose I am saying that Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox were all the same thing until 1054 and until 1066 in England. Can you live with that?


No, I'm sorry, but it is not clear to me just what you mean by "were all the same thing". Do you mean "Christian"? If so, why do you use the date of 1066 for England? That is the date of several things such as the death of Edward the Confessor, the battles of Stanford Bridge and Hastings, the death of Harald Godwinsson and the crowning of William, Duke of Normandy as King on Christmas Day. What do *you* think happened in that year that changed things and what was the actual change, please?

Also, there were no "Anglicans" in 1066, there were English/Anglo-Saxon Christians, Welsh Christians, Scots Christians, and people living there from the Continent who were Christians. The Church of England broke away from Rome for political reasons during the reign of Henry VIII with a formal excommunication from Rome in 1533.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church_of_England

Ebor

[higgs2]

Our diversity is wonderful, but we have to be honest - it also hurts us.
Our message is not as clear.

While one Anglican is fasting from meat in lent, and is supported by his Roman Catholic and Orthodox Friends, he gets an invite to a pig pickin from his Anglican Friends for a Church function.

My inability to say things lovingly and clearly and inoffensively is my brokenness. I don't want to hurt anyone.
:D what on earth is a "pig pickin"? :D

[Torah613]

that's what I was wondering.

Joe Zollars

[Ebor]

Pulled Pork, that is a kind of barbeque of pork that is when cooked pulled, chopped, or otherwise rendered in pieces. At least that is what I know the term to mean.

Ebor

[Torah613]

interesting. You mean they barbeque the whole pig at once?

man--they take the 8th sacrament seriously.... ;)

Joe Zollars

[higgs2]

Pulled Pork, that is a kind of barbeque of pork that is when cooked pulled, chopped, or otherwise rendered in pieces. At least that is what I know the term to mean.

Ebor
Hmmmm. Well, I would think it would still be okay on Sundays?

[TomUK]

Also, there were no "Anglicans" in 1066, there were English/Anglo-Saxon Christians, Welsh Christians, Scots Christians, and people living there from the Continent who were Christians. The Church of England broke away from Rome for political reasons during the reign of Henry VIII with a formal excommunication from Rome in 1533.


If the CofE broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in 1533 then it must have existed prior to 1533. However you say the Anglican Church didn't exist before 1066, so i'm curious - at which point between 1533 and 1066 did the Anglican Church start?

[john23237]

:D what on earth is a "pig pickin"? :D

I am shocked! You poor children! The two of you have never been to a pig pickin? How foolish of me to think that it was only the poor children in India and Africa who needed our help. To have never known the joy of a Southern pig pickin', how can any one live that way? Is outrage! Pack your bags and come to the South where we know how to treat our guests.

P.S. There is an Episcopal church in Bristol, Va. that sells their "Hell Fire and Brimstone" Barbeque sauce at their annual pig pickin'. Heavenly!;)

[john23237]

If the CofE broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in 1533 then it must have existed prior to 1533. However you say the Anglican Church didn't exist before 1066, so i'm curious - at which point between 1533 and 1066 did the Anglican Church start?

When did the Anglican Church start? We have two brethren here who have never been to a pig pickin' in their entire lives and you want to know when the Anglican Church started? Where is your humanity? How can you even consider such unimportant questions while our brothers and sisters live such deprived lives? Is outrage!:hug:

[TomUK]

When did the Anglican Church start? We have two brethren here who have never been to a pig pickin' in their entire lives and you what to know when the Anglican Church started? Where is your humanity? How can you even consider such unimportant questions while our brothers and sisters live such deprived lives? Is outrage!:hug:

I shall say 100 Hail Marys as penance

[john23237]

I shall say 100 Hail Marys as penance

And well you should! What was God ever thinking about when He gave the Anglican Church to the English?:P

[john23237]

Yes, I know. I will be doing my hundred Hail Marys now.

[TomUK]

Yes, I know. I will be doing my hundred Hail Marys now.

Would it make a difference?

:P

[Ebor]

If the CofE broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in 1533 then it must have existed prior to 1533. However you say the Anglican Church didn't exist before 1066, so i'm curious - at which point between 1533 and 1066 did the Anglican Church start?

Definition and clarifying of terms time, I think. :) As it would appear that there is some confusion and we are using the word in different ways. I looked it up in the OED for the earliest use of the word, and then consulted on-line etymology. "Anglican" as a desigation or name of a religious body dates from the 1600's.

"Anglican" 1635, "of the reformed Church of England" (opposed to Roman), from M.L. Anglicanus, from Anglicus "of the English people, of England". The noun meaning "adherent of the reformed Church of England" is first recorded 1797. "

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Anglican

Christianity in England dates from very early. Recall that St. Alban is the "proto-martyr" of England with a date of around 304 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Alban

"Church of England"/CofE may for some mean all of the time of Christianity in that country. For others it refers to the Established Church after the break from Rome in 1533.

I would still like to know *what* is supposed to have happened in 1066 that was significant re Christianity in England.

Ebor

[Ebor]

interesting. You mean they barbeque the whole pig at once?

man--they take the 8th sacrament seriously.... ;)

Joe Zollars

From what I know from some persons of North Carolinian extraction, it doesn't have to be the *whole" pig. Large pieces slow cooked will do also.

Ebor

[Simon_Templar]

The question itself here is flawed because it presupposes something about the Orthodox church which is not true.

This question presupposes that there is a central organized authority to which a church must appeal for acceptance in order to be "orthodox". While this is true of Rome, it is not true of the Orthodox church.. which is, if you remember, exactly the reason the Orthodox church and the Roman church seperated in the first place.

The Church of England absolutely had orthodox roots, as much as any greek, roman, or antiochian or any other church. The church in england was well established early in history and was completely orthodox by all standards until the seperation between Rome and the east. (A reasonable argument could be made that the CofE didn't become 'Roman' until 1066) .

Never the less, the Church of England has never, in that whole time been without its own succession of bishops and priests, and that succession was never questioned by anyone until the Pope declared Anglican orders invalid after the split from Rome.

Thus, when the CofE split from Rome, there was no need to have bishops or priests 'validly' consecrated because they already had them. There was no orthodox governing body to appeal to (unless you count the byzantine emperor as the head of the church). Thus the real issue is, why didn't the orthodox recognize the CofE, not why didn't the CofE join the orthodox church. You might as well ask why didn't the russian orthodox join the greek orthodox church.

As to why the orthodox didn't recognize, there was so much turmoil and back and forth between orthodoxy and protestant extremes that the CofE didn't settle into its 'orthodox' self for probably a couple hundred years.

After that occured, in time as politics allowed there did begin to be a relationship between the CofE and the Eastern Orthodox which which was leading towards recognition and etc but by that time the CofE went and screwed it up by becoming too liberal for the EO.

[higgs2]

I am shocked! You poor children! The two of you have never been to a pig pickin? How foolish of me to think that it was only the poor children in India and Africa who needed our help. To have never known the joy of a Southern pig pickin', how can any one live that way? Is outrage! Pack your bags and come to the South where we know how to treat our guests.

P.S. There is an Episcopal church in Bristol, Va. that sells their "Hell Fire and Brimstone" Barbeque sauce at their annual pig pickin'. Heavenly!;)
Oh come on, pleeeeeasssse! Is it *really* called a "pig pickin"? Are you sure it's not "pig picnik" with a typo? I simply can't believe that there is something that is actually *called* a "pig pickin". If I knew how to do a poll I'd have a great topic for one....

[Torah613]

Higgs, I tried to hide. I'm from the south (family hails from Ash County North Carolina originally). Yes it is a pig pickin.

Now can we get to some seriously exegetical concerns, such as the merits of Vinegar vs Mustard vs Tomatoe based sauces?


Joe Zollars

[pmcleanj]

I would still like to know *what* is supposed to have happened in 1066 that was significant re Christianity in England.A papally-sponsored invasion, bringing a romanized nobility to supplant the last invading nobility?

[PaladinValer]

Its where we get all those great Ivanhoe and Robin Hood stories from.

Gotta love those fat friars ;) :P :D

[Ebor]

Now can we get to some seriously exegetical concerns, such as the merits of Vinegar vs Mustard vs Tomatoe based sauces?


Well, those same persons of North Carolinian extraction also taught me that vinegar and hot pepper is the proper dressing for the pork that they cooked. ;) They're extracted from the Charlotte/Gastonia area.

Ebor

[john23237]

Vinegar. The rest is heresy, probably part of that Papally sponsored invasion that Pamila spoke of, or worse yet that of carpetbaggers!

[Ebor]

A papally-sponsored invasion, bringing a romanized nobility to supplant the last invading nobility?

And what would this have been based on (other then the aforementioned novels? :) ) It's not from the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, a primary source of information on Anglo-Saxon England.

There was much interchange and coming and going between England and the Continent for hundreds of years. There were marriages, and clerics from outside England. In 1050 Robert of Jumieges was named as the Archbishop of Canterbury

1050......Then had King Edward a meeting of the great council in London, in mid-lent, at which he appointed Robert the Frank, who was before Bishop of London, Archbishop of Canterbury; and he, during the same Lent, went to Rome after his pall.....

He was later removed from office due to politics in the conflicts between Earl Godwin (major player in the "gain as much power as he could" game) and the King. Godwin's sons, Tostig and Harald were like him in this.

In times of trouble English nobility were known to flee to Normandy or what is now Belgium for safety. For example in 1013 Ethelred Unraed or "the Unready" (it means "bad counsel" not unprepared) went to Normandy when Sweyn "Forkbeard" of Denmark invaded and took the throne. Ethelred was married to Emma the sister of Richard of Normandy. After Ethelred died, Emma married King Canute of England and Denmark. Her son by Ethelred, the future Edward "the Confessor" lived his earlier years and favoured Norman ways.
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon20.html

Here is a decent overview of Why the Battle of Hastings happened:
http://www.battle1066.com/why1.shtml

So, I ask again, what do some people think happened in 1066 to change things with Christianity in England and where would they get any "Orthodox" connections, please?

Ebor

[Torah613]

Vinegar. The rest is heresy, probably part of that Papally sponsored invasion that Pamila spoke of, or worse yet that of carpetbaggers!

Praised be Jesus! a man with culinary sense!

Joe Zollars

[higgs2]

I'd have to go with vinegar too.

[Ebor]

Vinegar and Hot pepper.

The Anglo-Saxons had pigs, and there was likely something sour like vinegar, but the hot pepper is *definitely* not found then.^_^

Ebor

[gtsecc]

So, I ask again, what do some people think happened in 1066 to change things with Christianity in England and where would they get any "Orthodox" connections, please?

Ebor
The Eastern Orthodox have the Authority to say who is in and who is out of Eastern Orthodoxy.
They say we were in until 1066.

[Ebor]

The Eastern Orthodox have the Authority to say who is in and who is out of Eastern Orthodoxy.
They say we were in until 1066.

Which EO say this please? Do you have citations? What is their reasoning? How long ago did they start claiming this?

What made England "O" by their definition? Liturgy? (it wasn't Byzantine) Who the English looked to for religious authority? I can provide information of English clerics going to Rome for their consecrations not to Constantinople. That the "Filioque" made it to England along with the Norman Invasion? How that traveled is not particularly clear as to time.

And I would disagree that they have that Authority. On what would it be based? That someone makes this claim does not mean it is true historically. What if we reversed the situation to say that Rome has the Authority to say who is in and out of RC and that they say that England was always part of Rome? (at least until 1533).

Ebor

[gtsecc]

Ebor, there is no controvery here.

By the EO definition, everyone but the non-calcedionians was "O" Orthodox until 1054.
England ignored much of the Papacy until we were invaded in 1066, so we get 12 more years.

Walsingham is acknowledge by 3 churches as a Marian Shrine - so, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox all claim this "event" as happenign within the Church in the year 1061.

[Ebor]

Ebor, there is no controvery here.

By the EO definition, everyone but the non-calcedionians was "O" Orthodox until 1054.
England ignored much of the Papacy until we were invaded in 1066, so we get 12 more years.


By the RC definition everyone was "C" Catholic until 1054. How do you define "ignored" by the Papacy, please? It was a Roman Pope who send St. Augustine to King Ethelbert in 597 AD (Ethelbert had a Christian wife, Bertha who was of Frankish birth). This may be found in Bede "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation" found on-line here:
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/bede-book1.html

What documentation can you provide to back up your assertion? I have provided links to primary sources and I can give more.


Walsingham is acknowledge by 3 churches as a Marian Shrine - so, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox all claim this "event" as happenign within the Church in the year 1061.

Acknowledged by the EO starting in 1931 as I also linked to. It is not like there have been EO pilgrims journeying to Walsingham for over 900 years. Richildis had her vision in 1061, after the mutual excommunications in 1054. What support is there to the claim that England was "Orthodox" as opposed to "Catholic" beyond just asserting so?

Why the insistance on "Orthodox" or "Catholic/Rome" as opposed to prior to 1054 there was the body of Christendom with a variety of rites and ways of doing things, I wonder.

What does "Orthodox" mean in the framework of the Anglo-Saxons beyond liturgy, language, or what patriarch was looked to as the source of bishops?


Ebor

[gtsecc]

By the RC definition everyone was "C" Catholic until 1054. Ebor
Agreed.
What is your point?

[Torah613]

The point is it is flatly innacurate to claim that the Orthodox say England was Orthodox until 1066. Frankly its beyone innaccurate but preposterous.

Its generally based upon the revisionist scholarship of people such as Vladimir Moss (who by the way is not Orthodox but rather an excommunicated member of an Old Calandrist schismatic body who follows a Priest who says the Liturgy without the blessing of a Bishop).

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

also it should be pointed out that the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" were used universally as descriptive monickers and not a definitions of ecclesial body by all in the church until after the Schism. The word that people used to describe themselves was "Christian."

Joe Zollars

[Dewi Sant]

That is very true for obvious reasons, there was no other Church. (there were heretical churches)


Pre-schism the Christianity was known as simply "The Way"



Something that I noticed at Evensong on Palm Sunday was that the Vicar crossed himself in the Latin way ie: top, bottom, left, right. I would have thought it would be in the Orthodox way that is ending with Right then Left.....the right on "and the son". This would also be an outward sign of being seperate from the Roman Church.
I also noticed that none of the congregation crossed themselves, is this the same in your parish?

[Ebor]

Agreed.
What is your point?

That modern names applied to a situation 1000 years ago do not have the same meaning. That "Orthodox" was not a word used to lable part of Christendom in Anglo-Saxon times. That for people *now* to say that England *then* was "Orthodox" and was "untill 1066" can give the impression that the English church is like the Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc etc jurisdictions now.

I have asked many questions that have gone unanswered. How was England "Orthodox" if it did not have EO liturgies, EO language (it wasn't in Greek or Slavonic), it looked to Rome for it's bishops and Archbishops, not to Constantinople/Miklagard. It was not isolated for the rest of Western Europe but had many dealings and exchanges.

Just repeating "England was Orthodox" does not make it true. What material or sources can you provide to back up your claim please?

Ebor

[gtsecc]

The point is it is flatly innacurate to claim that the Orthodox say England was Orthodox until 1066. Frankly its beyone innaccurate but preposterous.
Well, I think you are misinformed. I have a bible study group which is half Anglican and half Eastern Orthodox, with graduates of 3 different Orthodox Seminaries, and when this subject has come up, which it has many times, they have stated this. it isn't preposterous either, there was no "formal" schism until 1054.

[gtsecc]

Something that I noticed at Evensong on Palm Sunday was that the Vicar crossed himself in the Latin way ie: top, bottom, left, right. I...I also noticed that none of the congregation crossed themselves, is this the same in your parish?

Typically the Priests and congregation cross themselves this way. However, in small groups if the prayer said is a traditional Eastern Orthodox Prayer, like this:

Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless his holy name! Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits. Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages amen. Lord have mercy (x3), Father bless:

We would cross ourselves the eastern Way (two fingers in the palm; and thumb, index, and middle finger together) Top, bottom, right, left.

[gtsecc]

Just repeating "England was Orthodox" does not make it true. What material or sources can you provide to back up your claim please?

Ebor
Would you agree we were formally in communion with them until 1054?

[gtsecc]

From Orthodox Wiki:

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England

Harold of England

From OrthodoxWiki


King Harold II of England (ca. 1022 - October 14 (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/October_14), 1066) was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. He was the son of Earl Godwin of Wessex, succeeded St. Edward the Confessor (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Edward_the_Confessor&action=edit) to the throne of England, but served as its king for less than a year, dying on the field of battle at Hastings in southern England in 1066, when England was invaded by William the ******* ("the Conqueror"), Duke of Normandy. He ruled from January 5 (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/January_5), 1066 to October 14 (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/October_14), the day of his death. He is regarded by many Orthodox Christians as a passion-bearer (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Passion-bearer) or even martyr (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Martyr) and as the last Orthodox king of England.

[gtsecc]

d/p

[Ebor]

That is very true for obvious reasons, there was no other Church. (there were heretical churches)


Indeed, but the overarching "Church" stretched from Iceland (voted to be come Christian in 1000 AD) to Russia and more with a number of Rites. As I wrote once on OC.net what if, in response to "Orthodox England" (note the capital "O") I wrote about "C"atholic Russia. I suspected that I would get my head handed to me, and rightly so, because I would be applying a word/title with much modern meaning to a place and time that it did not belong.

To be frank, and I apologize for any offense given, the unfounded claim that "England was Orthodox" sometimes seems to me to be based on a kind of "anti-RC" impulse.


Something that I noticed at Evensong on Palm Sunday was that the Vicar crossed himself in the Latin way ie: top, bottom, left, right. I would have thought it would be in the Orthodox way that is ending with Right then Left.....the right on "and the son".


Why would you think that he would do it the "Orthodox" way? I'm sorry, I"m also confused, because the standard for crossing that I know of is: "Father"- forehead, "and the Son" - touch chest "Holy"- left shoulder "Spirit"-right shoulder. This would follow motions for the latin of "Patre" "Fili" "Spiritu" and "Sancti". When it was translated into English "Holy Spirit" is the correct word order, but the pattern stayed. It was what people were used to, a tradition if you will.


This would also be an outward sign of being seperate from the Roman Church.


The Church of England seperated from Rome for political and dynastic reasons, not matters of Faith. The country remained Christian and continued in it's practices as before. Some things changed later with the writing of the BCP and clerics who had come back from the Continent and other complicated things.


I also noticed that none of the congregation crossed themselves, is this the same in your parish?

No, some Anglicans/Episcopalians cross themselves and some don't. I would have to look into it for more detail, but there were custom that came back with the "Tractarians" or Oxford Movement in the early 1800's. I think that's when crossing oneself was revived for some.

Ebor

[Ebor]

From Orthodox Wiki:

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England

Harold of England

From OrthodoxWiki


King Harold II of England (ca. 1022 - October 14 (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/October_14), 1066) was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. He was the son of Earl Godwin of Wessex, succeeded St. Edward the Confessor (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Edward_the_Confessor&action=edit) to the throne of England, but served as its king for less than a year, dying on the field of battle at Hastings in southern England in 1066, when England was invaded by William the ******* ("the Conqueror"), Duke of Normandy. He ruled from January 5 (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/January_5), 1066 to October 14 (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/October_14), the day of his death. He is regarded by many Orthodox Christians as a passion-bearer (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Passion-bearer) or even martyr (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Martyr) and as the last Orthodox king of England.

Yes, I've seen that one. and I know what the ******* mean ;) One question is "Who wrote that?" "What source did they draw from?" On what do they *historically* base their claim that Harald was Orthodox? *Why* do they want to make this claim about Harald?"

This is not an unbiased source, I"m sorry.

As to "passion-bearer" it is my understanding that the term means someone who suffered for their faith. The idea that Harald Godwinson was fighting a religious war rather then trying to stay in power shows little understanding of the political situation of the time and place and the people involved.

Ebor

[gtsecc]

Ebor, I agree folks would not have used the terms Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox to describe Churches before 1054, but that fact that they were in communion is somethign I don't deny either. Roman Catholics would call the Russian Church prior to 1054 Catholic, or Roman Catholic, and I don't think anyone would get to bent out of shape over it. I can't figure out why this gives you so much heart burn. Wiki isn't perfect, but folsk can edit it, and if any Orthodox were that chapped by the claim, they would have posted a correction.

[Ebor]

Well, I think you are misinformed. I have a bible study group which is half Anglican and half Eastern Orthodox, with graduates of 3 different Orthodox Seminaries, and when this subject has come up, which it has many times, they have stated this. it isn't preposterous either, there was no "formal" schism until 1054.

I would suggest that if you were in a bible study with half RC and graduates of RC seminaries that they would say that "England was Catholic". King Edward the Confessor is counted as an RC saint and he died on January 5, 1066.

Indeed, there was no "formal" schism until 1054, 12 years before 1066. Why would this date not apply to England? There seems to be some kind of romantic notion of the Anglo-Saxons as living in a pious paradise in northwestern Europe which was then destroyed by the evil Normans/Roman Catholics.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is available in modern English on-line for a look at some of what was going on from a primary source. The Old English is also available, but can be hard to follow. Here is a simple line:

"1066 Her forðferde Eaduuard king."
translated:
"1066 Here forthfared Edward King " That means King Edward the Confessor died.

There are also Norse sagas translated that tell of what real people were doing: Njal's Saga, Egil's Saga, The Heimskringla

It is using the modern lable that does not fit historically.

Ebor

[Ebor]

Its generally based upon the revisionist scholarship of people such as Vladimir Moss (who by the way is not Orthodox but rather an excommunicated member of an Old Calandrist schismatic body who follows a Priest who says the Liturgy without the blessing of a Bishop).


I didn't know that. I lost track of where Mr. Moss was after about 3 or 4 changes. He left ROAC then?

Ebor

[Ebor]

Would you agree we were formally in communion with them until 1054?

As much as in communion meant when most people did not leave their countries much so they didn't have an opportunity to commune in other Rites/countries.

Would you agree that England was formally in communion with Rome up until 1054, 1066 and beyond until 1533?

Ebor

[gtsecc]

I would suggest that if you were in a bible study with half RC and graduates of RC seminaries that they would say that "England was Catholic". King Edward the Confessor is counted as an RC saint and he died on January 5, 1066.
Absolutely!

I have no idea what in all of this is troubling you.

Some would say it was Anglican, some Catholic, Some Roman Catholic, Some Orthdox. Furthur, my Orthodox friends with degrees from Orthodox seminaiers will say their Church is Catholic.

:confused:

[gtsecc]

Would you agree that England was formally in communion with Rome up until 1054, 1066 and beyond until 1533?

Ebor
Absolutely!

[gtsecc]

Would you agree that England was formally in communion with Rome up until 1054, 1066 and beyond until 1533?

Ebor
Absolutely!

[Ebor]

Ebor, I agree folks would not have used the terms Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox to describe Churches before 1054, but that fact that they were in communion is somethign I don't deny either. Roman Catholics would call the Russian Church prior to 1054 Catholic, or Roman Catholic, and I don't think anyone would get to bent out of shape over it. I can't figure out why this gives you so much heart burn. Wiki isn't perfect, but folsk can edit it, and if any Orthodox were that chapped by the claim, they would have posted a correction.

You haven't seem some of the EO posters that I have, then. :) Some would get upset at such a label being applied to their Church or history. (Some wouldn't.) They would see it as claiming their heritage and history falsely. They would look on it as making a pitch that they *really* belong to Rome.

We live in a time when the words "Catholic" and "Orthodox" refer to specific ideas and concepts. They have connotations that don't apply historically. Saying that "England was Orthodox" gives a false idea.

I have seen it used in attempts to convert Anglicans to EO, saying that *this* is really what your spiritual ancestors were like, not that awful RC way".

I have seen a "Deathbed Confession of Edward the Confessor" that has no citations as to its origin and is wildly different in what it says from the one on "New Advent" ( that *does* come with a source citation of "Selden 55, Bodleian Library, Oxford) promulgated to convince Anglicans that they really ought to be EO.
This is not using history honestly imo.

OrthoWiki is to provide information supporting the EO Churches and positions. A writer of an article may not be, shall we say, unbiased, or may have an agenda for posting something. Why would someone claim Harald Godwinson as EO and on what grounds based on real history?

It doesn't give me "heart burn". Why shouldn't real history matter?
:)

Ebor

[Ebor]

Absolutely!

I have no idea what in all of this is troubling you.


Undocumented historical claims should be examined, not accepted at face value. I'm not troubled by it. I've been though this before on other fora with people who had only been told things like this and didn't have the knowledge of what Anglo-Saxon history really is. They did not know that we have records and writings from that time. They did not think to question an unsupported assertion that could serve someone aims to gain converts to *their* side/group/Church.

I am not "troubled". I don't agree with your assertion. I'm sorry.


Some would say it was Anglican, some Catholic, Some Roman Catholic, Some Orthdox. Furthur, my Orthodox friends with degrees from Orthodox seminaiers will say their Church is Catholic.


I've seen that too, and by "Catholic" they do not mean anthing involving Rome and in fact some have denied that Rome is any kind of Catholic. I've even seen some that deny that RC is a Church, since they hold that *only* EO is "The Church".

As I linked to, saying pre-1066 is "Anglican" is historically inaccurate. It would be applying a more recent word to a historical period that it did not belong in,

Ebor

[Ebor]

Absolutely!

OK. Then will you say "England was Catholic"? or "England was Christian"? or "England was Catholic and Orthodox"?

*Why* something is said can be as important as what is said. What are the background motives, the meanings of the words used.

Ebor

[gtsecc]

OK. Then will you say "England was Catholic"? or "England was Christian"? or "England was Catholic and Orthodox"?

Ebor
Absolutely!

[Ebor]

Absolutely!

OK, good. Then with Christendom being one large group with many Rites prior to 1054, what besides being 'in communion' would make England "Orthodox" such that that label is preferred to "Christian"?

Large O being the name of a denomination/portion of Christendom in the usage of our time (or "Orthodox Judaism"), small o meaning adhering to the accepted beliefs, one God, three Persons, and so forth.


Ebor

[Torah613]

That is very true for obvious reasons, there was no other Church. (there were heretical churches)


Pre-schism the Christianity was known as simply "The Way"



Something that I noticed at Evensong on Palm Sunday was that the Vicar crossed himself in the Latin way ie: top, bottom, left, right. I would have thought it would be in the Orthodox way that is ending with Right then Left.....the right on "and the son". This would also be an outward sign of being seperate from the Roman Church.
I also noticed that none of the congregation crossed themselves, is this the same in your parish?

And the Coptics have always crossed themselves in the Roman Manner but with their hands held in the Orthodox manner. They did this since before the Council of Chalcedon. Also Russian Old Believers cross themselves in a manner equally as ancient as the current practice that is more greek in Origin.

Sorrry Rameses but History simply doesn't back this claim up. Neither does logic.

BTW thought you were anglican before you "converted" to Orthodoxy? Wouldn't you therefore know how Anglicans cross themselves?

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

Ebor, I agree folks would not have used the terms Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox to describe Churches before 1054, but that fact that they were in communion is somethign I don't deny either. Roman Catholics would call the Russian Church prior to 1054 Catholic, or Roman Catholic, and I don't think anyone would get to bent out of shape over it. I can't figure out why this gives you so much heart burn. Wiki isn't perfect, but folsk can edit it, and if any Orthodox were that chapped by the claim, they would have posted a correction.

most real Orthodox could care less what's talked about us online. Mostly its just American Converts witha chip still on their shoulder (usually from a protestant tradition witht he typical huge anti-rome axe to grind). Most of the authentic, balanced Orthodox don't own a computer and like I said, couldnt give two cents what some people who don't recognize the tradition of the church state online.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

I didn't know that. I lost track of where Mr. Moss was after about 3 or 4 changes. He left ROAC then?

Ebor

Oh indeed so. Excommunicated for holding a heresy even they couldn't deal with. At Present neither he nor his Priest are under a Bishop (at least last time I checked) but continue to serve the complete round of services--which is downright blasphemy in the eyes of Orthodox tradition. Hardly a credible source for historical data.

Joe Zollars

[Ebor]

Oh indeed so. Excommunicated for holding a heresy even they couldn't deal with. At Present neither he nor his Priest are under a Bishop (at least last time I checked) but continue to serve the complete round of services--which is downright blasphemy in the eyes of Orthodox tradition. Hardly a credible source for historical data.


It's depressingly all to common to see, let's say, "Persons with fervent opinions of what is the Right Way" go from one group to another to another to another.... and with such self assurance that (sorry) "Where *they* are is the Church".

By his own interview, Mr. Moss' degree was not in History and in many of his on-line writings he doesn't seem to understand how it is done. His "Deathbed Confession of Edward" is imho and without any source citations a lie. But it is still up on some fringe EO sites, as I said, I think as a kind of lure to convince Anglicans to become their version of EO.

Ebor

[Torah613]

most likely.

History is a gentlemans study and should only be discussed among those who have some credible knowledge thereof, at least IMHO.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Always beware the fringe!

Joe Zollars

[Simon_Templar]

That modern names applied to a situation 1000 years ago do not have the same meaning. That "Orthodox" was not a word used to lable part of Christendom in Anglo-Saxon times. That for people *now* to say that England *then* was "Orthodox" and was "untill 1066" can give the impression that the English church is like the Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc etc jurisdictions now.

I have asked many questions that have gone unanswered. How was England "Orthodox" if it did not have EO liturgies, EO language (it wasn't in Greek or Slavonic), it looked to Rome for it's bishops and Archbishops, not to Constantinople/Miklagard. It was not isolated for the rest of Western Europe but had many dealings and exchanges.

Just repeating "England was Orthodox" does not make it true. What material or sources can you provide to back up your claim please?

Ebor


There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the terms being used in this discussion. First of all you are equating the term "Orthodox" with "Eastern Orthodox". If you demand that we use a small o instead of a capital O it makes little difference because of precisely the point you make above.
In the pre-1054 church there was no capital O Orthodox in what that conotates today. There was simply orthodox, those churches that were in agreement and submission to the pure apostolic faith.

The OP question is phrased as why didn't the anglicans join the Eastern Orthodox denomination rather than forming their own denomination when they split from Rome during the reformation. The question here is part of the problem because it presupposes a view of the Orthodox Church that is neither particularly historical, nor, supposedly what the EO themselves currently believe.

The EO (just as the RC) bill themselves as the true church. They claim to be the one church that has descended unchanged from the original. However, as we see in this OP question, the very concept of 'orthodox' has been changed in the Orthodox church. Originally "orthodox" had nothing to do with greek, russian, antiochian, or latin culture, style, even as those things affected the liturgical usages. It very simply meant any church that kept itself in line with apostolic faith, in both belief and practice. Thus the English church was entirely orthodox, while not being in the least Eastern Orthodox (in terms of the modern destinctives that people refrence with that description).

It is not at all incorrect, or deceptive to say that the English church prior to 1054-1066 was orthodox. The inclusion of those dates simply denotes that the speaker believes the Roman distinctives in some way violated 'orthodoxy' and when they were imposed on England, the English church by extension then ceased to be orthodox. Not through change of culture, or style, or possibly even liturgy, but through change of doctrine.

While the question in the OP seems to ask why didn't the Anglican Church adopt EO usage and style, the point by those who argue for the orthodoxy of anglicanism is that the anglican church returned to what orthodoxy really meant, rather than what Eastern Orthodoxy meant.
I'm not implying by that statement that EO have left the path of orthodoxy in doctrine, but in my experience they tend to include a great deal of materiel in the term "Orthodox" that was not originally included in the definition of orthodoxy.


Now, infact, the Anglican Church did not simply transition back to orthodoxy in the reformation. The fact is not nearly so simple as that. The Anglican church actually waivered back and forth between extreme protestantism and Romanism for a couple hundred years or so and only gradually settled into the now famous "Via Media" idea.

[Ebor]

There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the terms being used in this discussion. First of all you are equating the term "Orthodox" with "Eastern Orthodox".


There are EO writing on-line who *do* seem to equate "Orthodox" with EO when they write about the Anglo-Saxons and the Norman Conquest. Their writings refer to things like Harold Godwinson being the "last Orthodox King of England" while William was part of the "frankish" Church and the Anglo-Saxons were to be conquered with the support of the Bishop of Rome. That the English Church of that time did not look to Rome as it's source, but to places tied to Constantinople. That the Anglo-Saxon nobles fled to the Byzantine Empire because that was the center of their faith. (I swear I am not making this up.) There is a strong flavour of Anti-RC in some of their writings. Granted many of the EO who promulgate this are from fringe groups, but they seem to be presenting it to tell Anglicans that "you don't really belong to that awful RC line of religion. You can convert to us."


If you demand that we use a small o instead of a capital O it makes little difference because of precisely the point you make above.


The O vs o are because it is modern people who have modern connotations and meanings of words.


In the pre-1054 church there was no capital O Orthodox in what that conotates today. There was simply orthodox, those churches that were in agreement and submission to the pure apostolic faith.


Indeed. Those that were part of Christendom were both othodox and catholic, but they were not the same as what "Catholic Christian" or "Orthodox Christian" mean to many people today.


The OP question is phrased as why didn't the anglicans join the Eastern Orthodox denomination rather than forming their own denomination when they split from Rome during the reformation. The question here is part of the problem because it presupposes a view of the Orthodox Church that is neither particularly historical, nor, supposedly what the EO themselves currently believe.


Well, that is part of the problem. There *are* EO out there who are trying to present such a view. Many of them are converts and not cradle, from my experience.


The EO (just as the RC) bill themselves as the true church. They claim to be the one church that has descended unchanged from the original. However, as we see in this OP question, the very concept of 'orthodox' has been changed in the Orthodox church. Originally "orthodox" had nothing to do with greek, russian, antiochian, or latin culture, style, even as those things affected the liturgical usages. It very simply meant any church that kept itself in line with apostolic faith, in both belief and practice. Thus the English church was entirely orthodox, while not being in the least Eastern Orthodox (in terms of the modern destinctives that people refrence with that description).


No disagreement there. :)


It is not at all incorrect, or deceptive to say that the English church prior to 1054-1066 was orthodox. The inclusion of those dates simply denotes that the speaker believes the Roman distinctives in some way violated 'orthodoxy' and when they were imposed on England, the English church by extension then ceased to be orthodox. Not through change of culture, or style, or possibly even liturgy, but through change of doctrine.


Again I agree with your basic idea. However, there are modern EO who make this claim who, for example, have made icons of "Western" saints with conventions of Byzantine style in the matter of clerical vestings and such. And they fit them into Byzantine litugies for commemoration. They *seem* to be trying to put an overlay of "Eastern"/Byzantine over Northwestern Europe.

[quote
While the question in the OP seems to ask why didn't the Anglican Church adopt EO usage and style,
[/quote]

Indeed, as though 'when you freed yourself from the domination of Rome, you should go back to what you were doing before 1066, which is how we do things in the EO now."

I think part of it is just that not alot of people know a great deal about Anglo-Saxon times.

Ebor

[artrx]

this is a bit off topic, but i just wanted to say that I love reading this and other similar threads in STR. I knew very little about the EO and other Orthodox traditions (and had only visited 2 churches) and I really appreciate these discussions. I should probably stop by the AW but i've also learned alot here. Thank you for educating me and others with these discussions :) .

[Torah613]

TAW can be a wonderfully educational place, however for some of us it has become a less than spiritually productive place. I nearly lost my faith from the way I was treated by one in authority over there.

On a less personal level, Orthodoxy on the Internet and Orthodoxy in real life are two entirely different things. Most Orthodox don't have and probably haven't even heard of the Internyet (no that's not a typo). Orthodoxy needs to be experienced, not just learned--similar to Itallian linguistics.

Joe Zollars

[artrx]

:) I'm sure your right. There is a large Greek Orthodox Church nearby that I should visit, but I'd feel more comfortable going with someone who was from that tradition. (-though I could drag my husband along:P it wouldn't add to my understanding of the service)

[Ebor]

this is a bit off topic, but i just wanted to say that I love reading this and other similar threads in STR. I knew very little about the EO and other Orthodox traditions (and had only visited 2 churches) and I really appreciate these discussions. I should probably stop by the AW but i've also learned alot here. Thank you for educating me and others with these discussions :) .

I'm glad you've found this thread useful.:) I sometimes wonder if my posting about the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the political and power structures of the time and such are making people's eyes glaze over.;)

It really was a fascinating time and place. And it's not a dark unknown as there are a good number of manuscripts and writing that survive (Thank Goodness for Sir Robert Cotton and his hobby of collecting any manuscript he could get!!)

Ebor