• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Passion-bearer Harold II of England and Orthodoxy of England - need sources

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
"Though he has never been formally canonized, he is regarded by some Orthodox Christians as a passion-bearer or even martyr and as the last Orthodox king of England."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England

Are there any credible sources for this please as to his Orthodoxy and the Orthodoxy of England post-Schism and pre-William I period? I need it quickly.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
It seems to be an anachronistic claim which assumes, 1, that there was a clear division between Orthodoxy and Rome at that time, 2, that Harold was upholding this Orthodoxy against Latin heresies, and 3, that William's invasion imposed a new doctrine in England. I don't think any of these assumptions are true.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,025
Reaction score
391
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
If he was a Passion-bearer, that does not require him to be fighting for the cause of Orthodoxy, it just means he was pious and faithful to Christ in death. I don't know much about his religious beliefs or activities, so I don't know if that is true or not. I do know that William did get papal blessing to invade which was contingent on his spreading papal authority to Briton.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Does anyone know any credible authors, books, or articles that deal specifically with this? Besides Vladimir Moss ;(
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Iconodule said:
It seems to be an anachronistic claim which assumes, 1, that there was a clear division between Orthodoxy and Rome at that time, 2, that Harold was upholding this Orthodoxy against Latin heresies, and 3, that William's invasion imposed a new doctrine in England. I don't think any of these assumptions are true.
Would you consider Harold II definitively Roman Catholic at the time? St. Edward the Confessor died post-Schism but he is a saint in he Church.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Netherlands
Jurisdiction
But my heart belongs to Finland
Why assume that 1054 was a sharp dividing line? The schism 'grew' over the centuries. It isn't as if a German peasant was Orthodox in 1053 but Roman Catholic in 1055.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
88
Points
48
Age
52
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
I also think that looking for specific references to the word Orthodox isn't going to help.  the 'proof' will be much more diffuse then that, alluding to the Anglo Saxon, or Norwegian churches...etc.....

 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Netherlands
Jurisdiction
But my heart belongs to Finland
DeniseDenise said:
I also think that looking for specific references to the word Orthodox
Especially not considering that the Latin Mass includes the word Orthodox.

et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
88
Points
48
Age
52
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Cyrillic said:
DeniseDenise said:
I also think that looking for specific references to the word Orthodox
Especially not considering that the Latin Mass includes the word Orthodox.

et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus.

Nods.  i just also meant that a google...including the word Orthodox, gets you 'modern orthodox' bloggers talking about this point....

rather than Church History. 

So while it might seem like there is little evidence etc......
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Cyrillic said:
Why assume that 1054 was a sharp dividing line? The schism 'grew' over the centuries. It isn't as if a German peasant was Orthodox in 1053 but Roman Catholic in 1055.
So as far as I understand, from around the Photian Schism to the First Crusade era, whether or not a person is RC or Orthodox should be judged on a case-by-case basis?

I just need to know what to list as a fact for Harold II for a thing I'm doing. I really need a credible source for this though.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,452
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Amatorus said:
Cyrillic said:
Why assume that 1054 was a sharp dividing line? The schism 'grew' over the centuries. It isn't as if a German peasant was Orthodox in 1053 but Roman Catholic in 1055.
So as far as I understand, from around the Photian Schism to the First Crusade era, whether or not a person is RC or Orthodox should be judged on a case-by-case basis?

I just need to know what to list as a fact for Harold II for a thing I'm doing. I really need a credible source for this though.
What thing are you doing?
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
9
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Oriental Orthodox Church
Can it be substantiated that there was any significant difference in faith between the Church of Rome and the Church of England in this period, and that of the two the Church of England was more "orthodox" or voiced objections to what we would call today heterodox teachings in the Church of Rome?  Can it be substantiated that the Church of England viewed the Church of Rome as heterodox and that Harold was fighting to preserve "orthodox" Christianity instead of simply fighting an invading army?  Admittedly, the Medieval West is not my area of expertise, but it always seemed to me that the Christians of England in this period would have viewed themselves as members of the Catholic Church, of which the Pope of Rome was the head, that they rendered "Peter's Pence" unto the Pope, made pilgrimages to Rome, etc.  It's romantic to think of Harold's church as a last bastion of Orthodoxy in the West fighting against an invading heterodox foe - and I have no personal objection to the idea - but I'm not sure if it can truly be substantiated.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Antonious Nikolas said:
Can it be substantiated that there was any significant difference in faith between the Church of Rome and the Church of England in this period, and that of the two the Church of England was more "orthodox" or voiced objections to what we would call today heterodox teachings in the Church of Rome?  Can it be substantiated that the Church of England viewed the Church of Rome as heterodox and that Harold was fighting to preserve "orthodox" Christianity instead of simply fighting an invading army?  Admittedly, the Medieval West is not my area of expertise, but it always seemed to me that the Christians of England in this period would have viewed themselves as members of the Catholic Church, of which the Pope of Rome was the head, that they rendered "Peter's Pence" unto the Pope, made pilgrimages to Rome, etc.  It's romantic to think of Harold's church as a last bastion of Orthodoxy in the West fighting against an invading heterodox foe - and I have no personal objection to the idea - but I'm not sure if it can truly be substantiated.
As far as I know, the point is that the Anglo-Saxons were still following the Celtic Rite which had not yet been infected by Papal Supremacy or the Filioque or other schismatic points, but William the Conquerer was supported by an ambitious Pope Alexander II who wanted to impose a strict Roman Rite upon Britain. Therefore, England was Orthodox up to 1066.  It was a matter of logistics and conspiracy according to Vladimir Moss.

This is the source I'm looking for.

Mor Ephrem said:
Amatorus said:
Cyrillic said:
Why assume that 1054 was a sharp dividing line? The schism 'grew' over the centuries. It isn't as if a German peasant was Orthodox in 1053 but Roman Catholic in 1055.
So as far as I understand, from around the Photian Schism to the First Crusade era, whether or not a person is RC or Orthodox should be judged on a case-by-case basis?

I just need to know what to list as a fact for Harold II for a thing I'm doing. I really need a credible source for this though.
What thing are you doing?
I can neither confirm nor deny what it is.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,452
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Amatorus said:
As far as I know, the point is that the Anglo-Saxons were still following the Celtic Rite which had not yet been infected by Papal Supremacy or the Filioque or other schismatic points, but William the Conquerer was supported by an ambitious Pope Alexander II who wanted to impose a strict Roman Rite upon Britain. Therefore, England was Orthodox up to 1066.  It was a matter of logistics and conspiracy according to Vladimir Moss.

This is the source I'm looking for.
What is the Celtic Rite?  And what is "a strict Roman Rite"? 

Mor Ephrem said:
Amatorus said:
Cyrillic said:
Why assume that 1054 was a sharp dividing line? The schism 'grew' over the centuries. It isn't as if a German peasant was Orthodox in 1053 but Roman Catholic in 1055.
So as far as I understand, from around the Photian Schism to the First Crusade era, whether or not a person is RC or Orthodox should be judged on a case-by-case basis?

I just need to know what to list as a fact for Harold II for a thing I'm doing. I really need a credible source for this though.
What thing are you doing?
I can neither confirm nor deny what it is.
What a bizarro-world this is...
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
88
Points
48
Age
52
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Amatorus said:
Antonious Nikolas said:
Can it be substantiated that there was any significant difference in faith between the Church of Rome and the Church of England in this period, and that of the two the Church of England was more "orthodox" or voiced objections to what we would call today heterodox teachings in the Church of Rome?  Can it be substantiated that the Church of England viewed the Church of Rome as heterodox and that Harold was fighting to preserve "orthodox" Christianity instead of simply fighting an invading army?  Admittedly, the Medieval West is not my area of expertise, but it always seemed to me that the Christians of England in this period would have viewed themselves as members of the Catholic Church, of which the Pope of Rome was the head, that they rendered "Peter's Pence" unto the Pope, made pilgrimages to Rome, etc.  It's romantic to think of Harold's church as a last bastion of Orthodoxy in the West fighting against an invading heterodox foe - and I have no personal objection to the idea - but I'm not sure if it can truly be substantiated.
As far as I know, the point is that the Anglo-Saxons were still following the Celtic Rite which had not yet been infected by Papal Supremacy or the Filioque or other schismatic points, but William the Conquerer was supported by an ambitious Pope Alexander II who wanted to impose a strict Roman Rite upon Britain. Therefore, England was Orthodox up to 1066.  It was a matter of logistics and conspiracy according to Vladimir Moss.

This is the source I'm looking for.

Mor Ephrem said:
Amatorus said:
Cyrillic said:
Why assume that 1054 was a sharp dividing line? The schism 'grew' over the centuries. It isn't as if a German peasant was Orthodox in 1053 but Roman Catholic in 1055.
So as far as I understand, from around the Photian Schism to the First Crusade era, whether or not a person is RC or Orthodox should be judged on a case-by-case basis?

I just need to know what to list as a fact for Harold II for a thing I'm doing. I really need a credible source for this though.
What thing are you doing?
I can neither confirm nor deny what it is.


and the same is true of Harold..... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
Omaha
Faith
Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Diocese of New Gracanica
I'm not sure that every pre-schism Tom, Dick, and Harold who dies in war is necessarily a saint.  With St. Olaf it wasn't for Stiklestad but for Christianizing Norway.  In a similar vein, his relative Olaf Tryggvason was not canonized even though he also died in battle against pagans because his methods of conversion were a bit naughty, creative though they might have been. 

With Harold Godwinson, England was already Christian, and he wasn't really killed over the faith but in a struggle for power.

Of course, this same argument could be made against St. Tsar Nicholas II, but he was certainly Orthodox, was killed by Godless heathen swine, and the nation was significantly more de-Christianised after his death.  With Harold Godwinson, I'm not sure this was really the case.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,025
Reaction score
391
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Mor Ephrem said:
What a bizarro-world this is...
It's a top secret mission from the EP. That's all I can say...
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,025
Reaction score
391
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
vamrat said:
I'm not sure that every pre-schism Tom, Dick, and Harold who dies in war is necessarily a saint.  With St. Olaf it wasn't for Stiklestad but for Christianizing Norway.  In a similar vein, his relative Olaf Tryggvason was not canonized even though he also died in battle against pagans because his methods of conversion were a bit naughty, creative though they might have been. 

With Harold Godwinson, England was already Christian, and he wasn't really killed over the faith but in a struggle for power.

Of course, this same argument could be made against St. Tsar Nicholas II, but he was certainly Orthodox, was killed by Godless heathen swine, and the nation was significantly more de-Christianised after his death.  With Harold Godwinson, I'm not sure this was really the case.
William the Bastard was Godless heathen papist swine.  :p
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
Omaha
Faith
Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Diocese of New Gracanica
TheTrisagion said:
vamrat said:
I'm not sure that every pre-schism Tom, Dick, and Harold who dies in war is necessarily a saint.  With St. Olaf it wasn't for Stiklestad but for Christianizing Norway.  In a similar vein, his relative Olaf Tryggvason was not canonized even though he also died in battle against pagans because his methods of conversion were a bit naughty, creative though they might have been. 

With Harold Godwinson, England was already Christian, and he wasn't really killed over the faith but in a struggle for power.

Of course, this same argument could be made against St. Tsar Nicholas II, but he was certainly Orthodox, was killed by Godless heathen swine, and the nation was significantly more de-Christianised after his death.  With Harold Godwinson, I'm not sure this was really the case.
William the Bastard was Godless heathen papist swine.  :p
Ghost of History Department medievalists, if that you?
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
It seems to be an anachronistic claim which assumes, 1, that there was a clear division between Orthodoxy and Rome at that time, 2, that Harold was upholding this Orthodoxy against Latin heresies, and 3, that William's invasion imposed a new doctrine in England. I don't think any of these assumptions are true.
Would you consider Harold II definitively Roman Catholic at the time? St. Edward the Confessor died post-Schism but he is a saint in he Church.
I wouldn't consider anyone "definitively Roman Catholic" at that time.
 

Arachne

Matriarch
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
13,056
Reaction score
760
Points
113
Age
50
Location
Camulodunum
Faith
Cradle Greek Orthodox. Cope.
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Archdiocese, UK
Amatorus said:
As far as I know, the point is that the Anglo-Saxons were still following the Celtic Rite which had not yet been infected by Papal Supremacy or the Filioque or other schismatic points
With the Synod of Whitby over 400 years back, that would be stretching it a teensy bit.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
If all what you're saying is the case, why is the OrthodoxWiki article the way it is and is Vladimir Moss not a reliable source? I was told he was not as his works are self-published.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
The medieval Celts practiced differently from each other. As for "standard Roman Catholics," who are you talking about?
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
The medieval Celts practiced differently from each other. As for "standard Roman Catholics," who are you talking about?
I meant the Latin Rite like the bishops of the British Isles pretty much did their own liturgies and practices until William
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
9
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Oriental Orthodox Church
Amatorus said:
As far as I know, the point is that the Anglo-Saxons were still following the Celtic Rite which had not yet been infected by Papal Supremacy or the Filioque or other schismatic points, but William the Conquerer was supported by an ambitious Pope Alexander II who wanted to impose a strict Roman Rite upon Britain. Therefore, England was Orthodox up to 1066.  It was a matter of logistics and conspiracy according to Vladimir Moss.

This is the source I'm looking for.
I have the same questions as Mor regarding the Celtic and "strict" Roman Rites.  Can you provide a link to the article you're basing your theories on please?  Again, I have no objection to the idea.  I'd just need to see a lot more proof before I bought into it.
vamrat said:
With Harold Godwinson, England was already Christian, and he wasn't really killed over the faith but in a struggle for power.

Of course, this same argument could be made against St. Tsar Nicholas II, but he was certainly Orthodox, was killed by Godless heathen swine, and the nation was significantly more de-Christianised after his death.  With Harold Godwinson, I'm not sure this was really the case.
This was always my impression too.  If it could be proven otherwise, great, but I'm not sure it can.

Amatorus said:
I can neither confirm nor deny what it is.
Please don't tell us its for some weird fanfic or game or something.  Is this related to the "canonize Romulus Augustulus" thing?

Arachne said:
Amatorus said:
As far as I know, the point is that the Anglo-Saxons were still following the Celtic Rite which had not yet been infected by Papal Supremacy or the Filioque or other schismatic points
With the Synod of Whitby over 400 years back, that would be stretching it a teensy bit.
Very good point.

Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
+1

There were a diversity of rites in the British Isles.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,025
Reaction score
391
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Iconodule said:
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
The medieval Celts practiced differently from each other. As for "standard Roman Catholics," who are you talking about?
Considering a number of bishops and abbots were deposed and new ones were appointed that reported directly to the Pope as opposed the the prior ones, I would certainly say there was a substantive change in the religious structure of Britain following the conquest.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
TheTrisagion said:
Iconodule said:
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
The medieval Celts practiced differently from each other. As for "standard Roman Catholics," who are you talking about?
Considering a number of bishops and abbots were deposed and new ones were appointed that reported directly to the Pope as opposed the the prior ones, I would certainly say there was a substantive change in the religious structure of Britain following the conquest.
In structure, yes. But in doctrine?
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Amatorus said:
If all what you're saying is the case, why is the OrthodoxWiki article the way it is and is Vladimir Moss not a reliable source? I was told he was not as his works are self-published.
Orthodoxwiki is rather low on our magisterial totem pole.

Vladimir Moss is a little "out there."
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
9
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Oriental Orthodox Church
TheTrisagion said:
Iconodule said:
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
The medieval Celts practiced differently from each other. As for "standard Roman Catholics," who are you talking about?
Considering a number of bishops and abbots were deposed and new ones were appointed that reported directly to the Pope as opposed the the prior ones, I would certainly say there was a substantive change in the religious structure of Britain following the conquest.
But - as Vamrat pointed out - was Harold fighting to preserve the pre-existing structure of the indigenous church and was he fighting against the imposition of anything the Orthodox Church would consider heterodox today?  Could he be said to have been "fighting for Orthodoxy"?  I tend to hold to the view articulated by vamrat, but I'm willing to be swayed by substantive proof to the contrary.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Iconodule said:
TheTrisagion said:
Iconodule said:
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
The medieval Celts practiced differently from each other. As for "standard Roman Catholics," who are you talking about?
Considering a number of bishops and abbots were deposed and new ones were appointed that reported directly to the Pope as opposed the the prior ones, I would certainly say there was a substantive change in the religious structure of Britain following the conquest.
In structure, yes. But in doctrine?
For the West, these two topics are indivisible in some respects.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,025
Reaction score
391
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
There wasn't significant doctrinal differences between Orthodox and Catholic either. It was a matter of structure and authority.  Britain was self ruling and viewed Rome much like the eastern Churches. Once papal bishops were moved in, Britain was directly under the Pope until King Henry VIII decided to go his own way.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Antonious Nikolas said:
Amatorus said:
As far as I know, the point is that the Anglo-Saxons were still following the Celtic Rite which had not yet been infected by Papal Supremacy or the Filioque or other schismatic points, but William the Conquerer was supported by an ambitious Pope Alexander II who wanted to impose a strict Roman Rite upon Britain. Therefore, England was Orthodox up to 1066.  It was a matter of logistics and conspiracy according to Vladimir Moss.

This is the source I'm looking for.
I have the same questions as Mor regarding the Celtic and "strict" Roman Rites.  Can you provide a link to the article you're basing your theories on please?  Again, I have no objection to the idea.  I'd just need to see a lot more proof before I bought into it.
vamrat said:
With Harold Godwinson, England was already Christian, and he wasn't really killed over the faith but in a struggle for power.

Of course, this same argument could be made against St. Tsar Nicholas II, but he was certainly Orthodox, was killed by Godless heathen swine, and the nation was significantly more de-Christianised after his death.  With Harold Godwinson, I'm not sure this was really the case.
This was always my impression too.  If it could be proven otherwise, great, but I'm not sure it can.

Amatorus said:
I can neither confirm nor deny what it is.
Please don't tell us its for some weird fanfic or game or something.  Is this related to the "canonize Romulus Augustulus" thing?

Arachne said:
Amatorus said:
As far as I know, the point is that the Anglo-Saxons were still following the Celtic Rite which had not yet been infected by Papal Supremacy or the Filioque or other schismatic points
With the Synod of Whitby over 400 years back, that would be stretching it a teensy bit.
Very good point.

Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
+1

There were a diversity of rites in the British Isles.
the Romulus thing was a joke. Anyway here's two:

    http://www.annunciationscranton.org/files/PDF/104_THE_FALL_OF_ORTHODOX_ENGLAND.pdf.
    http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20FALL%20OF%20ORTHODOX%20ENGLAND%205X8.htm
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Antonis said:
Iconodule said:
TheTrisagion said:
Iconodule said:
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
The medieval Celts practiced differently from each other. As for "standard Roman Catholics," who are you talking about?
Considering a number of bishops and abbots were deposed and new ones were appointed that reported directly to the Pope as opposed the the prior ones, I would certainly say there was a substantive change in the religious structure of Britain following the conquest.
In structure, yes. But in doctrine?
For the West, these two topics are indivisible in some respects.
The particular structure of the British church notwithstanding, I don't think the general role of the Pope was a point of contention between Harold and William. But if anyone has evidence that it was, by all means bring it.

The Nikonian reforms of the Russian rite, and then the imposition of the synodal/ caesaro-papist polity by Peter Romanov, were considerable structural changes, but I don't think many Orthodox believe that they constituted a move into a new faith, lamentable as they were.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
88
Points
48
Age
52
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Venn diagram vs two parallel lines
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,025
Reaction score
391
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Antonious Nikolas said:
TheTrisagion said:
Iconodule said:
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
The medieval Celts practiced differently from each other. As for "standard Roman Catholics," who are you talking about?
Considering a number of bishops and abbots were deposed and new ones were appointed that reported directly to the Pope as opposed the the prior ones, I would certainly say there was a substantive change in the religious structure of Britain following the conquest.
But - as Vamrat pointed out - was Harold fighting to preserve the pre-existing structure of the indigenous church and was he fighting against the imposition of anything the Orthodox Church would consider heterodox today?  Could he be said to have been "fighting for Orthodoxy"?  I tend to hold to the view articulated by vamrat, but I'm willing to be swayed by substantive proof to the contrary.
It was not a religious war, but I think a reasonable argument could be made that he was defending a position whereby Britain's Church was self ruling and not ruled by Rome, whereas William the Conqueror had agreed with the Pope to permit Papal investiture in order to gain his blessing for the invasion.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
Antonious Nikolas said:
TheTrisagion said:
Iconodule said:
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
"Celtic Rite".... *snort*.
The early medieval Celts practiced differently than the standard Roman Catholics did did they not? Especially in Ireland and Wales
The medieval Celts practiced differently from each other. As for "standard Roman Catholics," who are you talking about?
Considering a number of bishops and abbots were deposed and new ones were appointed that reported directly to the Pope as opposed the the prior ones, I would certainly say there was a substantive change in the religious structure of Britain following the conquest.
But - as Vamrat pointed out - was Harold fighting to preserve the pre-existing structure of the indigenous church and was he fighting against the imposition of anything the Orthodox Church would consider heterodox today?  Could he be said to have been "fighting for Orthodoxy"?  I tend to hold to the view articulated by vamrat, but I'm willing to be swayed by substantive proof to the contrary.
It was not a religious war, but I think a reasonable argument could be made that he was defending a position whereby Britain's Church was self ruling and not ruled by Rome, whereas William the Conqueror had agreed with the Pope to permit Papal investiture in order to gain his blessing for the invasion.
Oh duh me.  This is the wording I should have used, sorry.

I just wish there was reliable writing on this.
 

Rhinosaur

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,153
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Faith
Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction
OCA
Iconodule said:
Amatorus said:
Iconodule said:
It seems to be an anachronistic claim which assumes, 1, that there was a clear division between Orthodoxy and Rome at that time, 2, that Harold was upholding this Orthodoxy against Latin heresies, and 3, that William's invasion imposed a new doctrine in England. I don't think any of these assumptions are true.
Would you consider Harold II definitively Roman Catholic at the time? St. Edward the Confessor died post-Schism but he is a saint in he Church.
I wouldn't consider anyone "definitively Roman Catholic" at that time.
That's an excellent point.  At the time of the Schism, the core theology and practice of much of the West would have more matched Orthodoxy than modern Roman Catholicism.
 
Top