• 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

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,756
Reaction score
286
Points
83
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Amatorus:
There is a notation in the English liturgical calendar of ROCOR (don't know about the Russian lang. one) that notes the martyrdom of King Harold and those martyred with him at Hastings - but this notation is classified as a "local" veneration - not something officially recognized throughout the whole Russian Church.

Fr David Moser
http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/1141-king-harold-godwinson

(Feast Day Oct 14)
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
270
Points
83
Age
71
Location
Oceanside, California
Antonious Nikolas said:
rakovsky said:
in terms of Eastern Orthodox "authority" in the Tradition of our Church, isn't it the case that it is the laity of the Eastern Orthodox Church collectively, and particularly the Church fathers, theologians, clergy, monastics, and hierarchs, who have the authority to speak for our Church on questions of Tradition, Teachings, etc.?
Some random guys on a message board speculating about Harold II and Romulus Augustulus being Orthodox saints ≠ either the Mind or the consensus of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Why are you writing this? From what I recall Rakovsky's statement is within the mainstream. He wasn't naming names.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
51
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
rakovsky said:
Antonious Nikolas said:
Even if we trust your synopsis of this account (which given your record on these boards I am not inclined to do)
Isn't that ad-hominem, since we aren't supposed to bring issues from the Moderated forums onto the Public ones?
I don't recall Antonious ever saying that he was talking only about your participation on the Private Forum.
 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox
Rakovsky, I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council.  The regional governors will now have direct control over their territories.  [/Tarkin]

On a more serious note, I have concluded that your position and that of Amatorus is essentially wrong for the time being.  The possibility exists that Harold II might well be glorified at some point in the future, but this sort of thing ought to go through the proper channels.  There is also a legitimate concern that glorifing Harold II right now might interfere with the process of ecumenical reconciliation with Rome.  Which may be an unpopular reason to delay glorifying him, but it is not in my opinion simply to be brushed aside.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
270
Points
83
Age
71
Location
Oceanside, California
wgw said:
but this sort of thing ought to go through the proper channels.
I think Rakovsky (the laity) is historically a proper channel.

Why this thread keeps going on is beyond me. Certainly my objection has not been addressed. I think we should all work on the mystery of St Paul's Law. It is the only interesting aspect of this thread.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,756
Reaction score
286
Points
83
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Opus118 said:
I think we should all work on the mystery of St Paul's Law. It is the only interesting aspect of this thread.
I agree. It's one of the most mysterious and interesting.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,756
Reaction score
286
Points
83
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
35. Staurotheke
Byzantine (Constantinople), ioth century

The Good Friday theme is taken up again on the lid's inner face, where a figure of John Chrysostom holds an open book with Jesus' admonition to his disciples to love one another.

They, in turn, are subtended by Saint Peter, holding a martyr's cross and extending his hand as if in conciliatory speech, and Saint Paul, displaying a book to him. The proximity of Paul's book to that of John Chrysostom, one over the other when the box is closed, suggests they are meant to be one and the same, the Orthodox Church in the persons of Paul and Chrysostom offering an admonition through it to Peter's
heirs in Rome.
THE GLORY OF BYZANTIUM
Edited by Helen C. Evans and William D. Wixom

https://books.google.com/books?id=Caqa12aj55wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=THE+GLORY+OF+BYZANTIUM+HE+GLORY+OF+BYZANTIUM+Art+and+Culture+of+the+Middle+Byzantine+Era+A.D.+843-1261+Edited+by+Helen+C.+Evans+and+William+D.+Wixom&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI1baowfDNyAIVhh8eCh2WfgTH#v=snippet&q=paul%20book&f=false

I think they might be reading too much into it. I didn't get that from looking at the photo.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,756
Reaction score
286
Points
83
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Paul of Alexandria was a 4th century Byzantine astrologer, whose writings became current in Byzantium, but I don't think that is what we are talking about.

St. Paul's Rite sometimes refers to the rituals of St Paul's Cathedral in London:

"The Rules of S. Paul's, London, (MS. 45) varied only from thefe, in that the direction is to wear Albes at fuch laft-mentioned times, which fhows that the Albe differed little from the Surplice. ...Alfo, according to the St. Paul's Rite (a.d. 1290) his Benediction is to be fought when the Elements are brought in, and on mixing the water with the wine." https://archive.org/stream/divineworshipine00chamuoft/divineworshipine00chamuoft_djvu.txt
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,756
Reaction score
286
Points
83
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
rakovsky said:
Opus118 said:
I think we should all work on the mystery of St Paul's Law. It is the only interesting aspect of this thread.
What makes you think Pals-bok from the Scandinavian sagas is best translated as Paul's law? Shouldn't it be Paul's book, since bok in Swedish (and I think Norwegian, and Icelandic) is book?
 

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
rakovsky said:
We agree about the BOLD above.
Which was only necessary for me to state because you erroneously assigned the position to me in the first place.

rakovsky said:
My point is that an anathema against the Pope, which Constantinople levied on him was not automatically an anathema on autonomous bishops connected to him, and who did not trace their appointment to him in his schismatic state.
I never said it was.  In fact, I never made any attempt to separate any element in the Western Church from any element in the Eastern Church in this era.

rakovsky said:
Thus, Harold II is not automatically considered out of communion with Orthodoxy.
I never once contended that he was.  Why do you keep belaboring this point?

rakovsky said:
After the Norman conquest though, the Norman bishops were directly appointed by the Schismated Pope. The end of Harold II's rule therefore marks a major ecclesiastic turning point.
An administrative one, perhaps.  It cannot be said with certainty that there was any substantial difference in faith between the pre-schism and post-schism English Church at this early stage.

rakovsky said:
OK, good we agree.
I'm glad you finally get it.

rakovsky said:
I do think though that eventually the Schism has meant in Eastern Orthodoxy at some point that those under Rome, especially supporters of Papal Infallibility, are in a communion outside ours.
At some point, yes.  As others have rightly pointed out, I don't think you can say with certainty where that line was drawn less than two decades after the anathema of 1054.

rakovsky said:
I think that in practice the cut off for England came as early as the Schismatic Pope's direct appointment of new bishops in England to replace the pre-Schism bishops.
This does not sound entirely unreasonable, but I'm not sure that you're correct.  Has the Church produced anything definitive on this score?  If so, I'll accept it.  If not, your opinion is simply your opinion.

rakovsky said:
Papal supremacy was the crucial issue, according to the Varangian Sagas that reflected the Anglo-Saxons' understanding of it at the time. It wasn't Original Sin, since Augustine remains an EO saint. It wasn't the Filioque either, since that had already been around in the West for centuries before 1054. If you see an issue that was as decisive as papal supremacy, especially one that could disqualify Harold II as a saint for opposing the Schismatic Papal supremacist ecclesiology imposed on Britain, let me know.
The point is, as Trisagion has already pointed out, you have yet to establish with any certainty that Harold II was chiefly concerned with fighting against a dogmatic form of Papal Supremacy and not merely with maintaining his own crown, with the administrative issue of direct papal appointment of bishops in his land as something of an adjunct.

rakovsky said:
Is that what started this whole thread?
To the everlasting shame and detriment of this board, yes.  Fantasy role-playing garbage.  Orthodox Christianity is not a hobby or something that people should use to entertain themselves.  I'll call that nerdy garbage out on these boards whenever I feel like it.

rakovsky said:
Yes, it shows a difference from Rome, because I don't think Rome considered Constantinople the center of the Church. The Roman schismatic position considered Rome totally supreme. 
And I reiterate that none of this proves that they were Orthodox in any other respect (as in other than ecclesiology, which in this case might've been simply an administrative issue for the English) that Rome wasn't in this period

rakovsky said:
There was a key issue in the schism. To oppose the Roman schismatic position of Papal supremacy and to retain the pre-Schism Orthodox ecclesiology was to stand with the EOs.
Not necessarily so.  They could have just been two Western churches which differed only on an administrative and not a dogmatic issue.

rakovsky said:
Does dying in defense of pre-Schism ecclesiology against the Schismatics' main change - supremacist ecclesiology count?
Not if it can’t be substantiated that this was a dogmatic and not an administrative issue.

rakovsky said:
Waltham Abbey portrayed him as a saint and attributed miracles to him and there are Orthodox today who venerate him.
That's not a continuity.  Even if we accept the idea that Waltham Abbey regarded him as a saint (which I don't accept at this point) there's a gulf there of many hundreds of years.  There is no living continuity between the pre-schism Church of the Anglo-Saxons and the Western Rite Orthodox or vagante so-called "Celtic Orthodox" groups today.  None.  Further, the passage you previously posted does not prove decisively that Harold was ever canonized by any group at any time.

rakovsky said:
In the case of the EO - Papal Roman split, the administrative disagreement of papal supremacy was too great, Antonious, even if we had the same basic faith. The filioque and Western teaching of Original Sin had already been around for centuries in the West before Papal Supremacy led to the split. I would have a hard time expecting Moscow and Constantinople ready to give fealty to Rome and declare their willingness to obey its churchly and theological decisions even if they could agree on the Filioque.
None of which proves that the Church of the Anglo-Saxons viewed itself as being in communion with the East and out of communion with the Pope and the rest of the West at this point in history.  Really, this is becoming quite circular.  You can't prove your conjecture on this point, so I will continue to question it, and you will continue to reassert it without providing the necessary further proof, so what really is the point of this exercise?  Let Amatorus fill in Harold's profile as an Orthodox saint on his video game, while the Orthodox Church continues not to venerate him, and let's move on.

rakovsky said:
Doesn't this raise the following question: If a schismated Patriarch appoints bishops, or a schismatic bishop appoints priests, aren't the bishops and priests in schism too?
This assumes that there was an all-encompassing hard and fast line between East and West in the years immediately following 1054.  Are the priests appointed by the bishops of the IOC excommunicated by Antioch in schism from the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Church? Are the priests appointed by the bishops of any of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem in schism with the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch?  Your question depends upon the assumption that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches were two churches immediately following the anathema of 1054 and that the Church of the Anglo-Saxons fell into the former category.  I'm not convinced that this is true anywhere other than in the world of Crusader Kings Super Deluxe Edition: One Knight in Bangkok.

rakovsky said:
This seems to be what happens with the vagante groups. Such and such bishop breaks off for some reason from the rest of the church and then appoints priests, but since the priests were ordained by the schismatic bishop, they aren't recognized. For apostolic succession to work, a given bishop must have been ordained by a hierarch or council in communion with the Orthodox Church, or at least must become recognized by the Orthodox Church afterwards. The Norman bishops were newly appointed by a schismatic Pope and I am unaware of them ever establishing communion and recognition with the EO churches. Ecclesiastically then, the post-Schism Norman bishops would have been ordained in Schism as well.
See above.

rakovsky said:
Even if England wasn't heterodox right after the Norman invasion, Harold II was still defending the Orthodox side of the main issue in the Schism - Papal supremacy.
You keep saying this, but I've yet to see proof.  Where has Harold ever said that he was fighting against the dogma of Papal Supremacy and that this was a key issue for him?

rakovsky said:
No, but it shows that Harold II is not disqualified merely by the fact that he belonged to the Church of England after 1054, in case someone were to argue that it disqualified him.
Good thing no one in this thread ever made that silly argument.  Scoring on strawmen doesn't add to your points to your side in this debate, though you may get your friend all worked up into a historygasmic fit again, which also counts for nothing.

rakovsky said:
Belonging to a saintly family is circumstantial evidence of piety
Not necessarily.  Many saints came from awful, abusive, anti-Christian families.

rakovsky said:
although you would be right that this circumstantial evidence is not by itself proof.
Dang skippy.

rakovsky said:
It does bolster the Vita Haroldi's direct evidence of his piety though.
In your opinion.

rakovsky said:
Yes, if Harold II was fighting for the Anglo Saxon language, culture, independence, dynastic line, church system, legal system, etc. against Norman, Schismatic Papal-sponsored conquest, then it means that the pre-Schism church system was one of the things he was fighting for, and the forces flying the Schismatic Pope's banner and imposing the schismatic system were what he opposed.
No it doesn't.  My point stands:

First, we would have to establish that this was indeed what he was fighting for, and thus far, none of his advocates in this thread have offered anything even close to compelling evidence on that score.
All evidence thus far seems to point to Harold simply being a king with no royal blood defending his throne against a foreign invader with an administrative church issue as a possible adjunct to the main reasons for the fight.  You've yet to substantiate anything more.

rakovsky said:
I think it's relevant, because someone could bring it up. But thanks for clarifying that you are not disqualifying him as heterodox.
Thanks for belatedly clarifying that you're not trying to assign this stupid argument to me.  Let's see if you introduce it into the discussion again before someone actually advances it in order to pad your post and appear to score points on a matter that's never once been raised by your opposition.

rakovsky said:
Do you see a difference in ecclesiology if a Norman-supported schismatic Pope claims to use his newly claimed supremacist powers to effectively annul the pre-schism autonomy of the AngloSaxon church?
Possibly, if proof were provided that this was a dogmatic issue.  I could also see - perhaps more readily - an administrative issue between the bishops of a single Church.

rakovsky said:
Right. But it proves that a simple, exceptional intervening cause can prevent a cult from rising up, such that the lack of a cult doesn't disprove sainthood.
According to your speculation.  We don't know that any exceptional intervening cause prevented a cult from rising up, and I won't accept the idea merely on your ponderings and postulations.

rakovsky said:
In this case, there are two natural reasons why there wouldn't be a recorded cult even if he were considered a saint locally.
1. The Roman Pope, Norman bishops, and William's forces weren't going to allow a recognized saint cult to arise. Any such cult would have been underground and centered for example on Waltham Abbey, which did produce a vita and claim his gravesite.
2. The faraway Greek and Russian churches would not be very likely to canonize a local saint of another faraway country when that country had just fallen into schism without canonizing the saint. There are plenty of Greek and Russian local saints that the other national Orthodox church haven't canonized as saints. If a cult for a Christian who resisted pro-Papal forces didn't gain widespread currency in Roman Papal, Norman England, it's hard to expect faraway Russia and Greece to recognize him as their own saints. It wasn't until recently that the Russian and Antiochian jurisdictions even created their own Western Rites.
Conjecture and fantasy.  You have nothing to substantiate your theories.

rakovsky said:
Those revivalist moderns count toward Orthodoxy, or else even the Western Rite wouldn't exist, since it involves a revival of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy.
It still doesn't constitute a living continuity with any church or demonstrate that there was ever any historical cult surrounding Harold.  Have any of his modern admirers reported his miraculous intervention in their lives?

rakovsky said:
I've seen references to his veneration elsewhere.
Post them.

rakovsky said:
But yes, if the owner of a Tshirt store venerates Harold II and collects poems about him from the masses of Anglo Saxons that visit and adorn his grave annually, it reflects veneration.
No, it doesn't.  It's trite, and it reflects mere admiration.

rakovsky said:
Doesn't it refer to his death in particular to say his crown was one of thorns, drawing an image of Christ's passion? What else in his reign could be compared to the crown of thorns? Isn't the crown of thorns a reference to Christ's passion?
Poetic imagery.  Lot's of people have used the phrase "crown of thorns" to reflect the "passions" of a figure they didn't necessarily consider a saint in the proper sense.  Again, you're hanging your hat on a conjecture, and in this case, your personal interpretation of a bit of writing.

rakovsky said:
Would their tradition of visitation be relevant if they came to visit an Orthodox king who died resisting the imposition of a Schismatic ecclesiology that was the key issue in the EO-RC split?
It depends on if they regarded him as a saint and came to his tomb to ask for his intervention at the Throne of God or were merely visiting the grave of a historical figure they admired because he fought for a side they identified with historically and culturally.

rakovsky said:
By the way, what do you think Grand Prince Mstislav I was canonized for, other than for patronizing the Orthodox Church like normal Christian kings of his era did? The main thing I can think of is that he didn't revert to paganism even though his kingdom had only been Orthodox for about 150 years. It seems to me that the case for canonizing his grandfather Harold II is comparably as strong, although on a different basis - preserving the pre-schism ecclesiology, resisting the imposition of the Schismatic Pope's rule via the Normans.
It seems to you indeed.  This is all just your opinion.  As I've said throughout this discussion, it's not on me to defend the canonization of St. Mstislav I or anyone else, and his canonization does not necessarily mean that Harold II should be canonized.

rakovsky said:
Is it necessary to show that the local visitors specially asked for his intercession to show that someone is a saint?
Otherwise, they're simply visiting the grave of someone they admire.  There's a difference.  You don't simply visit the tomb of someone you consider a saint without asking their prayers.

rakovsky said:
(I see someone else used the same reasoning I have).
And others have used the same reasoning I have in this very thread.  What's your point?

rakovsky said:
If it were obvious, how would it be "unfounded speculation"?
Because you cannot prove that a historic cult ever existed to be squelched.

rakovsky said:
Do you think William and the Roman Pope would have allowed an Anglo Christian cult for their defeated opponent, Antonious?
Isn't it obvious that they wouldn't?
Is there any evidence that they took measures to suppress such a cult?  Speculation and "probably" is not fact.

rakovsky said:
Do you think the Roman Church and an opposing monarchic dynasty would have allowed a national Christian cult to develop around, say, a defeated king under a formerly autonomous Church whom the Pope opposed and which the Pope unilaterally subjugated, respectively?
Do you have any evidence that such a cult existed and that they took measures to suppress it?  Or just your opinions and speculation?

rakovsky said:
By comparison, surviving contemporary portraits of Lady Jane Grey are so extremely rare that we are not even sure what she looked like, since her memory was culturally suppressed. That is, even keeping portraits of her could raise suspicions of dissent. Or would that just be speculation about why we don't have many surviving portraits of the executed, deposed ex-Queen?
If you know for a fact - after reviewing the assembled historical evidence - that portraits of Grey are rare because her memory was "culturally suppressed", then the two cases are not at all comparable.  We have evidence in Grey's case, conjecture in Harold's.  The one doesn't necessarily prove the other.

rakovsky said:
So reasonable explanations for the paucity of discussions on venerations of the defeated Anglo Saxon leader by the defeated Anglo-Saxons in records from about 1000 years ago is a silly idea of fanfiction
What you have are assumptions, not explanations.  Speculative history and wishful thinking.  To call it fanfiction is not an exaggeration.

rakovsky said:
even though his abbey produced a Vita that basically compared him to a saint?
According to your interpretation of the bits you've paraphrased.  We've been over this.  Produce the document in question and let's see how others view it.  And has Orthodoxy recognized this document as hagiography?

rakovsky said:
What is speculative about the fact that Russian and Greek churches frequently do not include the saints of other national churches in their own venerations and calendars?
Because by this logic, any figure who does not appear on their calendars and who you think meets the criteria of sainthood must be a saint.  The fact that Harold doesn't appear on Greek and Russian calendars proves nothing.

rakovsky said:
Is that not a reasonable explanation for the lack of Harold II being listed on the calendar of the Greek or Russian churches?
It's inconclusive.  It might be one explanation.  There could be others.  All speculation on your part based on what you - a man who is not a historian - thinks is reasonable.

rakovsky said:
Isn't that ad-hominem, since we aren't supposed to bring issues from the Moderated forums onto the Public ones?
Are you telling the mods how to do their jobs, or do you really want an answer?

rakovsky said:
Or do you wish me to repeat my sincerity about the issue we discussed about vagante OO churches?
Neither.  I'm referring to exchanges we've had in the public fora in which you have been dishonest and tried your darndest to make it out as if the Ethiopian Orthodox Church countenanced the smoking of marijuana because it suited your fantasies of a black, pothead church.  I'm merely clarifying what I was saying since you asked, by the way, not inviting further debate on the subject in this thread.  If you want to get into that again, reboot the other thread and I'll gladly school again you there.  If you hi-jack this thread with crap from the other as you tried to do when attempting to engage Mor on peripheral subjects, I'll be the one complaining to the mods, and not in public.

rakovsky said:
I think traditionally we consider whether miracles have been connected to a given saint, like a miraculous healing, a victory (like that over the Tatars following a prayer, or in the case of the Vita, Harold II's victory at Stamford following an abbot's apparition), etc. But I think it isn't focused on whether the saint himself was the worker of the miracle. By comparison, as I understand it, Mstislav I found an ikon not made by hands, but I am not familiar with claims that he himself interceded postmortem for others.
Again, nothing conclusive here.  Plenty of figures who are not saints have been the beneficiaries of miracles in hagiography.  The fact that Harold benefitted from the miraculous intervention of others in this document you're referring to doesn't necessarily mean he was any more holy than anyone else a saint has interceded for.

rakovsky said:
Hey, you didn't accuse me of fanfic Orthodoxy or dishonesty, and even gave a sincere compliment. Thanks.
I call 'em like I see 'em.

rakovsky said:
Which do you prefer, discussion by a local council - jedi or not, or:



vs.

I don't think real councils debate fanfiction, so the toy council in this case would be the most appropriate venue for speculation based on a "secret mission" video game.  Nothing hyperdox about that.

rakovsky said:
First, the canonized saint in that case is Harold, the Prince of Novgorod, who was known in the Russia chronicles as Mstislav I. Mstislav is not the transliteration of Harold, although the prefix Msti- might be related to it etymologically.
LOL!  You've harshed his historygasm.

rakovsky said:
There is a notation in the English liturgical calendar of ROCOR (don't know about the Russian lang. one) that notes the martyrdom of King Harold and those martyred with him at Hastings - but this notation is classified as a "local" veneration - not something officially recognized throughout the whole Russian Church.

Fr David Moser
http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/1141-king-harold-godwinson

(Feast Day Oct 14)
Maybe that will get him back on track.

Opus118 said:
Why are you writing this? From what I recall Rakovsky's statement is within the mainstream. He wasn't naming names.
Taken at face value, the statement is indeed correct.  Including speculation based on a gamer's "secret mission" in any of those categories would be a mistake, whether they can be termed an Orthodox layman or not.
 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox
Surely it would be a more enjoyable way to pass your time Antonious to do what I do and just reject the opposing arguments categorically and without further explanation.  This subject is rather uninteresting in the grand scheme of things; it would be more enjoyable to have an epic throwdown with some Nestorians.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Five pages. Huh.

If I were your pastor or spiritual father or some sort of advisor (which I'm not) rather than just some guy on the internet (which I am), I'd suggest you spend your obvious energy, intellect, passion and time on something of use to the Church as well as to your own spiritual well being, like perhaps assisting in implementing the instructions given us in Matthew 28: 16-20.

God Himself knows if good King Harold died a saint or not. At this point in time, it would seem He doesn't need our help in figuring it out.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,025
Reaction score
391
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
podkarpatska said:
Five pages. Huh.

If I were your pastor or spiritual father or some sort of advisor (which I'm not) rather than just some guy on the internet (which I am), I'd suggest you spend your obvious energy, intellect, passion and time on something of use to the Church as well as to your own spiritual well being, like perhaps assisting in implementing the instructions given us in Matthew 28: 16-20.

God Himself knows if good King Harold died a saint or not. At this point in time, it would seem He doesn't need our help in figuring it out.
pod for the win. Again.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,756
Reaction score
286
Points
83
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Rhinosaur said:
I'd just like to say that England had not really been independent since 1013 with the invasion of Sweyn Forkbeard.  If anything, the Norman invasion was just switching one foreign invader for another.
Cromwell?
 
Top