Priest practices both Anglicanism and Islam

[BrotherAidan]

I did a google search - it was Eldridge Cleaver. He fled the US because of federal charges against him, then abruptly returned to the US in 1975, turned himself in, the charges were dropped. Life as an ex-patriot changed him - he became outspokenly anti-communist (from having lived in some communist countries while on the run) and became a born again Christian.

It was after this that he flirted with Chrislam* (he didn't invent this syncretism, some guy in Nigeria did). Later he fell into drugs, had alot of problems in the 80's. In the early 90's got clean and returned to Christianity and died in 1998.

* almost positive it was him that did this - how many radical black panthers had evangelical turn-arounds at the time, that would have received widespread attention in evangelical publications

I think that Chrislam, although entirely heretical and apostaticized from both religions' perspective, is a more well thought out and serious attempt than the mushy fluff this chick is presenting. Both are whacko, but this is just so stupid and trendy as to be laughable if not for the fact that the upper middle class yuppies she likely "ministers" to (who also are pseudo-intellectual, polically liberal and all too PC) probably eat this crap up like flies on horse-   .

 

[recent convert]

That is your reading that there is "pride" in the publishing. It is a diocesan publication.  It carries stories about peole in the diocese for a variety of reasons.  If that diocese is like any of the ones I know, there are going to be some people who are, shall we say, not in agreement with the lady's beliefs.  I do not think that the Bishop is going to be ordering Arabic lessons in all of his parishes.

Do you know any people personally in that diocese that you can with sureness declare them to be "anti Christ"?
:-\Didn't say that any of the people of the diocese are anti Christ but that the diocese itself is anti Christ to endorse apostacy. Any Christian communion calling itself such should have any minister defrocked for embracing an anti Christian faith; is this not just common sense? I have communicated to an anguished Episcopalian blogger (and I should talk to more) offering the Western rite of the Orthodoxy under the Antiochian archdiocese as an option; he declined and said the same problems will probably come to the Orthodox church too (look at the move to alter the Divine Liturgy on another thread). This woman is under severe delusion but so were Arius and Cerinthus and she needs to be prayed for. Sorry the consequences of what she is doing and its publication is dhimmitude which is unhealthy for Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant Christians.

Grimly,

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Somehow knowing that she is the director of faith formation for her diocese rather than a parish priest isn't much of a comfort.  She is engaging in heretical behaviour and her church is allowing it to happen.  Sorry.  I just can't see this as a good thing. 

I never said that it was a good thing.  I don't have any contacts with that diocese, so I know little about it and it's working.  However, I think it quite likely that this story could lead to the lady in question not holding her post for a long time or for there to be some furor or at least questioning from some of the people in it.  I haven't checked the Episcopal/Anglican Blogosphere on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's already being looked at.

And I realize that one cannot judge the entire ECUSA by the actions of one or two people.  But between Bishop Spong, the two priests who got "married" and now the priest who also happens to be a practicing Muslim ... I think the ECUSA has some serious problems.

But those stories get the press.  Human beings often enjoy other's misfortunes and pointing at them. It's easier then examining one's own self/group/etc  maybe.

Other Churches have serious problems as well, as may be read about in the papers, on the 'Net and on the sites of organizations of people in those Churches who are calling for oversight of funds, honestly in dealing with abuses and other matters.  One might hope that those who are not members of them could try to avoid pointing them out with much schadenfreude.
:-\

I hope that it is not out of line, nor against forum rules to offer another Anglican as a counter example from 1965, not as the only example but the first one that came to my head.

Jonathan Myrick Daniels, Seminarian, who went down to Alabama for the Civil Rights Movement because he belived that God called him to go and serve other human beings as well.  Eventually he pushed a young black woman out of the way of a white man's gun and took the shot himself.  He died instantly to save another Human Being.  He was Faithful to the end.
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/228.html

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

I did a google search - it was Eldridge Cleaver. He fled the US because of federal charges against him, then abruptly returned to the US in 1975, turned himself in, the charges were dropped. Life as an ex-patriot changed him - he became outspokenly anti-communist (from having lived in some communist countries while on the run) and became a born again Christian.

Interesting information.  I didn't know about that.  Thank you for posting it.

....this chick....

While the woman's views are contradictory, illogical and not in line with creedal Christianity, is it helpful to show disdain by referring an adult woman as a "chick"?  I'm sorry, but that is a personal epithet which does not deal with the lady's actual words, actions and ideas. 

but this is just so stupid and trendy as to be laughable if not for the fact that the upper middle class yuppies she likely "ministers" to (who also are pseudo-intellectual, polically liberal and all too PC) probably eat this crap up like flies on horse-   .

You do not know the people involved nor what the lady in question actually does?  Would someone from that diocese coming here find such scornful words be liable to listen to other opinions?  They are still Human Beings made by God in His image; you do not know them yet label them in highly negative ways.  Would you call people that to their faces, one wonders.

I'm sorry, I'm tired.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

This is just starting to hit some of the Blogosphere.

Even on the 'Net it takes a bit of time for news to travel.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Recent Convert- would it be possible for you to fix the quotes on your last post?  It has my and yours all together.  THank you.

Ebor

 

[recent convert]

Recent Convert- would it be possible for you to fix the quotes on your last post?  It has my and yours all together.  THank you.

Ebor

Sorry ebor, something became garbled. In my previous post: "I didn't say that individuals of the diocese are anti Christ but that the diocese is (being-unquote) anti Christ to endorse apostacy. Any Christian communion calling itself such should  have any minister defrocked for embracing anti Christianity; is this not just common sense? I have communicated to an anguished Episcopalian blogger (different but similar matter- unquote) (and I should talk to more) offering the Western rite of Orthodoxy of the Antiochian diocese as an option; he declined and said the same problems will probably come to the Orthodox church too (look at the move to alter the Divine Liturgy on another thread). This woman is under severe delusion, but so were Arius and Cerinthus, and she needs prayer. Nonethelss. consequences of what is being done and its publication is dhimmitude which is unhealthy for Orthodox, Catholic, and Proterstant Christians.

 

[recent convert]

I guess one more point I would like to add is that I have seen reports of "orthodox" Episcopalian ministers so shabbily treated by a corrupt hierarchy in that communion that my indignation is aroused when I see situations so gleefully published that are anti Christian.

 

[Ebor]

According to a post/article on Titus One Nine about 2 months ago, Dr. Redding was laid off from her postion at the Cathedral along with 2 other people in March.  Now I don't know whether that was rescinded or if the article/interview was done prior to the end of March.  The Cathedral website might be a bit behind in getting updates. 

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18611

This story has also shown up on "Stand Firm" and "TitusOneNine"
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/3362
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3393/

Ebor

 

[StephenG]

How an earth can anyone think they might reconcile Christian and Islamic belief, let alone a Christian minister?

The differences on The Trinity, Christ's Divinity, salvation, etc., etc., are irreconcilable.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

How an earth can anyone think they might reconcile Christian and Islamic belief, let alone a Christian minister?

The differences on The Trinity, Christ's Divinity, salvation, etc., etc., are irreconcilable.

If one reduces traditional Christian dogma and historical assertions to the level of mere mythology used to communicate vague "spiritual truths", then I guess it's possible.  But then the mythology ceases to resemble anything of Christianity, which is based not on mythology, but on documented historical events.

 

[Orthodox Bagpiper]

Having been in a conservative episcopal group (The ICCEC, no affiliation with the ECUSA or the Anglican church), I never understood those conservative episcopalians that want to "fight from within". Can't they see that 'the glory has departed" is written above the door of every episcopal church?? They should just become Orthodox, I mean shoot, many of them are always talking about how "close" the episcopal church is to the Orthodox church and how we "have a lot in common". They should just come on home to the Orthodox church and they won't have to worry about any of the liberal/unitarian circus show going on over here (well, mabey a different kind of a circus show, but I think our problems are small compared to theirs).

 

[BrotherAidan]

Ebor, if I offended you in any way I am sorry. The word "chick" was meant to describe the behavior of this supposedly educated cleric. I didn't use the word "airhead" although that's what she came off as, or as a "Valley Girl" from the 80's.

You know, we joke around about contemporary Christian music and its "my boyfriend Jesus" lyrics. But that's what this woman sounded like: my boyfriend Jesus led me to Islam, but don't worry, we're still together.

If I met her face to face I'd probably say, "what the heck are you thinking?"

I mean what else can you say? Beside the fact that her soul is in danger, this is utter stupidity.

As for the comment about the liberal, PC yuppies,  I have a couple of stern Michael Moore type liberal kids and they wouldn't buy this! They are closer to the idea that all religions are dangerous than to be stupidly enamoured with such syncretism. I also do not think your average working guy would buy this either. So who is left? The affluent late boomers who are certainly are not conservative in doctrine and whose PC dogma would make them ripe for something like this.

Ebor, I don't know if you can love everyone into the kingdom or into orthodox dogma. Sometimes, if supposedly educated people won't accept the law of non-contradiction (Christianity and Islam cannot both teach the truth about God) maybe they need to be upset a little bit.

You are correct in that if these people were sitting in front of me I would be more tactful, but I would at some point be compelled to tell them the utter absurdity of their position in this matter. And it might not be the nicest thing to say to them because their very worldview would be offended by the assertion of absolute truth. In fact that very assertion may be more offensive to such a mindset than any name one could call them.

 

[ozgeorge]

As for the comment about the liberal, PC yuppies,  I have a couple of stern Michael Moore type liberal kids and they wouldn't but this! This is cool aid MY generation imbibes. And it seems to be endemic among well eduacated PC types.

Why does everything have to be politicized? This has nothing to do with politics, it's about bad theology and bad doctrine. Christ is neither a conservative nor a liberal. If the best argument you can come up with against what this woman teaches is that it is the kind of doctrine held by "well educated PC types", then you sound like you are praising ignorance and poor education. (And by the way, you misspelt "education". ) If you think her doctrine is wrong, say why it's wrong. It's wrong because it is the heresy of Arianism, not because she is a  "liberal" (which you have no way of knowing anyway). The Christology of the Book of Mormon is Arianism and Sabellianism, but there are plenty of conservative Mormons. A doctrine is not "wrong" simply because it is held by "liberals" or "conservatives". There is no "liberal Christian Dogma" or "conservative Christian Dogma" or "feminist Christian Dogma" or "Marxist Christian Dogma" or "functionalist Christian Dogma". There is only "Christian Dogma", and what this woman holds is not Christian Dogma. That is the issue.

I don't know if you can love everyone into the kingdom or into orthodox dogma.

You can.  And I think it's the only way you can.

You are correct in that if these people were sitting in front of me I would be more tactful,

And what is the difference? This isn't an accusation, but rather an examination of why we do the things we do. Why is it that we feel we can say things tactlessly in a public forum available to anyone on the internet, yet would be more tactful in person? Why should the anonymity of an internet forum make any difference to how we behave towards others as Christians? Do we think that we will not be held accountable on the Day of Judgement for what we have said on this forum simply because we typed it into a computer?
"Virtual life" troubles me. The idea that we are somehow allowed to be a "different person" online to the one who was baptised a Christian when we are in internet forums simply because we go by a username rather than our baptisimal name is hersesy as far as I can see. We can only have one hypostasis, not two.

Personally, I think we will all be held even more accountable for what we say on internet forums because:

a) Each of us who claims to be an Orthodox Christian is an Ambassador for Christ to everyone who reads this forum. We will be held to account for any soul that is lost because of what we have said.

b) We could say something sinful here, and our lives on earth might end before we have a chance to retract it or modify our post or ask forgiveness from those we have offended. Our written word continues to live even after we're dead.

c) Our audience is much wider, and the damage our sin can do is therefore increased.

 

[Ebor]

Having been in a conservative episcopal group (The ICCEC, no affiliation with the ECUSA or the Anglican church), I never understood those conservative episcopalians that want to "fight from within". Can't they see that 'the glory has departed" is written above the door of every episcopal church??

Umm, no.  I would suggest that perhaps those who are not part of a Church body may not see some things that are still there.  May one ask if you were ever part of ECUSA before you were with the ICCEC? 

They should just become Orthodox,

How?  As EO?  The WRO are thin on the ground and controversial at times to other EO to boot. 

They should just come on home to the Orthodox church

How can a place be "home" if one has never lived there?  I've written this before, if at some future point the only place I believed I could go was the EO it would not be "home" but an exile. 

One may live in a foreign place, come to terms with it and even perhaps settle down.  But at least for some it would never be Home.



Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Ebor, if I offended you in any way I am sorry. The word "chick" was meant to describe the behavior of this supposedly educated cleric. I didn't use the word "airhead" although that's what she came off as, or as a "Valley Girl" from the 80's.

There is a difference between looking at her ideas as being conflicted or illogical and using perjoratives and labels of disdain on another person.

If I met her face to face I'd probably say, "what the heck are you thinking?"

And if it were phrased like that, it is likely that the woman would get the impression that you didn't really want to know her thoughts, but had already had a negative view of her.  How do you react when someone you don't know might address you that way?

I mean what else can you say? Beside the fact that her soul is in danger, this is utter stupidity.

"How do you reconcile the Trinity with the Muslim view of God?" "What do you base your beliefs on?" "Who do you believe Jesus to be?" "How do you look on some of the practices involving treatment of women in some parts of the world such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?" 

I can think of others.  Asking people questions about what they think or believe as opposed to being accusatory.

As for the comment about the liberal, PC yuppies,  I have a couple of stern Michael Moore type liberal kids and they wouldn't buy this! They are closer to the idea that all religions are dangerous than to be stupidly enamoured with such syncretism. I also do not think your average working guy would buy this either. So who is left? The affluent late boomers who are certainly are not conservative in doctrine and whose PC dogma would make them ripe for something like this.

But unless you personally have experience with that Cathedral/diocese and its people you have made generalizations and perjorative remarks about human beings that you do not know anything about.  Your opinions about who might or might not be part of the Episcopalians in that area are not the same as the real people. 

Ebor, I don't know if you can love everyone into the kingdom or into orthodox dogma. Sometimes, if supposedly educated people won't accept the law of non-contradiction (Christianity and Islam cannot both teach the truth about God) maybe they need to be upset a little bit.

And the possibility of 'upsetting' a visitor to this forum with such remarks will then convince them that EO is correct? 

You are correct in that if these people were sitting in front of me I would be more tactful, but I would at some point be compelled to tell them the utter absurdity of their position in this matter. And it might not be the nicest thing to say to them because their very worldview would be offended by the assertion of absolute truth. In fact that very assertion may be more offensive to such a mindset than any name one could call them.

Perhaps if you were sitting down with someone one with such ideas, you might listen to them as well as talk so that you could find out what lead to them to such things. Then that could be addressed rather then just preaching at them.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Why does everything have to be politicized? This has nothing to do with politics, it's about bad theology and bad doctrine. Christ is neither a conservative nor a liberal. If the best argument you can come up with against what this woman teaches is that it is the kind of doctrine held by "well educated PC types", then you sound like you are praising ignorance and poor education. (And by the way, you misspelt "education". ) If you think her doctrine is wrong, say why it's wrong. It's wrong because it is the heresy of Arianism, not because she is a  "liberal" (which you have no way of knowing anyway).

An excellent post, OzGeorge.  Thank you for this.

And what is the difference? This isn't an accusation, but rather an examination of why we do the things we do. Why is it that we feel we can say things tactlessly in a public forum available to anyone on the internet, yet would be more tactful in person? Why should the anonymity of an internet forum make any difference to how we behave towards others as Christians? Do we think that we will not be held accountable on the Day of Judgement for what we have said on this forum simply because we typed it into a computer?
"Virtual life" troubles me. The idea that we are somehow allowed to be a "different person" online to the one who was baptised a Christian when we are in internet forums simply because we go by a username rather than our baptisimal name is hersesy as far as I can see. We can only have one hypostasis, not two.

A friend of mine come up with a name for the situation of people on line acting differently then they do in person: "CRT Induced Personality Disorder"    If there were an applause emoticon here, I would be using it for the above paragraph.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Sorry ebor, something became garbled. In my previous post: "I didn't say that individuals of the diocese are anti Christ but that the diocese is (being-unquote) anti Christ to endorse apostacy.

Thank you for clearing things.  I would suggest that we do not know if the diocese does "endorse" apostasy.  She does not seem to have any office or job with them, from what I have found.  We don't know what, if anything, has been said with the Bishop.  We are on a 'Net forum, and are not intimately involved with diocesan operations.  But it's all too easy to make declarations about things of which little is known. 

Any Christian communion calling itself such should  have any minister defrocked for embracing anti Christianity; is this not just common sense?

We don't know what might be happening or whether she will resign her orders or what.  It would seem at the moment that she is not functioning as an Episcopal priest.  Sometimes just waiting to see what happens is a good idea.

I have communicated to an anguished Episcopalian blogger (different but similar matter- unquote) (and I should talk to more) offering the Western rite of Orthodoxy of the Antiochian diocese as an option;

:-\

she needs prayer.

And on that we can agree, but then again, we *all* need prayer.

With respect,

Ebor

 

[Schultz]

And what is the difference? This isn't an accusation, but rather an examination of why we do the things we do. Why is it that we feel we can say things tactlessly in a public forum available to anyone on the internet, yet would be more tactful in person? Why should the anonymity of an internet forum make any difference to how we behave towards others as Christians? Do we think that we will not be held accountable on the Day of Judgement for what we have said on this forum simply because we typed it into a computer?
"Virtual life" troubles me. The idea that we are somehow allowed to be a "different person" online to the one who was baptised a Christian when we are in internet forums simply because we go by a username rather than our baptisimal name is hersesy as far as I can see. We can only have one hypostasis, not two.

In concert with Ebor, I applaud you, sir!

As someone who once spent alot of time on another messageboard picking fights with people and being generally mean on the internet whilst being not-so-mean in real life (but still generally sarcastic), I can only say that it took a while to realize the paradox I was living, but once I did, I found it was incredibly easy to make amends, at least to the point of a non-escalation truce, of sorts.  Being a recovered IA (Internet A...... (you fill in the blanks) takes some time and you really have to force yourself to not hit that "Post" button immediately after typing something in the big white box. 

You are who you are and you should be putting that forth on the internet.  A good rule of thumb that I've learned to follow is to imagine my mother standing in the room.  If I wouldn't say what I'm thinking in that way around her*, I shouldn't be posting it on the internet. 


* This transcends the "what" I'm saying as opposed to the "how" I'm saying it, which I think is more important.

 

[lubeltri]

How can a place be "home" if one has never lived there?  I've written this before, if at some future point the only place I believed I could go was the EO it would not be "home" but an exile. 

One may live in a foreign place, come to terms with it and even perhaps settle down.  But at least for some it would never be Home.

Ebor, that all goes back to that quaint fairy tale about England being EO before 1066.

 

[Aristocles]

Ebor, that all goes back to that quaint fairy tale about England being EO before 1066.

Not EO, but Orthodox until the native bishops were replaced by Latin ones.

 

[lubeltri]

Not EO, but Orthodox until the native bishops were replaced by Latin ones.

Still a fairy tale. Pre-conquest England was not Orthodox as EO define it.

 

[Aristocles]

Still a fairy tale. Pre-conquest England was not Orthodox as EO define it.

That IS your story and I'm sure you'll stick to it. 

 

[recent convert]

If the fathers of the EO church consider King Edward the Confessor an Orthodox saint, then Saxon England was Orthodox.

 

[lubeltri]

And WE count St. Edward the Confessor as a saint as well. That also makes Anglo-Saxon England Catholic, according to your logic. And why not? East and West were not formally divided yet.

I'm talking about the silly myth about pre-1066 England being closer to Constantinople than to Rome. My eyes glaze over when I hear that bedtime story peddled, turning what was a dynastic dispute into a religious one. The myth also rests on the historically dubious date of 1054.

 

[recent convert]

And WE count St. Edward the Confessor as a saint as well. That also makes Anglo-Saxon England Catholic, according to your logic. And why not? East and West were not formally divided yet.

I'm talking about the silly myth about pre-1066 England being closer to Constantinople than to Rome. My eyes glaze over when I hear that bedtime story peddled, turning what was a dynastic dispute into a religious one. The myth also rests on the historically dubious date of 1054.

Just in a de facto sense; I wasn't implying it was Camelot.

 

[lubeltri]

Just in a de facto sense; I wasn't implying it was Camelot.

I for one am glad we can both venerate St. Edward the Confessor.

 

[Ebor]

Not EO, but Orthodox until the native bishops were replaced by Latin ones.

Ummm, I'm not sure as to what you mean by "Latin" bishops.  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells of various abbots and bishops going to Rome and of bishops recieving their Pall from the Bishop of Rome.

"A.D. 989. This year died Abbot Edwin, and Abbot Wulfgar succeeded to the abbacy. Siric was this year invested archbishop, and went afterwards to Rome after his pall. "

"A.D. 1007. In this year was the tribute paid to the hostile army; that was, 30,000 pounds. In this year also was Edric appointed alderman over all the kingdom of the Mercians. This year went Bishop Elfeah to Rome after his pall."

"A.D. 1022. This year went King Knute out with his ships to the Isle of Wight. And Bishop Ethelnoth went to Rome; where he was received with much honour by Benedict the magnificent pope, who with his own hand placed the pall upon him, and with great pomp consecrated him archbishop, and blessed him, on the nones of October. The archbishop on the self-same day with the same pall performed mass, as the pope directed him, after which he was magnificently entertained by the pope himself; and afterwards with a full blessing proceeded homewards. Abbot Leofwine, who had been unjustly expelled from Ely, was his companion; and he cleared himself of everything, which, as the pope informed him, had been laid to his charge, on the testimony of the archbishop and of all the company that were with him."

Here is a translation of the AS Chronicle.  If wanted, the original language is also available on-line 
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/angsax/angsax.htm

Robert of Jumièges, a "Norman" was made the Bishop of London in 1044 and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1051-1052.  He was a close friend of Edward the Confessor. 

Here's one link.  Others can be provided if desired:
http://www.britannia.com/bios/abofc/rjumieges.html

Anglo-Saxon England looked to Rome for it's consecrations.  There was much crossing of the Channel by Britons, Normans, and others.  It was not some isolated situation.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

If the fathers of the EO church consider King Edward the Confessor an Orthodox saint, then Saxon England was Orthodox.

There have been other threads on the forum on this (and yes, I have been part of them since one of my hobbies is Anglo Saxon history, literature and language.  One may say that Anglo Saxon England was Catholic and the records show that it was linked to Rome. 

The labels of "Orthodox" and "Catholic" now have, shall we say, connotations and meanings that were and are not applicable to before the Schism, I don't think.    Anglo Saxon England was Christian and one of the parts of Christendom.  The Norman Conquest, as can be read of in such primary sources as the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, was political not religious.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

And WE count St. Edward the Confessor as a saint as well. That also makes Anglo-Saxon England Catholic, according to your logic. And why not? East and West were not formally divided yet.

As do the Anglicans.

I'm talking about the silly myth about pre-1066 England being closer to Constantinople than to Rome. My eyes glaze over when I hear that bedtime story peddled, turning what was a dynastic dispute into a religious one. The myth also rests on the historically dubious date of 1054.

Were you here on the forum when this was discussed before?  I'm sorry, but I've forgotten. 

Ebor

 

[lubeltri]

Were you here on the forum when this was discussed before?  I'm sorry, but I've forgotten. 

Ebor

I do not remember. Perhaps I was. I have heard it before in other places, but always from Orthodox polemicists and nowhere else---certainly not from scholars, save a certain Vladimir Moss, a former Anglican who is now part of a small Russian Orthodox schismatic group. This zealot pitches this propaganda to Anglicans so they leave their supposedly bankrupt tradition and come "home" to Orthodoxy (of course, not the Orthodoxy of the heretic-ecumenist-modernist-popish-freemason EP and MP (and ROCOR) but that of the "true" Orthodox).

 

[lubeltri]

Ummm, I'm not sure as to what you mean by "Latin" bishops.  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells of various abbots and bishops going to Rome and of bishops recieving their Pall from the Bishop of Rome.

"A.D. 989. This year died Abbot Edwin, and Abbot Wulfgar succeeded to the abbacy. Siric was this year invested archbishop, and went afterwards to Rome after his pall. "

"A.D. 1007. In this year was the tribute paid to the hostile army; that was, 30,000 pounds. In this year also was Edric appointed alderman over all the kingdom of the Mercians. This year went Bishop Elfeah to Rome after his pall."

"A.D. 1022. This year went King Knute out with his ships to the Isle of Wight. And Bishop Ethelnoth went to Rome; where he was received with much honour by Benedict the magnificent pope, who with his own hand placed the pall upon him, and with great pomp consecrated him archbishop, and blessed him, on the nones of October. The archbishop on the self-same day with the same pall performed mass, as the pope directed him, after which he was magnificently entertained by the pope himself; and afterwards with a full blessing proceeded homewards. Abbot Leofwine, who had been unjustly expelled from Ely, was his companion; and he cleared himself of everything, which, as the pope informed him, had been laid to his charge, on the testimony of the archbishop and of all the company that were with him."

Here is a translation of the AS Chronicle.  If wanted, the original language is also available on-line 
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/angsax/angsax.htm

Robert of Jumièges, a "Norman" was made the Bishop of London in 1044 and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1051-1052.  He was a close friend of Edward the Confessor. 

Here's one link.  Others can be provided if desired:
http://www.britannia.com/bios/abofc/rjumieges.html

Anglo-Saxon England looked to Rome for it's consecrations.  There was much crossing of the Channel by Britons, Normans, and others.  It was not some isolated situation.

And, of course, we haven't even mentioned the Western theology (though, like I've said before, I believe theological differences were not truly responsible for the Schism).

 

[Ebor]

I do not remember. Perhaps I was. I have heard it before in other places, but always from Orthodox polemicists and nowhere else---

Yes, I've seen it, and written about it myself.

certainly not from scholars, save a certain Vladimir Moss, a former Anglican who is now part of a small Russian Orthodox schismatic group.

I can assure you that I am familiar with Mr. Moss and his writings.  :-\  I knew that he is English, though that does not guarantee that he was Anglican; the interview with him that can be read on-line only mentions that he came from "the family of a British Diplomat".

I would not consider him any kind of scholar of history.  By his own words his degrees were in philosophy and psychology, and he has not demostrated that he is qualified in interpreting or teaching true History.  A particularly egregious case is his promotion of the "Deathbed Prophecy of Edward the Confessor" that has serious differences from the one quote on the  New Advent site which includes the document that it comes from.  Mr. Moss' version does not. It also has historical errors in it.

If you are thinking of ROAC as his currant jurisdiction, the last I knew he'd left them too.

This zealot pitches this propaganda to Anglicans so they leave their supposedly bankrupt tradition and come "home" to Orthodoxy (of course, not the Orthodoxy of the heretic-ecumenist-modernist-popish-freemason EP and MP (and ROCOR) but that of the "true" Orthodox).

Yes, I am of the same view on this and the aim.  I also don't buy it and regard the continued promotion of such things as the undocumented and erroneous "Prophecy" as a lie to try and lure people in.  Using such a thing to try and get people to join one's group is hardly showing of the group's Truth and righteousness.

Ebor

 

[lubeltri]

I would also say that the Norman and Plantagenet kings were often much more hostile to papal jurisdiction than their Anglo-Saxon predecessors (though certainly part of that was because of the dreadfully weak papacy of the 10th century---however, knowing Normans, they would have simply dominated the popes had they not been figures like Gregory VII, Urban II, and Innocent III). Under Vladimir Moss's logic, kings like William Rufus, Henry II and John were Orthodox (they may have been, depending on which century you place the final break of communion between East and West  ).

 

[lubeltri]

If you are thinking of ROAC as his currant jurisdiction, the last I knew he'd left them too.

Where does one go after leaving that group?

 

[BrotherAidan]

Ozgeorge and Ebor
I obviously touched a nerve and offended you both. For that I apologize. If you only knew how much time I normally spend (too much) composing and editing and modifying most of my longer posts , you would realize that I don't have all that much of a posting personality vs. real personality. Occassionally, however, I try to get cute or clever and get myself into trouble.

I would like to think that, overall, I attempt to be tactful, repectful and polite in my posts, so I plead for a "mulligan" here!

Any visitors who my posts on this subject might have offended, I likewise apologize.

 

[Aristocles]

Ummm, I'm not sure as to what you mean by "Latin" bishops.  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells of various abbots and bishops going to Rome and of bishops recieving their Pall from the Bishop of Rome.

"Latin" as the Pope himself encouraged those invading forces to aid in bringing the local bishops in line with Rome or more usually their replacement with his bishops.

"A.D. 989. This year died Abbot Edwin, and Abbot Wulfgar succeeded to the abbacy. Siric was this year invested archbishop, and went afterwards to Rome after his pall. "

"A.D. 1007. In this year was the tribute paid to the hostile army; that was, 30,000 pounds. In this year also was Edric appointed alderman over all the kingdom of the Mercians. This year went Bishop Elfeah to Rome after his pall."

"A.D. 1022. This year went King Knute out with his ships to the Isle of Wight. And Bishop Ethelnoth went to Rome; where he was received with much honour by Benedict the magnificent pope, who with his own hand placed the pall upon him, and with great pomp consecrated him archbishop, and blessed him, on the nones of October. The archbishop on the self-same day with the same pall performed mass, as the pope directed him, after which he was magnificently entertained by the pope himself; and afterwards with a full blessing proceeded homewards. Abbot Leofwine, who had been unjustly expelled from Ely, was his companion; and he cleared himself of everything, which, as the pope informed him, had been laid to his charge, on the testimony of the archbishop and of all the company that were with him."

Here is a translation of the AS Chronicle.  If wanted, the original language is also available on-line 
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/angsax/angsax.htm

Robert of Jumièges, a "Norman" was made the Bishop of London in 1044 and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1051-1052.  He was a close friend of Edward the Confessor. 

Here's one link.  Others can be provided if desired:
http://www.britannia.com/bios/abofc/rjumieges.html

Anglo-Saxon England looked to Rome for it's consecrations.  There was much crossing of the Channel by Britons, Normans, and others.  It was not some isolated situation.

Ebor

Thanks for this additional info. But of course an Anglican such as yourself will view history from an Anglo-Saxon perspective. Not all the isles were A/S.

 

[Aristocles]

And WE count St. Edward the Confessor as a saint as well. That also makes Anglo-Saxon England Catholic, according to your logic. And why not? East and West were not formally divided yet.

I'm talking about the silly myth about pre-1066 England being closer to Constantinople than to Rome. My eyes glaze over when I hear that bedtime story peddled, turning what was a dynastic dispute into a religious one. The myth also rests on the historically dubious date of 1054.

It not a matter of being "close" to any eastern bishop, but one of being 'close' to Rome which many pre-1066 bishops were not.

 

[Aristocles]

And, of course, we haven't even mentioned the Western theology (though, like I've said before, I believe theological differences were not truly responsible for the Schism).

Now on THAT we can agree. There was/is no theological basis for papal supremacy. Most of the theological differences between E & W became evident or were developed in Rome after 1054.

For the record, I have always held that the schism was not FINAL until Vatican I.

 

[lubeltri]

It not a matter of being "close" to any eastern bishop, but one of being 'close' to Rome which many pre-1066 bishops were not.

And many post-1066 bishops were not too, depending on whether they were under the thumb of a Church-bullying king.

Once again, these battles were political, not religious. Otherwise, under such logic, the guy in the left of this picture was Orthodox:

You can have him if you want him, though it doesn't change my point