|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 7, 2016 20:58:22 GMT -5
Recently this was discussed among two homeschoolers that I know: pemptousia.com/2016/10/harold-ii-the-last-orthodox-king-of-england/Is this bizarre, or what? I can't even fathom with mental gymnastics and possible lies that one must tell themselves to even justify this. Are they completely ignorant of the history of England? I'm aware that different rites existed and over the course of time many things were changed and codified. I just cannot see any evidence for this from what I know of English history, and even in artwork, that the rites used in England at this time even resembled those of the East, and beyond that, that there were any connections to the Oriental heretics.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Oct 7, 2016 22:30:35 GMT -5
Seems utterly bizarre. I don't have much to say except to simply issue a claim of denial against a fantastic claim. Some initial thoughts beyond just "how could we not know this?" lie in the fact that there isn't much cultural evidence for adhesion to Orthodoxy. House Godwin's crest is prototypical Anglo Saxon. Harold only married Catholics (unless we got that wrong, too!). He succeeded Edward the Confessor, which seems unlikely were he a non-Catholic (I.e, his claim would have been met with much more effective internal resistance).
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Oct 7, 2016 22:37:23 GMT -5
Ok, I get it. The claim comes from the assumption that prior to the Norman invasion, all of England was Orthodox. That sounds absurd (and is) but from the Orthodox pov, the wording makes more sense when you consider they don't see Catholicism as being a thing until the schism. William of Normandy brought the papist religion to the British isles, is their claim. Absurd, considering that the region had already experienced St. Patrick, St. Augustine, St. Bede, St. David, etc. Here's a link: orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 7, 2016 23:21:52 GMT -5
Ok, I get it. The claim comes from the assumption that prior to the Norman invasion, all of England was Orthodox. That sounds absurd (and is) but from the Orthodox pov, the wording makes more sense when you consider they don't see Catholicism as being a thing until the schism. William of Normandy brought the papist religion to the British isles, is their claim. Absurd, considering that the region had already experienced St. Patrick, St. Augustine, St. Bede, St. David, etc. Here's a link: orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_EnglandThe person discussing goes to a Romanized version of an OS church, named after the first saint you mentioned above, which I also find odd. I've never seen the likes of such among the "Orthodox" until recently, but I guess it makes sense in their alternate universe.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Oct 8, 2016 0:28:24 GMT -5
Ok, I get it. The claim comes from the assumption that prior to the Norman invasion, all of England was Orthodox. That sounds absurd (and is) but from the Orthodox pov, the wording makes more sense when you consider they don't see Catholicism as being a thing until the schism. William of Normandy brought the papist religion to the British isles, is their claim. Absurd, considering that the region had already experienced St. Patrick, St. Augustine, St. Bede, St. David, etc. Here's a link: orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_EnglandThe person discussing goes to a Romanized version of an OS church, named after the first saint you mentioned above, which I also find odd. I've never seen the likes of such among the "Orthodox" until recently, but I guess it makes sense in their alternate universe. I remember in college during an early Brit Lit course (an otherwise enjoyable and useful course aside from what I'm about to mention) the professor and the text seemed to construct some sort of artificial tension between the "Christianity of Patrick" and the "Christianity of Augustine," emblemized by the Synod of Whitby, which rather unremarkably decided that the Irish monastics should observe the Roman rites of tonsure rather than their own particular Gaelic custom. Augustine "won" at the council (again, this is all very vague and not particularly accurate since both had died by the time the council came about in the first place) and St. Patrick's "notion of Christianity" was lost. A bunch of humdrum over a minor point of discipline, exaggerated to represent some deep rift, and imply some lost and archaic sympathetic Christianity stifled by Roman oppression. Heh. Anyways, this idea of English Orientalism reminded me of that. The Orientals should take that class, they'd realize that papists have been running the British Isles since St. Augustine "beat" St. Patrick!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 8, 2016 9:44:01 GMT -5
The orthoducks can and will say anything that makes them look good. In essence they act like jews...we Catholics being the role of "goy"
|
|