The Fall of Orthodox ENgland

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We are blessed to have a priest who knows this subject well. He is from England and recently went to St Mary’s in Greenville, SC and gave a wonderful talk on it!
stmarysgvl.org/discipleship/adult-sunday-school
It can be tricky to find so I hope the link works.
Really, nothing is better than listening to an Englishman give a talk on Englishman!
LOL!
-d-
 
Gregory_I said:
For an historically accurate picture of the church in england up to 1066, read THIS. Very enlightening as to the true nature of the papacy.

uk.geocities.com/guildfordian2002/AngloSaxon/FallOrthodoxEngland.htm#_ftn31
Click to expand...
Not really enlightening. It’s an interpretation, no doubt, which likes to stress certain particular facts while dismissing other facts relevant to a proper interpretation of the history. For instance, he states that the archbishop of England was “banned and denounced as schismatic by Rome.” Apparently, this is suppose to mislead us into thinking that the archbishop was “Orthodox” and that the bishop of Rome was excommunicating Orthodox bishops left and right for no good reason. In fact, the reason that the archbishop of England (actually, of Canterbury), was excommunicated is because he was holding the bishopric of TWO DIFFERENT SEES, and would not repent, which is an excommunicable offence according to the ancient Canons of the Church.

Just that fact alone should clue people in on the rather unscholarly and polemic nature of the essay. Anyway, read the essay with caution, and take everything it says with a grain of salt.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I haven’t really studied Vladimir Moss, but I’m not so sure about Francis of Assisi being a “madman.”
 
Vladimir Moss’s opinion is that Francis’ spirituality was basically reckless. All of the fathers’ warnings about fleeing from visions that can lead to spiritual delusion are simply set aside by Francis. He has no problem not only accepting but embracing visions, which may or may not be demonic in origin.

Simply put, he fails to make any effort of discernment. Consequently his ‘random’ actions like preaching to birds and beasts are exactly the kind of thing that the fathers warn us of. Now, I admit there is such a thing as a fool-for-christ, but even that seems different from Francis. Francis’ spirituality seems to be pretty much the new mold for the roman catholic spirituality after the 12th century…

Mardukm, I am not sure I subscribe to the idea of him being a madman, but can we say…not as discerning as he could have been? I am just anticipating your response. 🙂
 
I quote : “Not really enlightening. It’s an interpretation, no doubt, which likes to stress certain particular facts while dismissing other facts relevant to a proper interpretation of the history.”

Well now don’t we all do that Mardukm? lol. I am sure that Roman catholic apologists aren’t always 100% honest about the fraudulent donation of Constantine or the pseudo-Isidorian False Decretals or the Nature of Honorius’s condemnation AS DESCRIBED BY THE COUNCIL CONDEMNING HIM. THat’s a whole other topic though.

However, we should all strive for truth. I admit a certain polemical bent, which really is a passion I must overcome; Clogs the brain and fuels confusion. But I DO strive for accuracy: I am not simply posting to be contrary, I really want to be truthful and expose as much of history as possible to the light of truth: Not Historical revisionism either by The Orthodox or by the Romans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top