The healthy wyrdness of the anglo-saxons

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Every culture of the world has their wyrdness and contemporary humanity doesn’t appreciate it. I’ve read many classics but I’ve never read Beowolf. I’ve also never read Tolkien. But I’m very familiar with Keats and Colleridge.

I think the author should broaden his view with indigenous people who are still closely attached to nature. The nineties and the tech boom and the internet have changed the world dramatically. Contemporary man is having a hard time catching up. Then if Climate Activist are correct in eighty years there will be calamity around the world with various places being untenable to live. I think of the Australian Fires.

May God, the Son, and the Divine Mother be with all of us across cultures around the world. As the world changes may we know how to change with it and what to change with it and what to preserve. I suggest preserving simplicity, family values, and the Bible in our Catholicism. All the while we become a more connected world confronted by other world views.
 
Well, the Angles and the Saxons weren’t strictly indigenous, since they came from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. But they were closely attached to nature, and they did become Christian, and brought the English language to England, beginning with Old English. But it took the Norman Conquest to transition to Middle English and then modern English. I’m glad we don’t still speak Old English.
 
Anglo-Saxon England may have been profoundly Catholic eventually but it should be remembered that the Celtic nations were Christian a good time before. It’s a sad case of ‘history written by the victors’ that England is regarded as the cradle of Christianity in the UK.
 
I don’t know if the Anglo-Saxons should get credit for beong the cradle of Catholicism in Britain. I guess you are right about the Celts.

I’ve always been of two minds about the Norman conquest though. I’ve always doubted that William had the right to march over from Normandy and make himself King of England. But I’m glad of that infusion of Norman French into Old English. Otherwise Chaucer would probably have sounded more like German than English.
 
AngelusDomini said:
Anglo-Saxon England may have been profoundly Catholic eventually but it should be remembered that the Celtic nations were Christian a good time before. It’s a sad case of ‘history written by the victors’ that England is regarded as the cradle of Christianity in the UK.
Click to expand...
Yes there is somewhat of the old sense of ‘supremacy’ peeping through the authors perspective. The richness of Catholic mysticism largely comes from the Irish Church who established its Christianity on the bedrock of the Celtic spirit. So many of the holy sites in Ireland are directly built on sites already sacred to the people. The indigeonous people of Ireland were regarded as inferior by nature. Cromwell even referred to them as ‘white negroes’ and attacked them and their Churches and sacred places as if they were nothing more than animals.

Until more recent times Irish Catholicism has been a great preserve of what the author calls an “unbroken cultural continuum” of the Catholic anamnesis.
 
I think they mean “weirdness”. I wonder why it’s typed like that.
 
I always refer to Mother Mary as the Divine Mother. I rely on the Rosary and the Divine Mother quite a bit. Our local Church has a steeple before her statue. Always makes me cry when I read this line from John:

John 19:25-29 New King James Version (NKJV)
Behold Your Mother
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

So, I’m sorry if it brings offense to you. But for me it’s standard. In prayer I go directly to God or to Mother Mary. It’s a regional difference in America. Again, I live in a diverse Blue State where in Churches it is common to see her image. So, please don’t shame me. I wasn’t raised in a house of shame.

Again, I gave up porn at 27 now I’m 38. Live a celibate life attend Mass weekly, pray the Rosary and Divine Office. I’m planning to up my contributions by working for Catholic Charities. So, just consider it a regional difference; while there is an Evangelical community where I live I find they are loving and open accepting people. We are not in the Bible Belt.

So, yah, just a regional difference. You may live surrounded by more Evangelicals who are critical of the Church. I’ve never encountered them but only online. The only places I’ve lived are California, Manhattan, and London. So, I don’t know what your experience is what part of America you come from but I really feel good about Mother Mary.
 
Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. As a human being (thus not divine by nature such as angels) her being able to bear birth to the Son of God is a wonderful and great effort and above all other women that ever were and ever will be, ever.
It is not within Church teaching to name Theotokos divine as it diminishes her own efforts and puts her in parallel with the false feminine deities of the idols and that is very offensive to her (since she is truly a Saint right after Christ while those deities are a construction of lies, they can’t be compared to her). The idols are magical by the powers of the Enemy and aim to delude people from the truth, while Theotokos performs miracles through the Gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not respectful to her to name her with the names of the idols because she takes us to the truth while idols take us to darkness and lies.
 
Thanks Mary. I thought I was treating Mother Mary with utmost respect. But your explanation was clear and concise. May I call her the Holy Mother? I need a name for her that treats her with utmost height of Honor among all men and women who have ever existed. If I may, even above the Saints. Thanks for the correction. So, would Holy Mother be fine? Is there a better title?
 
I’m never sure whether “Celt” or “Celtic” should be pronounced with a hard “k” sound, How did the Celts pronounce it?
 
JimG said:
Well, the Angles and the Saxons weren’t strictly indigenous, since they came from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia.
Click to expand...
This is the classic interpretation based on reading of recorded history, but in recent years DNA stuidies have shown this to be at least partly untrue and that these invaders must have mixed with the indigineous population rather than killing them or driving them away as there is still a very high proportion of indigenous British (pre-Roman) DNA in all parts of England today. More so than Saxon or Viking DNA.
 
Last edited:
Salibi said:
I think they mean “weirdness”. I wonder why it’s typed like that.
Click to expand...
I think wyrd has nothing to do with weird but more to do with wild and connected to / and / or aware of nature.

In (old) Welsh it also means green.
JimG said:
I’m never sure whether “Celt” or “Celtic” should be pronounced with a hard “k” sound, How did the Celts pronounce it?
Click to expand...
I think it depends on which Celts.

The Celts were / are quite a disparate group with different and quite distinct languages.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top