XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: theswain@sbcglobal.net   
      
   Thanks for the clarification, but that makes him even more in the wrong then.    
   By the time   
   of the Norman Conquest the Irish church had long, long before (and calling it   
   the Irish   
   church is problematic) conformed to Roman practice.  Most of the Anglo-Saxon   
   churches had   
   been Roman in the first place, considering Gregory the Great as the apostle of   
   the   
   English, and certainly by the mid-eleventh century after the Benedictine   
   Reform and Edward   
   teh Confessor, there was really no hint of anything other than Roman   
   Christianity.   
   And just where did Byzantium (the center of Greek Orthodoxy at the time)   
   consider the   
   English and Irish churches as "Orthodox"?  The creed both were reciting was   
   the one with   
   the filioque clause.   
      
   ljs   
      
   Flame of the West wrote:   
      
   > Larry Swain wrote:   
   >   
   > >>(2) The Norman Conquest took place 12 years after the schism. From an   
   Orthodox   
   > >>point of view, the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Churches were Orthodox. The   
   Norman   
   > >>Conquest was in a sense therefore the conquest of Orthodoxy.   
   > >   
   > > Not really....William appointed his own bishops and only later did he   
   subscribe to   
   > > the Roman position--and his son still had to assure the pope that they'd   
   tow the   
   > > line.  The Anglo-Saxon church was quite orthodox and had earlier in the   
   century gone   
   > > through a major reform, the Benedictine Reform, that was in large part   
   influenced by   
   > > Abbo of Fleury--Fleury is a monastery in Normandy.   
   >   
   > You seem to mean "orthodox" where Mr. Hayes means "Orthodox" as in   
   > "Eastern Orthodox."   
   >   
   > -- FotW   
   >   
   > Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)