XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox   
   From: theswain@sbcglobal.net   
      
   Steve Hayes wrote:   
      
   >   
   > Rome itself was regarded as Orthodox until 1054. Bede lived long before then   
   >   
      
   And?  You failed to address a single question I asked.  And who considered   
   Rome Orthodox until 1054?   
   Where did you get that idea?  There are so many differences between Rome and   
   Byzantium between   
   700-1100--one, and only one small, example is the iconoclast controversy and   
   its theological and   
   political aftermath is something that never touched Rome, ever.  Had some   
   significant impact in   
   Byzantium and the East though.  I'm sorry, but your position here is simply   
   historically wrong.   
      
      
   > But, tp reiterate, it was Andelm, and Archbishop appointed by the Normans,   
   > whose work marked a radical break with Orthodox theology. And his theology   
   > spread even to Rome.   
      
   Reiteration doesn't make it true.  All over the West there are theologians who   
   works are not in   
   agreement with Orthodox theology, even in Anglo-Saxon England.  The whole   
   system of penance for   
   example that developed in the West, begun by the Irish and the Anglo-Saxons   
   has nothing comparable   
   in the Orthodox tradition at the time. Nothing at all.   
      
   >   
   >   
   > Anselm's theology was based on the the medieval code of chivalry, which was   
   > also evident in the Arthurian cycle of Geoffrey of Monmouth and other   
   writers.   
      
   How do you get from Cur Deus Homo? to chivalry?  How do you proceed from the   
   Ontological argument to   
   chivalry?  How do we go from the substitionary theory of atonement to   
   chivalry?  And whose   
   chivalry?  Different authors have different ideas of what that means.    
   Geoffrey has no Arthurian   
   cycle, he has some stories about an Arthur and the cup of Christ that he   
   includes in his work.  Its   
   not a cycle.  And he doesn't comment on its theology, but on it historicity.   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   > Were the ideals of chivalry equally present among the pre-conquest   
   > Anglo-Saxons? And can you suggest suitable sources of that if it was so?   
   >   
      
   Ah, and this reveals the logical fallacy under which you are operating.  You   
   equate chivalry with   
   non-Orthodox theology as if a) it were the only non-Orthodox theology b) as if   
   chivalry were the   
   seperating point between the Eastern church and the Western and c) and you ask   
   for an anachronistic   
   reading.  These are all false premises:  there are significant differences   
   between East and West   
   that makes the West, including the Anglo-Saxons and Irish, unOrthodox, and   
   chivalry certainly wasn't   
   the sticking point.  One of the sticky points was the phrase in the creed that   
   the Holy Spirit   
   proceeded from the Father and the Son---a phrase first introduced at the   
   Council of Toledo in the   
   500s and quickly caught on in the West, never and always rejected in the   
   East....the point of   
   contention in fac t in 1054.   
      
      
   >   
   > --   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)