XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
From: hayesmstw@hotmail.com
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 00:41:42 -0500, Larry Swain
wrote:
>
>
>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.
Can you show the relevance of your questions to King Arthur and the Grail
stories? Where does Bede mention them?
>> 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.
It's the other war round. Anselm got from the private law of his own place and
period, based on "satisfaction of honour" to "Cur Dueus homo?"
He was doing what modern Western theologians call "contextualisation".
But, as I said before, the question raised by Robert Carter01 was to do with
the King Arthur stories, and the Grail, and I suggested that it might be
connected with the changing Eucharistic theology in the West at that time.
>> 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.
And this reveals the logical fallacy unwe which you are operating: the straw
man.
I do not equate chivalry with non-Orthodox theology. Please don't tell me what
I think.
If you want to discus it and exchange information and opinions, let's
continue.
If you want a pissing contest, include me out.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
