Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Orthodox didn't need an inquisition because they had the monks of Mount Athos to mind things

Expand Messages
  • nataliemoreau2000
    It wasn t Mnt. Athos it was the czar (lol). Ask the Old Believers. -N ... have the ... one of the ... ridiculous. I have ... guess if one ... surprised by ...
    Message 1 of 74 , Nov 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      It wasn't Mnt. Athos it was the czar (lol).

      Ask the Old Believers.

      -N

      --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, Lampada <lampada@e...> wrote:
      >
      > > I have been told that the
      > > Orthodox didn't need an inquisition nor an office for
      > > the "Doctrine of the Faith" because they had the monks
      > > of Mount Athos to mind things... Oh, that the
      > > Lutherans had them too...
      > >
      > >> A nice person once asked the bishop: what should we
      > >> not eat for Lent?
      > >> He answered: Each other!
      > >
      > > LOL! It's so true!!! Canabalism--metaphorical or
      > > literal--should be anathema to us... Many people hear
      > > Christ's command to love one another by serving each
      > > other as Christ first served them, but then they try
      > > to serve each other up... Rare, medium-well, or well
      > > done! :-)
      > Friends,
      > Can you please explain this not needing an inquisition because we
      have the
      > monks of Mount Athos to mind things. I do not understand. That is
      one of the
      > reasons I became Orthodox by the way, because we did not have an
      > inquisition.
      >
      > I also appreciate this discussion of 'cannibalism'. It is
      ridiculous. I have
      > no interest in eating my brother for dinner. That is foul...I
      guess if one
      > is used to such vileness one comes to expect it. I am frankly
      surprised by
      > the splitting of hairs in regards to liturgical things, but I
      should not be.
      > You should hear my priest and my reader go at it about the
      Typikon! In
      > church even!
      >
      > In Christ
      > Olympiada
      >
    • Simon Kershaw
      ... I don t think this is correct, but perhaps you can cite some evidence to prove me wrong. Certainly Wikipedia agrees with my assertion that Queen Anne was
      Message 74 of 74 , Mar 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Douglas Cowling wrote:
        > Actually, the last monarch to "touch" was William IV in the 19th century.

        I don't think this is correct, but perhaps you can cite some evidence to
        prove me wrong. Certainly Wikipedia agrees with my assertion that Queen
        Anne was the last, and Googling turns up a number of other pages that
        say the same.

        This page cites Brewer's Dictionary

        http://www.bootlegbooks.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/data/707.html

        ------
        King's Evil Scrofula; so called from a notion which prevailed from the
        reign of Edward the Confessor to that of Queen Anne that it could be
        cured by the royal touch. The Jacobites considered that the power did
        not descend to William III. and Anne because the “divine” hereditary
        right was not fully possessed by them, but the office remained in our
        Prayer-Book till 1719. Prince Charles Edward, when he claimed to be
        Prince of Wales, touched a female child for the disease in 1745; but the
        last person touched in England was Dr. Johnson, in 1712, when only
        thirty months old, by Queen Anne.
        ...
        The practice was introduced by Henry VII. of presenting the person
        “touched” with a small gold or silver coin, called a touchpiece. The one
        presented to Dr. Johnson has St. George and the Dragon on one side and a
        ship on the other; the legend of the former is Soli deo gloria, and of
        the latter Anna D:G.M.BR.F:ET.H. REG. (Anne, by the Grace of God, of
        Great Britain, France, and Ireland Queen.
        We are told that Charles II. touched 92,107 persons. The smallest
        number in one year was 2,983, in 1669; and the largest number was in
        1684, when many were trampled to death. (See Macaulay's History of
        England, chap. xiv.) John Brown, a royal surgeon, had to superintended
        the ceremony. (See Macbeth, iv. 3.)
        ------

        Note the comment, in answer to an earlier query, about the Young
        Pretender touching someone in 1745.

        > Royal ceremonies ar full of pre-Reformation liturgurical detritus which
        > escaped the reformers and the Book of Common Prayer because everyone was
        > terrified of removing something that might have to do with the Royal
        > Prerogative.
        >
        > The upcoming Maundy Thursday rite is a ghastly example.

        Why is it a ghastly example? It is a real example of a survival of a
        Maundy ceremony in truncated form. And it ensures that Maundy Thursday
        gets mentioned on the tv every year, which can't be entirely bad. It is
        a pity that the sovereign no longer washes feet though.

        simon

        --
        Simon Kershaw
        simon@...
        St Ives, Cambridgeshire
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.