Re: The Orthodox didn't need an inquisition because they had the monks of Mount Athos to mind things
- It wasn't Mnt. Athos it was the czar (lol).
Ask the Old Believers.
--- In email@example.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! :-)
> Can you please explain this not needing an inquisition because we
> 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
> 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
> 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
> church even!
> In Christ
- 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
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 whichWhy is it a ghastly example? It is a real example of a survival of a
> escaped the reformers and the Book of Common Prayer because everyone was
> terrified of removing something that might have to do with the Royal
> The upcoming Maundy Thursday rite is a ghastly example.
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.
St Ives, Cambridgeshire