Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine

[MahogonySnail]

Why does he have to dress like an al qaida terrorist? Is it the latest fashion, he doesnt like to wash or iron his shirts, or?

 

[Ryan1976]

Why does he have to dress like an al qaida terrorist? Is it the latest fashion, he doesnt like to wash or iron his shirts, or?

Depends on the Priest and the region. Some have beards, others don't. Some have long hair, others short. Some are short, others tall. Some have wives, some don't. Some manage to keep their clothes wrinkle free, others not-so-much.

According to Starbucks, perhaps they are "terrorists". Watch out Christmas Blend. Them Orthodox monks have their eyes on you.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGkTvkpo6as&feature[/video]

 

[Ryan1976]

Below you'll find a link to the book, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: an interplay between theology and society. Written by, John S. Romanides

I haven't read all of this yet. I'm also not quite sure what to make of it. The following videos are a discussion about the book. With all the people spouting histories about Roman Catholicism etc., you would benefit from watching this discussion which discusses the history and puts some of the early Christian "empires" into new context. I'll need to dig a bit further but if true this is a real eye opener.


[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SjbC3wvuqY[/video]

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGq36fu8Cwc&feature[/video]

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU2ln0UBYHM&feature[/video]


I've only posted the first three videos of the discussion. There are several more that continue the conversation but I have to wonder if anyone will actually watch all of these, let alone any of these.

Here are the links to more of the discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtPRl9cvbcc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us_ja_nj5e8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyGMOoEuIjg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAl9Si4eFo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d3y6vOGKsk&feature=related


Here's the introduction of the booklet followed by a link to much if not all of the book:



INTRODUCTION

In the background of dialogue and the Ecumenical Movement for the reunion of Christendom lies the generally recognized fact that there is an interplay between theology and society, which may lead to a dogmatic formulation and become the cause of doctrinal differences.

Within the Roman Empire doctrinal conflicts took place usually among Roman citizens in a atmosphere of religious and philosophical pluralism. With the official recognition of Orthodox Christianity, we witness the beginning of the use of doctrinal differences in support of nationalistic movements of separate identity and secession from Roman rule, both political and ecclesiastical. Both Nestorianism and so-called Monophysitism, although initially promoted by Roman nationals, were finally supported by separatist tendencies among such ethnic groups as Syrians, Copts, and Armenians. Indeed, both Persians and Arabs took care to keep Christians separated.

By the eighth century, we meet for the first time the beginning of a split in Christianity which, from the start, took on ethnic names instead of names designating the heresy itself or its leader. Thus in West European sources we find a separation between a Greek East and a Latin West. In Roman sources this same separation constitutes a schism between Franks and Romans.

One detects in both terminologies an ethnic or racial basis for the schism which may be more profound and important for descriptive analysis than the doctrinal claims of either side. Doctrine here may very well be part of a political, military, and ethnic struggle and, therefore, intelligible only when put in proper perspective. The interplay between doctrine and ethnic or racial struggle may be such that the two can be distinguished, but not separated.

The schism between Eastern and Western Christianity was not between East and West Romans. In actuality, it was a split between East Romans and the conquerors of the West Romans.

The Roman Empire was conquered in three stages: 1st by Germanic tribes who became known as Latin Christianity, 2nd by Muslim Arabs, and finally, by Muslim Turks. In contrast to this, the ecclesiastical administration of the Roman Empire disappeared in stages from West European Romania (the Western part of the Roman nation), but has survived up to modern times in the Roman Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

The reason for this is that the conquerors of the West Romans used the Church to suppress the Roman nation, whereas under Islam the Roman nation survived by means of the Church. In each instance of conquest, the bishops became the ethnarchs of the conquered Romans and administered Roman law on behalf of the emperor in Constantinople. As long as the bishops were Roman, the unity of the Roman Church was preserved, in spite of theological conflicts. The same was true when Romanized Franks became bishops during Merovingian times and shared with Roman bishops church administration.



CLICK HERE TO READ THE BOOKLET