Orthodox Britain? Some thoughts on the Norman Conquest Part II

The issue of the Filioque had been causing theological debates for at least half a millennium. The fact that The Council of Hatfield in 680 A.D. accepted the procession of the Spirit from the Son into it's creed further relates the acceptance of the Filioque in England. Why is this significant? Possibly, because this may refute the claims of many Eastern Orthodox Christians that pre-1066 England was an Orthodox country. On the other hand, the Filioque's acceptance in England may not disprove England having been an Orthodox country as many Western Christians long before 1054 recited and believed in the Filioque while still being honored by the Orthodox as true Christians. Still, even if the Orthodox claim that England was once Orthodox, this evidence of the Filioque's acceptance into the Creed at Hatfield does perhaps disprove the notion that the Anglo-Saxons of King Harold Godwinson were in fact Orthodox Christians resisting Roman Catholic oppression from the Norman Conquest. Perhaps the only legitimate way then the Orthodox could legitimately claim pre-1066 England as Orthodox would be to admit the non-heretical status of the Filioque in the Western Creed, a position unlikely to gain acceptance in many Orthodox circles.
According to Samuel Willard Crompton, Pope Alexander II supported the Normans as he had studied in Normandy in years prior. Pope Alexander had also been the first pope according to Crompton to have been chosen by the college of cardinals rather than the Holy Roman Emperor. William of Normany promised to clean up the abuses of the English Church and even put England under the authority of the pope. Duke William of Normany was out to make The Church of England be submissive to the papacy.  Why is this significant? Because this points to evidence that the papacy knew many of the Anglo-Saxons did not hold to the type of papal primacy that was growing more and more. The Roman Catholics could of course claim that the conquest was just political rather than theological but history seems to say otherwise. William of Normany was given a blessing from the pope and even a papal banner. The Duke of Normany used Pope Alexander's support to his advantage by making his conquest of England a holy war, a sort of Crusade.  This fact could demonstrate that even pre-1066 Anglo-Saxon England wasn't an Orthodox country but also that it may very well have not been a Roman Catholic one either.
 Whether the Normans or the Saxons were right is the subject for another post. My opinion based on these historical facts, though my opinion may indeed change later, is that pre-1066 England was neither Orthodox or Catholic, at least not in the ways we see those Churches today. Pre-Anglican? The claims made by some the Anglicans that The Church of England was always free from Papal Jurisdiction until 1066 does provoke some deep thoughts. But for now, that subject is for another time. 
Further Sources: Hastings by Samuel Willard Crompton, Anglo-Saxon England Volume 15 by Peter Klemoes, 1066: The Year of Conquest by David Howarth.

A Review of The Canterbury Tales: The Reeve's Tale

After The Miller's Tale is told, which mocks a Reeve, The Reeve decides to get back at the Miller by telling a story about a corrupt miller. As goes the first verse from The Reeve's Tale: 
                                        ''At Trumpington, nat fer fro Cantebrigge,
                                         Ther goth a brook and over that a brigge,
                                          Up-on the whiche brook stant a melle;
                                          And this is verray soth that I yow tell. ''

The Reeve's Tale is about a miller that steals from many. The miller was called ''Scornful Simkin'', and all were frightened of him. He is described as being able to play bagpipes, and fish, and make nets, along with other handy things.   Early on in the story, two rascals and foolhardy scholars by the names of John and Allen are looking for a little entertainment and mischief for themselves. They go to the miller's mill to see if he will rob them. Indeed, the miller steals the two men's horse. Later on in the story, the two men fight the miller and beat him before stealing his wife and daughter.
 While that is the story in a wrap up, I also found much satire here. The miller's wife who is proud like him, is called madame by by all. Of noble blood, she is the daughter of a Catholic priest {sounds like Chaucer is again bringing out a bigger message than what is simply contained in the text.}
 There are always morale lessons that I have found in Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. I guess the morale of this tale was that if one takes from others so it will be done to them. As Proverbs says, ''Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall be not depart from his house. '' Chaucer's theme in The Miller's Tale is to not expect good if one gives to others evil as the miller did.
 I have been reading all The Canterbury Tales contained in the Barnes and Noble edition, which includes almost all of them.  The Reeve's Tale was not contained in The No Fear Canterbury Tales, so I used The Canterbury Tales from Barnes and Noble Classics for this one. To read the full Canterbury Tales in Middle English Books a Million has a hardcover copy with the full stories, though it is the only one I currently know of. Most copies of The Canterbury Tales only include some of the stories in Middle English, or all the stories in modern English. Sadly, most people don't seem to read the full stories that Chaucer wrote except professors of English or Medieval Literature lovers like me.
It is good to return back to my series of The Canterbury Tales, which unfortunately was delayed by much business that I had going on for a while. I've said many times that The Canterbury Tales is my favorite work of English Literature. I was glad to learn and know, that both C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien loved these stories. These tales have lasted the test of time and have inspired many famous English writers such as Charles Dickens and J. K. Rowling. Geoffrey Chaucer was a student of the Franciscan John Wycliffe at Oxford University, and according to the Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor, Chaucer was a Lollard, a follower of Wycliffe. It is no wonder then that Chaucer's stories survived as an inspiration to the Protestant Reformation. The scandalous characters of the Canterbury Tales, including occasional church clergy, are more or less occasions of satire for Chaucer to convey a bigger theme and message than even the many laughs to readers the stories give. I just find Chaucer so entertaining and funny. His occasional crude humor is foundation to many of his stories, and his wit is necessary to them.

Some New Thoughts on Beowulf Part I

As I have been making my way through The Nortan Anthology of The Middle Ages, I have come across the story of Beowulf to read again. I have used the translation of Seamus Heaney. I won't get much in literary or historical detail here, but will save that for a future post.

 Beowulf was written between the 8th and 11th centuries. The epic poem is as important to Old English Literature as Virgil's The Aenied is to the Roman Literature, or as The Iliad and The Odyssey are to to the Greek Literature. The poem mixes Christian and pagan symbolism to an important literary level that is irreplaceable among the English canon of literature. 

 Although an Anglo-Saxon poem, the story is really more about a kingdom north of Britain.

 There are really three villains of this story.

Grendal, the first villain, is described as the descendant of Cain, and a fiend out of hell. When Beowulf defeats Grendal though Grendal's mother returns for vengeance against Beowulf and then Beowulf has to defeat her in battle as well.
 Later in the story, Beowulf fights on his greatest foe: a fearsome dragon. The battle ensues the beast's death but also Beowulf death as well.
 I will be getting into more detail about the Beowulf stories in the upcoming weeks. For me, this is quite the fantastical story though not one of my favorites. It's hard for me to mention English Literature though without mentioning C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien. Lewis preferred post-Chaucer English Literature while Tolkien preferred pre-Chaucer literature. While I enjoy English Literature both before and after Chaucer, I generally like English Literature from Chaucer's time better than the literature of England before it. Thus, my preferences are possibly a little closer to C. S. Lewis than J. R. R. Tolkien. That could change for me no doubt though. Tolkien was offended that many scholars saw Chaucer as the beginning of English Literature when he knew well it's roots go back to the Anglo-Saxons. No doubt, Tolkien was right. Still, for me though, Geoffrey Chaucer has always been ''The Father of English Literature. '' I need say no more than of my strong preference of The Canterbury Tales over Beowulf.  Beowulf is a good story of a hero's quest against monsters, but in terms of being an epic poem, I find it inferior to Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey.
 No matter how exciting or dry {though to me it's not dry} Beowulf is, it is a landmark in English Literature as Homer's stories were for the Greeks.
 Check out Beowulf. If you have read it before, I recommend reading it again. I will be describing the story and it's themes in more detail in the following weeks. 

A Catechism of Defending the Crusades and other aspects of the Medieval World Part V

Objection 21: Did Medieval Christians believe in Roman Catholic teaching?
Response: Medieval Western Christians commonly refereed to themselves as Latin Christians. The term ''Roman Catholic,'' became more common later during the Protestant Reformation by Anglicans that insisted those loyal to the Bishop of Rome were not the only true Catholics. Much more could be said of what Catholic or catholic actually means according to various theologians but that is outside the present discussion.
While there are many similarities between the Medieval Latin Church and present mainstream Catholicism, there are many huge differences as well.  For example, Medieval Latin Christians saw Muslims as infidels though many of the present popes have spoken well of Islam. Vatican II taught in it's document on non-Christians that Muslims worship the one God, a view alien to Latin Christianity as it existed in The Middle Ages. *
 Also, the medieval church did not have near as many dogmas as the current Roman Catholic Church. For example, it would not be until the Council of Trent that the Doctrine of Faith Alone would be anathamized, despite the fact that Saint Bernard and William of Ockham had taught long before the Protestant Reformation the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Ultimately, many of the theological issues that divide Catholics and Protestants today were largely not defined until the Protestant Reformation.
 On a final note, it is quite significant that many medieval Christians were concialirist, a position once held by the Latin Church at the Council of Constance. This view held the belief that the church is collectively higher than the papacy alone. However, as the centuries went on, the Roman Church would gradually teach more and more authority of the pope. Vatican I would do away with the earlier views in 1870 and bring in the controversial dogma of Infallibility of the Pope.
 It's interesting to note that the Concilarists were mostly from northern Europe as would be the later Protestants. Although this be another subject, I have often argued that the major split between Rome and the Protestants of the Sixteenth century was actually more about the authority of the church and of the pope in particular, than the debate over Justification by Faith Alone or Faith and the Sacraments. The descendants of  the Concialirist then, were the Protestants.
 It's interesting to observe that many medieval theologians did not believe in The Immaculate Conception of Mary. Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Saint Bernard, and Albert the Great all believed the virgin Mary was free from personal sin though she was born with original sin. *

Objection 22: Were Medieval People Ignorant?
Response: Not not at all, for more information read The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature by C. S. Lewis and Positively Medieval: The Surprising, Dynamic Church of the Middle Ages by Jamie Blosser. Besides, how ignorant could Medieval people have been to make some of the greatest architecture found in cathedrals, castles, and mills the world has ever known? People often just make claims whether they are true or false just because they heard it without ever thinking and investigating otherwise. Saint Augustine of Hippo and Saint Thomas Aquinas lived in Medieval Times and were some of the most influential theologians in history. Geoffrey Chaucer is has been called ''The Father of English Literature'', John Wycliffe translated The Latin Vulgate into English, Michelangelo was possibly the greatest artist the world has ever known. I could go on an on about great intellectuals and artist from the Middle Ages that laid foundations to he western world we now live in.

 Objection 23: Hasn't The Catholic Church apologized for the Crusades?
 Response: I have heard of conflicting accounts about whether or not Pope John Paul II did this. Regardless, it would be dangerous to hold to the theology of so heretical a pope, that kissed the Koran, and prayed for Saint John the Baptist to protect ''the good form of Islam.''

Objection 24: Haven't the Crusades caused the Muslims to hate Christians?
Response: No, not at all. Muslims have hated Christians since the rise of this false religion based on the heretic Muhammad.

Objection 25: Were women mistreated in Medieval Times?
Response: This one is so very broad that it's hard to pinpoint. Further, women have always been mistreated. However, Christian women were treated much better in Medieval Times than Muslim Women were, despite claims by leftist saying otherwise. Some Medieval women even wrote books etc. Medieval Women also took part in Crusades, some only in the Pilgrimages of Crusading, though others actually fought.
 Chivalry has contributed significantly to women's happiness, and this theme is found throughout Chaucer's stories. The Medieval World promoted many of the values of chivalry that was found in the actions of many knights towards women. Perhaps more universities should take more notice of these latter facts.
 Further Sources: Damsels Not in Distress: The True Story of Women in Medieval Times by Andrea Hopkins, The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature by Elizabeth Kantor.

Objection 26: Did the Medieval Latin Church withhold the Bible from the common man?
 Response: Until the Late Middle Ages there was no printing press, and access to the Bible was much more difficult than today. Even church clergy only had access to chapters of the Bible, which were produced by the hard work of Monks in their monasteries. We owe the Monks of the past much credit for preserving the Bible that we can now easily buy and sell. Contrary to myths, there were both Catholics and Protestants that wanted a Bible in the Vernacular.
 Long before the printing press, peasants were catechized in the Scriptures and creeds by Catholic priests.
 Further Sources: The Catechism of Trent.

 Objection 27: Should the Medieval Latin Church have owned so much land and money?
 Response: The debate over Apostolic Poverty led to the Proestant Reformation. William of Ockham, an English Franciscan, was arguably the first Protestant. Ockham's theology, while never having went as radical as did the later Luther and Calvin, was the one that got the Protestant Reformation going.
 John Wycliffe, a Franciscan scholar at Oxford, was influenced by William of Ockham. Both Ockham and Wycliffe attacked the Roman Church from going away from the doctrine of Apostolic Poverty, which they saw as essential to Christianity.
 Whichever side one takes in the debate of Apostolic Poverty, grand churches were built to honor God. The abuse of clergy's ownership maybe attacked with good reasons, though not the prestige of the church's artwork found in her cathedrals, parishes, and chapels, in reminding her children of the beauty of the Christian Faith.

 Objection 28: But were not the Middle Ages the ''Dark Ages''?
 Response: This maybe the case to liberals, but more commentaries of the Bible were written in Medieval Times than any other era. Medieval Christians also knew much more about Science than is commonly admitted. Last, medieval man, also knew the Scriptures more than is commonly admitted.
 Further Sources: The Abacus and The Cross: The story of the pope who brought the light of science to the dark ages, God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World laid the foundations of modern science by James Hannam.

 Objection 28: Don't White Supremacist use Medieval Symbols?
 Response: Again, this one is true though unfortunate. However, the fact that people misuse the cross does not take away it's significance.

Objection 29: Were the hierarchy of of the Medieval Church corrupt?
Response: This is one of those things that people over generalize. It's like saying all Baptist are like Westboro Baptist. This is an unfair statement as there has always been good and bad church leaders in every era of church history. Over generalizations in anything are usually from ignorance or bias.

Objection 30: The Protestant Reformation was the Catholic Church's fault.
Response: I mostly agree, but that does not mean that some Protestants have the right to go to the extremes that some of them did and still do.


*Though some try to claim Pope Gregory VII taught Muslims and Christians worship the same God that too is beside the present discussion. Further, some modern Catholic apologists have twisted the words of Pope Gregory VII to imply Muslims worship the one True God. Finally, many Catholic apologist ignore the fact that Gregory supported what Pope Urban II would later call for in The Crusades. For more information on Gregory VII's relationship to the Muslims see Pope Gregory VII 1073-1085 by H.E. J. Cowdrey.
*Saint Thomas Aquinas also denied the Immaculate Conception, though some Catholic apologist claim that he later recanted this view.

A Catechism of Defending The Crusades and other Aspects of the Medieval World Part IV

Objection 13: The Crusades were fought by greedy lords that desired land and money above faith.
 Response: Again, this can go back to judging men's hearts. Based on their actions, some crusaders no doubt did it for wrong reasons. However, many crusaders did it for the reasons of the faith including, but no limited too, the brave and pious Godfrey of Bouillon. After being elected king after the capture of Jerusalem by the crusaders in 1099, Godfrey refused the title, possibly taking the the ''Defender of the Holy Sepulcher,'' instead. Godfrey also refused ''To wear a golden crown where his Savior had worn a Crown of Thorns.'' Godfrey was not alone, many others crusaders were also pious and brave, and their actions implicated these traits with how they defended the weak.

 Further Sources: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer.
 Objection 14: We should love like Christ did instead of hate.
 Response: Absolutely, and that is why the crusades were needed! The Muslims did not change when the Franciscans tried to convert them in the fourteenth century. If it had not been for the crusades, the Muslims would have man-slaughtered Latin Christians all the ways into the deep west. One of the evidences of this fact, is that all the eastern churches which did not call for a crusade against the Muslims eventually lost all of their lands. Christ never preached pacifism, but rather that He came to earth on behalf of sinners.

 Sources: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Crusades by Robert Spencer.

 Objection 15: Even if the Crusades were right, shouldn't we just avoid talking about good about them?
 Response: Truth does not change, though culture does. Sexual immorality and abortion are now accepted by many professing Christians though all Christians would have abhorred it before the 1930s. Christians should be proud of the heroes of the faith that lived before us, and we Western Christians should honor the roots of our faith in Western Civilization, knowing that it has held more firmly to Christianity than any other Civilization in the history of the world.
 We ought to expect the world to hate us, as it hated our Lord first. Let us not conform truth to soften Christianity for this very anti-Christian world we now live in.

Objection 16: Should the crusaders have given the Holy Land to the Jews as the Jews are God's chosen people?
 Response: First off, who are the Jews? Many of the Jews in Medieval Art had red hair and there has been some theories that the Jews settled in Northern Europe such as Scotland and other countries. Still, this question is hugely important, and whether one is Dispnsationalist, or believes in replacement theology, this needs to be addressed. For obvious reasons, this question and answer may only be applicable to those of the Zionist beliefs.
 Saint Bernard may share some light on this issue, as he refers to the Jews as God's chosen people despite the fact that he took part in the second crusade of 1147-1149. Here are his actual words:
 ''It is noble of you to wish to go forth against the Ishmaelites; still, whoever, touches a Jew as to lay hands on his life, does something as sinful as he had laid hands on Jesus Himself! My disciple, Rudolph, who has spoken against them to exterminate them, has preached only unrighteousness, for concerning them stands written in the book of Psalms, "Do not kill them, let my people not be forgotten!'' {Psalm 58}.
 Bernard also wrote this second letter to clergy in France: 
 ''We have heard, and we are gladdened, that the zeal of God renders you fervent, but is absolutely necessarily that the moderating rule of knowledge be not lacking. The Jews must not be persecuted,  they must not be slain, they are not even to be put to flight. Put you quires to those divine pages; I have known what is said in the Psalm as a prophecy concerning the Jews, says the church; ''as for my enemies, do not kill them, let my people not be forgotten.'' {Same Psalm as above}.

So even in these passages, Saint Bernard sees the Jews as God's chosen people even though he is a crusader. The fact that the crusaders wanted to establish a Christendom on earth, largely based on Augustine's City of God, does not take away any theological implications that one may interpret being found in the scriptures as applied to the Jews.
 Sources: The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages by Edward A. Synan.

Objection 17: Were not Indulgences abused during the crusades?
Response: First of all this would again not prove that the crusades were morally wrong. Second of all, while indulgences go back to the days of the early church, the payment of them is another story. Third, indulgences reached their height of abuse just shortly before the Protestant Reformation, which was centuries after the crusades to the holy land were over with. Besides of all of this, the topic of indulgences deserves another whole discussion.

 Objection 18: The church does not have the right to wage a war, but the state does.
 Response: Says who? Scripture does not teach this. As shepherds of the Christian flocks, the popes felt the responsibility and urge to encourage the nobility to go on the crusades. Though peasants also volunteered by thousands for the first crusade, the pope did not intend crusading to go for them.
 It is interesting to note that even deacons helped the Americans fight America's War of Independence against Britain. This concept of churches can't call upon clergy to assist or help in a war, or that clergy should say nothing about promoting people to go to war, is alien to the Holy Scriptures. Finally, the pope did not commands the armies of the kingdoms of Europe; the nobility did. But the pope did see himself as head of all Christians which also explains his morale involvement in the affairs of Europe. While the Templars and Hospitallers were at the disposal of the church, many crusaders were actually soldiers of their own kingdoms.

 Objection 19: Why did the popes force their Christian religion upon the Muslims?
 Response: This has already been answered. Not once in his speech at Clermont France in July of 1095, did the pope command Christians to force Muslims into Christianity, contrary to myth and media.

 Objection 20: What about the Crusades fought against heretics in Europe?

 Response: The word ''crusade'' has become over time quite broad meaning essentially any holy war. Whether or not you agree with them, Roman Catholics and many Protestants alike, historically burned those that they deemed heretics at the stake. This was all done because of the worldview on their part. To many Christians of the past, leaving a heretic alive, would allow heresy to spread and kill a soul. Heresy, the killing of the soul, was seen as more evil than the killing of the body. The Puritans of the seventeenth century felt they had to drive the ''papist,'' from their land. Some have called these Puritan conquest crusades as well. Saint Augustine supported punishing anyone that did not hold to the Catholic Faith, and it would be hard to ignore the Augustinian influence on Medieval Latin Civilization.

 Further Sources: The Political Writings by Saint Augustine of Hippo, England and The Crusades: 1095-1588 by Christopher Tyerman, Ireland 1649-52: Cromwell's Protestant Crusade by Michael McNally and Graham Turner, Cromwell: The Portrait of a Soldier by John Gillingham.

 

Orthodox Britain? Some thoughts on the Norman Conquest Part I

 The Bayeux Tapestries do quite good at illustrating the Norman Conquest of the Anglo-Saxons and the battle of Hastings in particular. For centuries before 1066, England had been under Anglo-Saxon rule, often with very friendly relations with Christian Rome. Indeed, many in Britain came to Christianity through the evangelizing of Saint Augustine of Canterbury as commissioned by Pope Gregory the Great in 597 A. That said, we know from archaeology and art that Christianity has existed in Rome since at least the first century. The church father Tertullian actually said that Christianity had reached Britain before Roman arms had done so. Who evangelized the Celts we are not sure of though. Over the years, theories about Coptic Christians Christianizing the Britannians have been common. Some Roman Catholics on the other hand reject such theories, claiming Britain's Christianity has it's true roots in Rome alone.   
There is so many theories nowadays that sometimes it is hard to separate fact from fiction. Hopefully, the truth will come out about this one. I was recently reading from some Orthodox Christian sources about what they believe was an Orthodox Christian Britain until 1066 A. D.

The book Saint Paul in Britain by R. W. Morgan covers what it claims are the historical origins of Orthodox Christianity in the British Isles. In fact, the book claims Britain was even Christian before Rome! Over the years I have read articles from both Roman Catholic and Orthodox perspectives on this issue of debate. Whether or not Britain was Orthodox or Catholic before 1066 is the issue of some debates and conspiracies. For many years I pretty consistently believed Britain had always been Roman Catholic. More recently, I have began to think otherwise.  I expect this post to be a controversial one but I've never been short of addressing issues of the type.
 First off, Celtic Christianity and Roman Christianity had nearly clashed a few times, such as when to practice Easter. By the Council of Whitby however, both had agreed on the date, as the Celts submitted to Rome's teaching on the date of Easter.
 I have found little reason to think many Celtic Christians thought theologically different than the Roman Christians had. If they did, I will address that later on. While some Celtic Christians were like Pelagius, others were greatly influenced by the Romanized Saint Patrick.
 But assuming Roman and Celtic Christianity were theologically similar, I now go forward to the Norman Conquest in the 11th century. By the way, I highly recommend Historian David Howarth's book 1066: The Year of the Conquest.
 Pope Alexander II gave William, duke of Normandy, permission to invade England. According to Howarth, this was because the pope wanted England as his own domain and was thus using William I to achieve that end, though William had no such intention to make Britain the pope's vassal. The pope gave William a banner and ring as significance for his support of the Norman invasion.
 An interesting point to remember is that the Anglo-Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, held more than one diocese. While this maybe claimed as a justification for the pope's blessing for William's invasion of England, it doesn't take note of the fact that many other bishops in Europe had more than one diocese as well. In fact, the authority of multiple bishoprics by certain individuals would continue for a very longtime. Not until the Council of Trent would do away with this practice in the sixteenth century would it stop. Another argument made against Archbishop Stigand was that he had not been canonically elected to his office by the pope's approval, but then again no Anglo-Saxon bishop had in centuries. Why now would the pope suddenly care? What was it that inspired Pope Alexander II to approve of the Norman Conquest. 
 The importance of all of this information begs now to ask, why would the pope then approve of Archbishop Stigand being deposed and be replaced with what would eventually be Italian successors. Some Orthodox Christians claim it's because England was one of the last Orthodox countries in Europe and therefore Rome was out to have it conquered and suppressed. One of the evidences that the Orthodox Christians use for their belief is that some of the Saxons fled to Russia, an Orthodox country after the Norman Conquest. Some Anglicans have suggested that Anglo-Saxon Britain was actually a pre-form of Anglicanism, and that when Henry VIII broke ways with Rome in 1534, he just reestablishing the old English Church's independence from Rome that had long been suppressed.
 All these theories are interesting. As mentioned earlier, Anglo-Saxon Britain had had quite a good relationship with Rome, but was that changing in the 11th century as popes further advanced papal supremacy?  This question needs to be advanced further, and hopefully all that study it will be more faithful to the historical facts than their church's dogmas in dictating history.
 The Anglo-Saxons would come to live under Norman rule for centuries after the Norman Conquest. Many of them would live as Peasants under what is commonly called The Feudal System. Strife between England and Rome would come to be however, but not strongly until the fourteenth century with John Wycliffe and the Lollards.
 Were the Anglo-Saxons Roman Catholic or Western Rite Orthodox? Neither? Were the Anglo-Saxons independent of both in their own form of Christianity? John Smyth, one of the founders of the Baptist, claimed that the Anglo-Saxons baptized by immersion. Does this add to anything that could have theologically put Britain more with the Orthodox, whom were known to baptize by immersion commonly? Pope Gregory the Great had allowed baptism by immersion, so perhaps the issue of the mode of baptism gives no details as to where England stood theologically before 1066? Indeed, much still needs to be researched on why Pope Alexander II approved the Norman Conquest of Britain.

   Further Sources: A History of the Church in England Third Edition by J. R. R. Moorman, 1066: The Year of Conquest by David Howarth, Saint Paul in Britain by R. W. Morgan, The True Story of John Smyth, The Se-Baptist, As told by himself and his contemporaries; with an inquiry whether dipping were a new mode of baptism in England, in or about 1641; and some consideration of the historical value of certain extracts from the alleged ''Ancient Records'' by Henry Martyn Dexter, Baptism through the Centuries by Henry F. Brown.

A Catechism of Defending The Crusades and Other Aspects of the Medieval World Part III

Objection 9: Why did the Crusades not start until four hundred years after the rise of Islam?
 Response: In reply to the first part of this objection, especially in relation to the Latin Christians, it has already been answered by the previous statement. In other words, the violence of the Seljuk Turks towards the Latin Christians was particularly what brought on the Crusades. However, in relation to the Eastern Christians it should be noted that the west was still recovering from the barbarian raids in the north that had helped bring an end to the Roman Empire.
 Further Sources: The Usborne Time Traveler Book of Knights and Castles by Judy Hindley, Rome at War: A.D. 293-696 by Michael Whitby.   

 Objection 10: Did the medieval church first try to evangelize the Muslims before initiating The Crusades?
 Response: The medieval Latin Church was quite evangelistic throughout much of it's history. Even when paganism had essentially taken over most of Europe in the early middle ages it was monks from both Rome and Greece that evangelized much of Europe back to Christianity. Frequently, open air preaching was a common form of evangelism among friars in the Medieval Eras for example.
 The fact that the Roman Church had to first evangelize the Celts, the Saxons, and the other people groups of Western Europe partly explains the fact that the Roman Christians were tied up with events in Medieval Europe. With such business in the west this may have contributed such success to Islam's successful rise to conquest in the east. If anyone is to blamed for a lack of evangelism towards the Muslims, it would be the Greek Christians, whom more commonly submitted to the Muslims than had the Latin Christians. Aurelius and Natalia were two Christians put to death in A.D. 852 for not submitting to Islam. A Christian monk by the name of George, spoke against the prophet Muhammad, and was also put to death with Aurelius and Natalia.
 Saying that the crusades were morally wrong because the Muslims should have been evangelized instead, is a weak argument primarily because even if the medieval church had not evangelized the Muslims, it would not have made the crusades morally unjust. For example, America was right to trample the Nazis in World War II, a war that President Eisenhower had called a ''holy war. '' World War II would have been morally just whether or not the Nazis had been evangelized.
 Further Sources:  The Medieval World: The Illustrated History of the Middle Ages by Anita Baker, Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims by Frank W. Rega.

 Objection 11: The Scriptures should not have been used to justify The Crusades.
 Response: The Holy Scriptures teach a time and place for capital punishment and just war
{ Ecclesiastes 3: 8. , Romans 13 }. Still, for the record, the medieval church rarely, if ever, actually used the book of Joshua to defend the crusades. In fact, the books of Maccabees were used more commonly to defend the crusades because the Hebrews in first and second Maccabees are fighting to take Jerusalem back from the Greeks. King and Saint Louis IX, did justify the Crusades in a particular letter by using the story of Joshua and the Hebrews. But again, Maccabees was more commonly used for the justification of the Crusades.
 It should also be noted, and as talked about in a previous post, contrary to myth, Pope Urban II did not tell the crusaders to kill all those that inhabited Palestine. The pope's command at Clermont France in July of 1095, was that the Christians should recapture the Holy Land.  The pope only wished the infidels to be slain if they did not forsake the holy places. Thus, the pope did not preach
some false gospel, or in any way claim the same authority or power that God had given particularly to the Hebrews in Joshua when they killed all in their path. 

 Objection 12: Unlike the Book of Joshua, the crusades were not called by a divine act of God, and therefore they had no right forcing the Muslims into their faith. Some of this was already addressed in the previous post. Further, nothing in Scripture claims for a war to be considered holy or proclaimed holy that God must first initiate it by an outward act of His divine will. Governments according to Scripture have the right to carry the sword to protect their peoples. As was explained earlier, it was the Muslims  Seljuk Turks that had made their wars with the Western Europeans and started the whole history of religious conflicts between Christians and Muslims to began with.
 Further Sources to the above answers: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades by Robert Spencer.

A Review of Quest of the Holy Grail Part III

Today's post will cover chapters three and four of The Quest for the Holy Grail. I will first lists the plots of these chapters before sharing my personal thoughts.
 In Chapter Three of The Quest for the Holy Grail Galahad and Melias come to an abbey. A monk of the abbey promises to heal Melias's Wound. He tells the two knights that the devil did desire Melias's downfall. After all this, Melias gives Galahad permission to continue on the quest as he stays behind.
Galahad journeys off and finds a chapel in the mountain where he prays. He is told by a voice to to the castle of the maidens and sweep away its evil.An old man on the road tells Galahad though that the castle of the maidens is cursed. Despite the warning to not go hither, Galahad does anyways and fights off attackers at the bridge to the castle without killing any of them. A White haired man then hands Galahad the keys to the castle. The maidens rejoice that Galahad has saved them.
 With the battle over, the maidens of the castle strip Galahad of his weapons. The White haired man that gave Galahad the keys to the castle is revealed to be a priest. Galahad asks this priest how the maidens came to be captive and the priest responds telling a long story how this became son.
 The knights that Galahad had vanished had previously asked the former duke of the castle to let them in. Foolishly, the duke did so, and later at dinner a quarrel erupted. The lord of the castle along with one of his sons are then killed and his eldest daughter is taken prisoner. These invading knights then take over all the land and seize the treasure of the castle.
 When the story told by the priest is done, Galahad asks if the woman that was the eldest daughter of the duke is still alive, to which he is answered that she is not. Galahad restores the castle to the woman's younger sister however. Galahad then learns that the seven brothers that had taken the fortress have been killed in battle by fighting Gawain and other Arthurnian knights. Next, Galahad returns to his weapons and to his journey. 
 So ends the third chapter of The Quest for the Holy Grail. The fourth chapter then switches to the whereabouts of Sir Gawain and his company of knights.
 In Chapter Four of  The Quest of the Holy Grail, it tells us that Gawain had seen nothing spectacular previously to his fight with the seven brothers in battle. Before this battle Gawain had came across the same abbey that Galahad had went too, and learned of all that Galahad and learned and experienced from there. He then asks the monks the road that Galahad took and takes it himself. He then later finds the abbey where Melias was wounded from battle. He and the knights crossed ways with the seven brothers at the castle of the maidens. Here, the two companies fight in battle until three of the seven brothers are killed in the first joust of the fight. Gawain and his company then finish the rest off by blade.
 The story then shows us that Gawain meets up with a priest at a chapel where the knight takes refuge. Gawain is rebuked here by the priest for having killed the seven brothers. The priest makes mention of the fact that Galahad was not as rash with the sword as was Gawain for Galahad had defeated the seven brothers in battle without spilling unnecessary bloodshed.  The chapter then ends with Gawain returning to his journey while switching back again to Galahad for the fifth chapter.
 So ends the fifth chapter of The Quest for the Holy Grail.

My thoughts of these chapters are chiefly that none should be quick with the sword to execute vengeance. Also, that Hollywwood's portrayal of this story or any Arthurnian piece of literature, is often quite different from the original work! 
 Galahad is truly in every way a character for all Christian men to emulate. His fruits of the spirit are many, and his holiness is rich and deep. Those characteristics alone are avenues and callings for us to live up too.