No Mantzikert disaster?

married people can become monks/nuns in orthodoxy too but they must have the consent of husband/wife first...
A previously married monk can be selected as Bishop... according Canon Law since by becoming a monk his marriage is considered dissolved... Widowers (sic) monks can become bishops too...
There is a special case for divorced monks (practically IMPOSSIBLE but in theory a divorced monk could become a Bishop)
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Ahoj! Ascetism, celibacy, monks - all these are EASTERN inventions.
Monasticism comes from Egypt, to be sure, but I would argue that asceticism and celibacy are present already in Paul, to a certain extent, and are later reinforced by external influences.

In any case, my whole point is that marriage is a greater religious imperative among laymen and priests than celibacy (which only kicks in for monks and bishops). I'm willing to entertain the idea that an Orthodox layman might remain celibate "for religious reasons" yet without becoming a monk, but this would be aberrant, and such an individual would probably become the butt of many jokes in any time period.

In the Oriental Orthodox traditions, priests can also become bishops, but only if they are unmarried.
 
Ascetism, celibacy, monks - all these are EASTERN inventions. Monks and hermits were runing amok in the Middle East by c.200 (kick off in 2nd part of 2nd century), making their first appearance in the West some 200 or more years later (depending on area - Italy - mid IVth, North Italy - late IVth, North Africa - early Vth century).

Yes, but this was before the Great Schism of 1066.
 

Borys

Banned
Ahoj!
The date of the Great Schism is 1054.
And we are talking about Basil, who lived BEFORE the schism.
Borys
 
Ahoj!
The date of the Great Schism is 1054.
And we are talking about Basil, who lived BEFORE the schism.
Borys

The Schism became "official" in 1054. The bitter disputes and differences that caused it were there long before, and for all practical purposes it had begun centuries before.
 
The first "breach" between the two churches started in 867 AD when Patriarch Ignatius was deposed and Photius was elevated instead... The friction between Churches dates a lot back then... maybe 5th-6th century... I ll have to consult my books...
 

Borys

Banned
Ahoj!
I know that the Schism was "officialised" in 1054, and had roots going back several hundered years. But before the Schism trickled down to the grassroots of both sides it took a century or so.

Now, the "no Menzikert disaster" made me think of butterflies to the East. With the Seldjuk Turks NOT settling in Anatolia, WHERE would they settle?
Would Azerbaijan be larger?
Would Northern Mesopotamia be Turkic?
No Kurdistan? A more Easternly or Westernly Kurdistan?
What would be the "aftershocks" on Iran, Choresm?
I know very little about those areas ...

Care to venture something, Pasza?

Borys
 
The Seljuks were originally headed for Egypt before they got sidetracked into Anatolia. Had they headed there instead they almost certainly would have destroyed the Fatimid Caliphate, about a century ahead of schedule.
 
The Seljuks were originally headed for Egypt before they got sidetracked into Anatolia. Had they headed there instead they almost certainly would have destroyed the Fatimid Caliphate, about a century ahead of schedule.

I think Alp Arslan was headed for Syria when Manzikert intervened - I can't remember what he was after, but the target he was most after was Central Asia (all those 'Stans in the former USSR).
 
I thought that's where they came from in the first place. Why would they want to go back? (I could be wrong though. If so please correct me, so I can fix my own little "Byzantines survive timeline. I'm pretty sure we all have one)
 
I thought that's where they came from in the first place. Why would they want to go back? (I could be wrong though. If so please correct me, so I can fix my own little "Byzantines survive timeline. I'm pretty sure we all have one)

Arp Arslan was the Seljuk Sultan, based out of Persia, not Syria.
 
Top