According to Abbot Tryphon, at the blog The Morning Offering, Leif Eriksson, the great Norwegian/Icelandic explorer, was the first Orthodox Christian in America. Now, it is not clear from the blog what the Abbot means by ‘Orthodox.’ If he is referring to the Church entire, saying that the Roman Catholics split from the true (Orthodox) Church, then we might say that he is right. Eriksson lived from approximately 970 to approximately 1020, before the ‘Great Schism’ of 1054, and before the ‘codification’ of this after the Siege of Constantinople in 1204. That is at least possible, if it is indeed true that the Orthodox Church is now the true, universal, Church.
But that is not the arguments given in the blog post. What we are served, is just classical historical revisionisn.
The Abbot starts out like this:
Having become a hirdman (guard) of the royal army of King Olaf Tryggvason in Norway, Leif had himself accepted baptism into the Christian faith, and had received from the King orders to travel to Greenland with a priest in order to convert the Norse settlements there.
As you might know, King Olaf Tryggvason brought Christianity to Norway. Or, he was one of the persons who brought it. Before him, King Haakon the Good had tried, unsuccessfully, to convert Norway to Christianity, but it was more successful under Olaf Tryggvason and later under King Olaf II of Norway, also known as St. Olaf.
I don’t see the evidence here of these being Orthodox – as in ‘Eastern.’ The Abbot notes:
Although King Olaf Tryggvason had accepted baptism at Canterbury in England, the first Christian rulers in Scandinavia were kinsmen of the rulers of Gardarike, or Kiev (The Rus, of course, were not Slavs but Scandinavians, most hailing from Sweden).
So what if the Scandinavians were «kinsmen of the rulers of Gardarike, or Kiev» (a claim not backed up, by the way)? The Britons were Western Christians, not Eastern. And what makes you Christian is baptism, not your kinship.
The problem comes, furthermore, that the Abbot has now completely forgotten who he is writing about. So what if St. Olaf «had himself grown up under the protection of Grand Prince Valdemar (Vladimir), who famously converted the Rus to Christianity in 988»? So what if «the last of Norway’s pre-schism Christian kings, Harald Hardrada, was openly rebuked by Rome for adhering to Eastern traditions»? And so what if he «brought into the Norwegian Church a number of priests and bishops from Novgorod and Gardarike, and also Miklagard (Constantinople), where he had headed the Varangian guard in service of the Byzantine emperor»?
Where did Leif Eriksson disappear to? And why should we ignore the fact that Olaf Tryggvason was baptised, and brought Christianity from, England?
The Christianity of Leif Eriksson and Olaf Tryggvason was Western Christianity, though ‘pre-schism.’ (But that isn’t necessarily true. The schism started in the 9th century and was finally ‘completed’ in 1204.)
I frankly do not understand the need to revise history. But I reckon it is an attempt to claim that Norway is actually Byzantine, so that the Orthodox can claim that the Eastern rites are more ‘universal’ than the Western ones, and that to erect Western rite Orthodox Churches in the West would be unnecessary, as we see here. But last time I checked, the Nidaros Use was NOT an eastern use.
This is just one of the many things that confirm that if you want to become Orthodox, prepare to be asked to become culturally Eastern too.