Celtic Christianity

Hi,
Actually the Celtic Church was very monastic, much like the vocations which are in the Roman Catholic Church, but was not initially under the leadership of Rome until later on. There is a lot which is sketchy so caution has to be applied when sifting through what the Celtic Church was like. Most can only be gleaned by Colmcille(St. Columba) and Padraig(St. Patrick), who were both in a role as a Bishop, Pastor, Shepherd....if I left any other descriptives out, forgive me.

A comment about what someone said about the Church of Ireland. The "Church of Ireland" is actually the Anglican church in Ireland, but the Roman Catholic Church makes up about 95% of the Republic and 75% of the entire island, north and south.
This is a fact because I live here.

I know this may be off topic for his thread but if the Catholic Church as we know it today is not perceived by some on this thread to be The Church, then out of some 24,000+ denominations which exist today, which one is?
To whom is our authority? The Holy Scriptures? They didn't exist in their completion until the 4th. century.

Doesn't Paul tell us that "the church of the living God [is] the pillar and foundation of the truth."(I Timothy 3:15b)?

Even if The Holy Scriptures were "the pillar and foundation of the truth", it does not bear witness to it from its pages and history has not borne witness of this fact by the many divisions within protestantism.

Much of protestantism streams from Martin Luther when on 1517 he nailed his 99 thesis to the door of the church in Wittenburg.

Was he right when he threw out much of the canon including the book of James (which by the way he called an epistle of straw), the book of Hebrews and the book of Jude, and all of which is known as the Apocrypha?

Was he right when he agreed with the true presence within communion and justified when he condemned anyone who didn't such as Zinzendorf? Whose side do we position ourselves with now?

When Calvin disagreed with Luther over what he thought were lingering doctrines of the Roman Church which Luther still clung to, whose side do we position ourselves with now?

This is the history of protestantism, and thank God that the Irish Church which is a Catholic Church has still taught the same truths as laid down in the Cathecism of The Catholic Church. The Anglican/Episcopal and other off shoots continued to maintain "sola scriptura" until years went by and all eventually got watered down.

Thank God that the doctrines of Christ in His Church do not and this is verified in the Early Fathers throughout the centuries until today.

Just a thought or two.

 

Welcome, Irish Pete:

I hope you stick around and contribute more. I am Irish too, but from northern California.

God Bless

 

Hi Disciple 2001,
I didn't mean to have run on mouth but just interested in contributing and getting some opinions to this ongoing discussion of the Catholic faith.
Where abouts in Ireland are you from?

Irish Pete

 

Irish Pete: Just my blood and heart are Irish, I have never lived there. My Grandmother was from Balleymoe in Gallway. Thank you for sending all those great priest and nuns our way. I had them all through school. We have a wonderful Irish priest in our parish, although I have heard he wants to retire back in Ireland.

God Bless

 

Welcome, Irish Pete. Good to have you on board.

It seems to me the deciding issue in regard to the Celtic Church is that the bishops who were there were consecrated Catholic bishops. Accoring to the info I found, after his escape from Ireland, St. Patrick spent three years at Lerins: 412-415 and then 15 years at Auxerre in personal contact with Bishop St. Germanus. St. Patrick received holy orders there.

Pope Celestine had sent Pallidius to Ireland as bishop. Pallidius died less than a year later among the Picts in N. Britain. So in 432 St. Germanus consecrated Patrick as bishop to replace Pallidius and to carry on the work of evangelization that Pallidius had begun.

According to the Annals of Ulster, the cathedral church of Armagh, the primatial see of Ireland, was founded in 444. This became the center of both administration and education.

So it appears that despite the distance and difficulties in communication, that the bishops of Ireland were always Catholic bishops, consecrated by the pope or by another bishop who had been consecrated by a pope. That would make the Celtic Church Catholic, even if there were those difficulties in communication which probably at times made Ireland seem off on its own.

Pauline

 

Hi Pauline,
WOW! You have more information than I do.
I'd be interested in your sources so that I could research that information too and I will ask my parish priest as well if there is any information regarding the authenticity and historicity of a pure Celtic Catholic Church as we would know of it.

I plan on doing more research as I am preparing to be confirmed into The Catholic Church as a result of much study into Church history and the early church fathers.

My original plan was to demolish any reason for believing in the Catholic Church as the Church which Jesus Christ established.
I actually moved here from Canada to plant a "church" which is an American based fellowship and have wound up converting to the faith that my dad who is from Dublin, left many years ago.
Most Catholics leave as a result of not knowing their own faith. And as far as the early church fathers, I used to think they were good old prods, but that is not the case. It has always been one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

If the reformation "restored" the "Church" then Christ's Church [which He said that the "gates of hades shall not prevail against it" and to His Disciples that "The Holy Spirit will lead [them] into all truth"] was nothing more than hopeful wishes, which of course I do not believe is the case.
Thus the reformation outside of the Church did more damage than reformation inside the Church.

If people want to point to history and lay carnality as proof that the Catholic Church was not the Church, then perhaps Jesus failed with His followers too, because one of them betrayed Him and committed suicide, another one denied Him and the rest went and hid for fear of their lives.
If this is what we should do to the Catholic Church with all its failures throughout history then Paul should have closed up shop with The Church at Corinth, because you couldn't get any more carnal than they were, yet he called them "sanctified", and never gave up on them. Thank God He doesn't start over. The Catholic Church has always been the Church which Our Lord established and gave the authority to men to preside over it.

Sorry to take up space, it's just that my thoughts get going and so do I so I better go.
God Bless
Irish Pete

 

Irish Pete,
My only source was the section on St. Patrick in Butler's Lives of the Saints. I looked here at home and through the parish library for other sources and couldn't find any. I'll be very interested in what you turn up on this topic.

Disciple,
Where did you find the Confessions of St. Patrick? Butler quoted some of what you gave but I couldn't find any of St. Patrick's own writings in our library. Did you find it on- line?

To Michael,
Thank you for starting this topic.

To all,
This is a very interesting topic. Since I like history and research, I get excited about learning more of the facts. It's like a detective case. And, we get to be the detectives!
Pauline

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Pauline ]

 

Pauline: I did find his Confession online translated from the Latin. :
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_patrick.htm?iam=dpile&terms=Hymn+in+praise+of+St.+Patrick

God Bless

 

The Celts were referred to as Galli by the Romans, and Galatai by the Greeks. In 400 B.C. the Celts had cross the Alps in a migration to the area of the South Tyrol and Po Valley. They defeated the Estruscans and terrorized the later Romans for two hundred years. An excellent primary source for their early history in Italy was written by the Roman historian Polybius. They were seen as wild, blonde giants who would often race into warfare shouting at the top of their lungs and stark naked. This had a rather terrifying effect on many of their enemy. Livy referred to them as barbarians and people with no self-control.

One of the reasons Hannibal was able to attack was because by 226 BC, "the Senate regarded an extension of Carthaginian power in Spain as a lesser evil than the Celtic attack from northern Italy and France."

The Celts were involved in the Samnite wars, were mercenaries in the Punic Wars (Hannibal sought an alliance with them), and, with only occasional episodes of peace, the various Celtic, or Gallatian, tribes worked their way into modern day Turkey, where they were not decisively defeated until 166 BC by Eumenes II.

"...they were pushed into vassalage and subjected to forcible Hellenization. But they were ot finally conquered until the Romans incorporated the states of Asia Minor into their empire after 88 BC. Pergamon was bequeathed to them by its last kind, Attalos III. Galatia was given the status of semi-autonomous province.
"Today its existence is recalled only by a quarter of Istanbul, known as 'Galata' after the house of a no doubt influential Celt, and by the famous statues in the National Museum and the Capitoline Museum at Rome which give such a vivid image of his people."

The reason all of this is important is that when one talks of Celtic Christianity, one is initally referring to the Christianization of THESE people, not of people in the British Isles. It is to these people that the letter to the Galatians was written, and, judging by Paul's letter to them, they had not changed too much from their pagan ways!

It was Patrick, from the British part of the British Isles, who carried the Christian message into Ireland proper.

What is conveniently forgotten by the Roman Catholics, however, is that the Irish Celtic Christians later sent missionaries to continental Europe to evangelize the Catholics! The established their own monastaries in Germany, Switzerland, and northern Italy. St. Gall and Bobbio were two of the most famous. They were, to put it mildly, a 'disturbing factor' to Rome and its brand of Christianity, preaching as they did from the Scriptures themselves instead of from Romish traditions.

Further evidence that even the northern Celts, in the British Isles, did NOT consider themselves part of the Roman, or popish, church, may be found in the Synod of Whitby (regarding the date of Easter), in 664. Whereas the Roman segment appealed to the Pope, the Celtic segment appealed to the authority of Columba, refusing to recognize the Roman authority over the Christian church. King Oswy's decision of allegience was based not on any Scriptural matter but on the response he got when he asked if Peter really guarded the gates of heaven (as he was said to have the 'keys'). On being assured that Peter did indeed guard the Gates, Oswy, taking no chances on offending the gatekeeper, moved his allegience to Rome, thus finally giving Roman Catholicism sway in the British Isles. Something it had NOT had until that time.

The Celts, long independent, however, and with a history of rebellion, maintained groups which fought against the Roman incursion, and it is this which is the root of the ongoing Irish wars today, a millennia and a half later. The Irish Protestants are carrying on the old Celtic rebellion against Catholicism while the Roman Catholic segment is carrying on the British side which existed before Henry VIII. It does give an ironic twist to the whole thing...

At any rate, the entire concept of Celtic Christianity is based on the fact that they were just as much against Rome theologically as they had been, historically, militarily.

References:

Gerhard Herm, The Celts, first English translation 1976, published in US at St. Martin's Press, INc., N.Y., in 1977.

Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 1982, Word Publishing

Wallbank, Taylor, Bailkey, Jewsbury, Lewis, and Hackett, Civilization Past and Present, 6th Edition, 1987, Scott, Foresman and Company, Illinois


(most of this is from notes I made when teaching history, with checks within the last hour in the three references listed above to make sure I had some of the details right.)

 

Irish Pete --

Wow. Another convert! And what a story. I'd love to hear the whole process God took you though.

I can claim Irish ancestry also. Clan O'Hara of the North, although somewhere along the line, the "O" got lost, probably most conveniently because of the preponderance of "Micks get lost" and "No jobs for Micks" in Boston around the turn of the century. So my last name is just Hara and you wouldn't believe how people mess it up trying to spell it. Ruined a good Irish name, they did.

Anyhow, I am actually a member of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church (aka Byzantines). I found the mystagogy and the emphasis on union with Christ to be very appealing. I also like the fact that they commune their children from the moment they can swallow a few drops of the Precious Blood. That was a BIG contention in the denomination I just left, the PCA. There is a well defined contingent in there making a lot of noise about paedocommunion and their desire to do so, but the General Assembly keeps saying "That's not our tradition".

Sad, really, for they make a great case for it from the covenantal structure of the OT to NT typologies of the Passover. It convinced me. Now I found a home where they do it and I am really, really full of joy every Sunday.

Thank you Jesus, for bringing me Home.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed Hara of the clan O'Hara.

 

Helen and Michael:
I agree with much of the history you present, Helen. I do not however agree with much of your conclusions especially the contention that the Celtic Church went into Europe to convert the Catholics. I did not see any evidence why you came to this conclusion.

The mission to go out beyond Ireland was the result of the monks being banished from Ireland by the Bishop. After taking up arms and killing in revenge for an attack against their monks, they were sent into exile. They were banished from Ireland and told to go out and save souls as penance for their sins. They were told to save as many souls as they had killed. They spread out and opened monasteries and abbeys.

I can not see the similarities in the faith to General Baptist or Quaker or any of the Protestants groups. These were monasteries, not families, with husband, wives, and children. These were people who believed in being “virgins for Christ”. They had funny little shaved haircuts (the Irish tonsure) of the Irish monks. These people set up monasteries and abbeys and copied any literature including Holy Scripture they could get their hands on. They preserved all the literature they came across even very secular literature that was not Christian at all.
St. Patrick brought to them the Latin language and they loved to read and copy manuscripts.

As far as St. Patrick, he grew up Roman, until he was taken into slavery. He had been a child who had a deacon for a father and a priest for a Grandfather. They were Catholic and spoke Latin. As you say, it was Patrick who brought Christianity to Ireland. He had stopped believing in God as a yound child, he says in his writing of his Confession. After his conversion, and the miraculous prophesies that tell him to return to Ireland, he decides to study for the priesthood. He speaks of not being as educated as the other clergy in the world, but he brings to Ireland the Catholic faith including the doctrine of the Trinity.

Being isolated from the rest of the world after the collapse of Rome there was basically no contact with the Pope for 150 years. This was pretty normal back then in this time of chaos and the great distances involved.

St. Patricks writings speak of a hierarchy. There were deacons, priests, and a bishop. It was not a pastor all wearing the same hat. There was a definite hierarchy. The clergy were monks and nuns and priests and bishops. They were not family men and women. They lived in monasteries and abbeys. At this time there were no cities, Ireland was rural. Eventually communities formed around the abbeys and monasteries. The average person outside the monestary was not very religious and many were uninhibited sexually, there was no type of a Puritanical community that was resembling Quakers or General Baptists.

As the monasteries from Ireland spread out and started meeting with the stricter Roman Christianity of Augustine’s people who were spreading north and west they eventually met. This is what brought about the Synod of Whitby. The Celts were not on the right calendar. They were celebrating Easter on the wrong date. This was not a doctrinal dispute. There were not charges of heresy for believing in different doctrines. They all were Catholic. Cultural and traditional differences, but doctrine was not an issue here.

The synod of Whitby in 664 shows that when the emissary from the Pope presented the need for the date change of Easter that they agreed the Pope had the final say because of recognizing the keys of the kingdom of heaven. From what I read, the Anglicans claim that the Synod of Whitby defends their position that there was an indigenous British church that excluded any Papal influence. Catholics use the same synod to show that the Celts accepted the authority of the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven belonging to St. Peter, and made the choice to change the date of Easter.

Notice the dispute was over a date for Easter, not doctrinal issues like how someone is saved or whether they believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or whether babies should be baptised. The issue was celebrating Easter on the wrong date.

The references I used for the information here is the writings of St. Patricks, his “Confession of St. Patrick” 452A.D. Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus 452. “Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick,” St. Sechnall 444 A.D. and the book, “How The Irish Saved Civilization, by Thomas Cahill. I will not list all the sources Cahill used for his book, but I can provide them if anyone wants to know.

God Bless

 

I appreciate your point of view, but that is what it is -- a point of view. It is not the history that is known by neutral historians. The FACT is that the Celtic Christians of Ireland considered Roman Catholicism to be paganism in a loose disguise. There is no way on that post that I could document everything, but that is what references are for. Herm is a non-Christian; Shelley is Christian; and the other is a university history text. That's a pretty balanced set, I think. The information I gave is not a matter of 'Helen's conclusions.' It is a matter of documented history.

The fact is that the Roman Catholic church has attempted to put a spin on much of its history which will disguise a lot of things. If you want to see what the rest of the world saw, you will have to read their material. It is not going to agree with much of what you read from Roman Catholic sources.

Someone is not telling the truth. Who has to gain from lying here? The secular historians? Other Christians? Textbook writers?

Or the RC church?

 

I think the rewrite is necessary for them to cover up some of the fruit of that tree as well...

 

Helen,
You lost me at the end where you mentioned that the current problem in Northern Ireland is due to...and that's where you lost me.

The current troubles stream back to English Landlords sending Scottish plantation masters over from Britain to look after their lands and to push the true Irish down southwards.

The battle occurred between 1688-1690 between King William of Orange and King James who was a Catholic in which there was a victorious outcome for Billy in which protestanism prevailed, at least in that segment.

Today after many years, even though religion is used as a disguise, the real problem is that you have two different cultures living in six counties. The protestants who have a British, particularly Scottish background and you have the Catholics who have an Irish background.

The battle is not about dominance of one religion over another but the dominance of one cultural group over another, namely the Ulster Scots over the Northern Irish.

With regards to the Celts baptizing adults, this does not mean that we should use that as the prime example of baptism because even the early church fathers speak of baptism of babies, children and adults.
Tradition would teach that there were changes within baptism as far as age is concerned, however that doesn't change the importance of baptism.

You seem to be very anti-Catholic but let me ask you. How important are the documents of the early church fathers throughout history? I would submit that as a former protestant minister, that most protestants do not even give church history a place in their scholarly pursuits of doctrinal progression.

What kind of Church did exist before 1517 and the reign of Martin Luther?
What do we extract from Martin Luther?
What do we extract from Zwingli?
What do we extract from Calvin?
Out of 24,000+ denominations in the world today, which of these will Jesus be returning for?
Is Jesus a polygamist?(tongue in cheek question)
How many brides does He have? I would submit that He has but one bride. Which do you think it is?
Who or what is your authority which Christ has placed on this earth? Is it open to interpretation? Personal opinion? How does one address these questions without realizing that Christ's Body is fragmented....or is it?

There are no easy answers but I know the answers do not come from protestantism because out of 24,000+ denominations, they can't even agree on some things. Only the Catholic Church, The Magisterium, The Cathecism. That is the universal authority for the Christian today.
I submit this respectfully.

Irish Pete

 

Actually, Irish Pete was being pretty conservative at 24,000 denominations.
World Christian Encyclopedia, just published by Oxford University Press, puts the number at 33,820 denominations and churches, in 238 countries.

God Bless

 

Ahhhh, Michael lad, there ye go again.

Well, let me see if I can help ye somewhat.

To understand the 24,000 denominations figure, you have to understand who did the counting and how it was done.

The U.N. Council on World Religions did the counting, so you can't lay this charge at the feet of the Church. As for what constitutes a denomination, each body with its own separate headship or leadership, answerable to no one else, is a denomination. Thus, there are several different Lutheran denominations, for instance. If the head of the ELCA were to try to tell the Wisconsin Synod what to do, he would be told, and none to politely from what I have gathered from reading magazines by the Wisconsin Synod, to go pound sand.

Likewise, each little IFB assembly meeting in an old Baskin Robbins Ice Cream shop would be counted as a separate denomination since the head of that "church" answerable to no one else but himself, is right there.

See how they did that?

Of course the kingdom is an institution, just as it was in the Old Covenant. Read Matthew 21: 33-46 and you will see the change of covenantal nations from the Hebrew nation to the Church. Both are physical entities right here on earth. You should also dig in the archives and find my thread "The Invisible Church is a denial of the Incarnation" and read it.

Also, to suggest there is complete unity within the RCC is incorrect. Dissension is found in the questioning of the authority of the bishops, celibacy, birth control, abortion, and the anti-sex positions of many of the "Fathers" of the early church. Further, the multitude of religious orders within Romanism could be compared to the Protestant denominations

Michael, I say this with respect and not antagonism, but this is just not so. Yes, there are many "ideas" out there, but there is a body of truth, called the DEPOSITUM FIDEI which cannot be compromised and in which you MUST believe or you are NOT a Catholic. Period. This is summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

For instance, I am an Eastern Catholic and SPH and Disciple are Western Catholics. We celebrate the Eucharist using different rites and forms of the host, but we MUST agree that it really is Jesus, truly present there under the species, to be a Catholic.

The Catholic Church also allows great leeway in regards to the Parousia of our Lord, but you MUST believe that He is going to come again. You cannot believe otherwise. You must believe in the bodily resurrection. In fact, I would say that a short summary of what is essential to be Catholic is the Nicene Creed.

There are differences of culture and practice, as well as local administration, but there is a set body of doctrines which you MUST believe, and that all Catholics everywhere do believe, in order to be Catholic. And quite frankly, those who do not believe them should get the heck out of the Church and stop being hypocrites every Sunday!!

As for leaving the New Testament, as a Protestant, I proved every doctrine, even the Marian doctrines, by the Bible before I joined the Church. Wouldn't have done so if I couldn't have proven them. Not only that, but the testimony of history is that the Early Fathers, who were the "Fundamentalists" of the first and onward centuries, held to and practiced doctrines which were distinctly Catholic interpretations of the Scriptures. No, it is not the Catholic Faith which left the New Testament. It was the Protestants. Must kindly disagree with ya there, laddie boy.


Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed