Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Michael Wrenn, Dec 18, 2001.
Has anyone studied this? I have begun to, and I think it is a fascinating subject.
I took a brief look at it not long ago.
From what I saw, it's the Anglican justification for its "three branch" theory of the Catholic Church: Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and "Roman." The idea is that there was a "pristine" Celtic Church before "Romanization."
Actually, what it looked alot like to me is ordinary Celtic Nativism.
Even assuming a Celtic Christianity, it's succssor is not the modern Anglican Church (or Presbyterian Church in Scotland.) Rather, the true heir would be the Holy Catholic ("Roman") Church. And the Reformation would have been a more severe break with Celtic Christianity than "Romanization" ever would have been.
[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: SPH ]
Thanks for responding.
Actually, early Celtic Christianity differed significantly from both Roman Catholicism and what would be Protestantism; it differed in its views of God, man, sin, heaven and hell, salvation, the atonement, and church government, as well as other areas.
It was much less hierarchical than Romanism, affirmed women in ministry, practiced believers baptism by immersion, affirmed God's immanence in creation as well as His transcendence. In its early form it resembles a combination of Eastern Orthodoxy, General Baptists, and Quakerism. Hey, come to think of it, that describes me very closely!
Here's a site that has lots of information about Celtic Christianity: http://members.tripod.co.uk/DavidEW/
I have not studied Celtic Chrisianity in depth. I have noticed however that there is a movement to claim what is good from the Irish and claim that it can't be from the Catholic Church. Take St. Patrick, Bishop of Ireland. Some are trying to claim that he really was a Protestant because he was such an excellent Christian. When I have discussed this with people from Ireland I am told the Protestants have been trying to claim him for their own for years. The Church of Ireland is Catholic. St. Patrick was Catholic. He was a bishop under the Pope. Before that the Celt were very pagan. What time frame are you talking about?
[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Disciple 2001 ]
Here is an excellent article, supporting that St. Patrick was Catholic and a bishop under the Pope.
And here's an article that apparently refutes it: http://www.reporternews.com/religion/celt0321.html
Celtic Christianity and Patrick were apparently neither Roamn Catholic nor Protestant, even though both brands of Christianity may claim them; it's "catholicity" was very different from Romanism.
The article didn't refute anything. St. Patrick was from eastern Great Britain. His father was a deacon and his grandfather was a priest. This was Catholicism. At the time the east and the west were one Church. His native language was Latin.
St. Patrick was educated in a Catholic seminary. There was a Catholic bishop in Ireland before him. I have been in correspondence lately with a Protestant pastor who moved to Ireland, began studying Irish history and will be received into the Roman Catholic Church soon as a result of his studies. Try to tell him that Irish Christianity isn't Catholic and he'll laugh in your face.
It's funny how non-Catholic groups want to claim outstanding Catholics, such as Columba Augustine, Patrick. I was sent a Protestant Charismatic catalog, by some people trying to convert me, which claimed Columba as their forebearer in their faith.
It reminds me of the non-Christian groups who want to claim Jesus Christ as their own.
The mind science group, Unity, etc. are good at this. They don't want a Savior so they make Christ out to be very different than He was and make out that His work on earth was very different too. But for some reason they still want to claim Jesus and the Bible.
Why can't people stick to the facts? So, if they don't want to be Christian, go be something else and make it totally different.
And if people don't want to be Catholic, why set up a pseudo-Catholic institution or history? Why not just be genuine about it and shape their institution in some non-Catholic way and tell the truth about their history? Can anyone explain this phenomenon
to me that people have to falsify Christian Faith and the Catholic Church like this.
The Roman view of Christian history is what's false. Sure, Ireland and other Celtic lands "became" *Roman* Catholic, by the same method that other places did--Romanist subjugation of other, original forms of Christianity.
BTW, "catholicism" and "Roman Catholicism" are not synonymous terms.
"Facts," "genuine," "truth"? The entire Roman Catholic system is built on none of these.
You are correct on Saint Patrick. Celtic Christianity was not Romanized until 664 at the Council of Whitby. The theology of Patrick and Columba was an evangelical theology not a Roman Catholic one. A great St. Patrick site is at http://www.irishchristian.com/stpatrick/patrickt.htm
Gloria in Excelsis Deo
Yes, Protestants try to claim St. Patrick as they try to claim St. Augustine.
It doesn't matter whether or not there existed a prior Celtic Church existing in the backwaters of Christendom. It would be the responsibility of the Pope and Catholic Bishops (and individual Catholics) in the West to bring it into line with the universal Catholic teachings and ecumenical Councils. Presumably, the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops were doing the same thing in the East.
And I'll bring it up again: this Celtic Christianity thing looks alot like simple Celtic Nativism. Take a closer look.
The ancient Catholic Church was no more Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox than it was Baptist, Methodist or Presbyterian. Actually Roman Catholic is a contradiction. It places the universal Church in a locality which is actually a slight contradition of the Nicene Creed. Practically all early Protestant Confessions state their belief in being part of the Catholic (universal) Church. The papacy is a result of the political power of the Church of Rome from the 5th through the 7th century. At Nicea nor Chalcedon was there a pope. The Churches of Alexandria and Constaninople nor the British Churches were under Roman control at that time.
Thanks for the historical accuracy--something the RCC is bereft of.
"Bring it in line"? The RCC method of "bringing into line" was as I said--subjugation, and also persecution and murder.
BTW, Protestants don't try to claim Augustine; they merely find an affinity between some of his beliefs and theirs--Luther and Calvin, for instance. I'm not a fan of Augustinian doctrine nor a great deal of Lutheranism and hardly any of Calvinism. But that's another debate.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually Roman Catholic is a contradiction<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I believe we've touched upon this on another thread somewhere.
It is the Catholic Church. "Roman" Catholic is largely an invention of the Anglicans, again with their "three branch" theory of the Catholic Church.
The Vatican never refers to itself as the Roman Catholic Church, just the Catholic Church.
Admitedly, "Roman" Catholic is coming into use, especially among US Cathlics.
IMO, "Roman" Catholic would be proper if referring to the Latin/Western rite as opposed to the Eastern Rite Catholics.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Bring it in line"? The RCC method of "bringing into line" was as I said--subjugation, and also persecution and murder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You've been reading the "Trail of Blood" fantasy, right?
No, never read that particular book. What I'm talking about is objective, verifiable, scholarly history. Remember the Inquisition? Or is your memory selective? The RCC persecuted and murdered thousands in the name of Christ--and not just during the Inquisition. The Magisterial Protestants were also guilty of doing the same thing, so I'm not just singling out the RCC. The fact is, though, that the RCC has been the worst persecutor and murderer in religious history.
Michael, you say:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, early Celtic Christianity differed significantly from both Roman Catholicism and what would be Protestantism; it differed in its views of God, man, sin, heaven and hell, salvation, the atonement, and church government, as well as other areas.
It was much less hierarchical than Romanism, affirmed women in ministry, practiced believers baptism by immersion, affirmed God's immanence in creation as well as His transcendence. In its early form it resembles a combination of Eastern Orthodoxy, General Baptists, and Quakerism. Hey, come to think of it, that describes me very closely! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you need to read the actual writings of St. Patrick, and then ask yourself if this resembles your beliefs or the beliefs of the General Baptists or Quaker's beliefs. I did last night. I read the "Confession of St. Patrick" written in 450 A.D. St. Patrick wrote this in Latin (the language of the Romans) in his own hand. He speaks of “confession to a priest” while he was a deacon. He speaks of the promise a confessor makes of never disclosing a confessed sin. He speaks of “monks” and “virgins of Christ” . He speaks of Confirmation after Baptism. He speaks of miracles that God preformed through him. He speaks of Law and Holy Scripture being held equal. He speaks of his conversion to the Lord after years of having fallen away as a small child. He speaks of his being the rank of bishop. He speaks of himself as a “ living sacrifice for Christ my Lord” . He speaks of baptism and shortly after confirmation, and ordaining clergy everywhere so that the masses can come to belief. There is no indication women were ordained to the priesthood. History showed them as heads of Abbeys and convents but not ordained as priests.
St. Patrick was bringing the Catholic faith to pagans who were into human sacrifice and earth worship. He taught them to read and write Latin and opened monasteries for monks and nuns. He taught them to copy texts of books. He was educated. He didn’t think he was as educated as the other clergy in the rest of the world, but he was educated enough to pass on what he had been taught. He most importantly passed on his faith. Ireland was isolated after the chaos of the collapse of the Roman Empire. But, it was Catholic.
The Catholic Church is universal. This means it is throughout the world. You are correct that the description “Roman” Catholic Church is incorrect. It is The Catholic Church. The historical documents of the Synod of Whitby proves that the Church of Ireland believed the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven where given to St. Peter and this authority rested with the Pope. This is the reason the documents state why they went along with the change in the date of Easter. Communication back then is not what it is today. One written message could take years to reach its destination. Everything is done very slowly when you are thousands of miles away especially during the chaos that went on after the fall of Rome.
Does the belief and practices of the Church of Ireland resemble Eastern Orthodoxy?, I would say there would be a lot of similarity there because back then they too belonged to the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church not everything has to be of Roman customs and rites. What is important is to accept the authority of the Pope as having the Keys of the Kingdom from Jesus Christ. Brother Ed's eastern rite Catholic Church is testimony to that. Any Church that is separated by physical distance, persecution, chaos, etc., but stays true to the faith and accepts the Pope as having the Keys is part of the Catholic Church. This is true now and it was true back in the infancy of the Church.
[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Disciple 2001 ]
Would you please go to the thread entitle Hate and read my post on the Spanish Inquisition? I think it's on page 3. Then I'd appreciate your comments on that. You could post it on the same thread.