Celtic Christianity

Miachel,
People calling themselves "Catholic" may be dissenting on the issues you listed. But they know and we faithful Catholics know they have broken unity with the Church.

Catholics have a package of belief and practice which gives us unity. There is some leeway in it on non-essentials. But there is always that center of unity that binds us together.

You see the dissenters and think we have the same situation that Protestants have. But it's very different. When I was a Protestant, we could each read the Bible and come up with some new idea and start another church. I've seen it happen more than once by people I knew. There was absolutely no center to refer to for what was the truth. In a particular denomination, there would be a headship who decided issues, but the founders of that denomination at some point in history had started their own church. There is a very big difference between dissenting from a body that you know is the point of unity and having no point of unity.

Catholics have that faith once delivered unto the saints that Jude wrote about.

Pauline

 

I couldn't have said it better myself Disciple and Pauline.
When I was a Pentecostal minister studying Pentecostal history, it was mind-blowing just how many splits there were. And then the Baptists have their own little independent mind-sets too.
By the way Michael, I didn't pull the number of 24,000+ out of the air. It is a fact. That is a conservatively, kind estimate. You ought to go to Puerto Rico for a holiday sometime and just walk around the streets on a Sunday morning. You would be surprised at what you would find as far as a diverse group of denominations existing on an island which is only 33 by 100 miles. Just think of North America alone and then Africa and Asia and Europe....ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Again, I appeal to you. To whom do we believe and adhere to as far as the roots of protestantism is concerned? Is it Martin Luther? Zwingli? Calvin? Or how about Henry VIII? John Wesley? Need I continue?

Jesus established an institution. I know evangelical Baptists don't like that term any more than tradition, but the case is, He did. True, we are the Body of Christ, but if Jesus is The Truth, whom Jesus is, will be made manifest as to His teachings, etc. His "sheep hear His voice and follow after Him", not follow several paths that one thinks is Him, otherwise truth divided is no longer truth but presumption and that is a foundation of shifting sand. Something which Our Lord did not build.

In my opinion that is what protestantism is built on, and even though men and women will pledge allegiance to a particular creed, it takes The Spirit of God to challenge one to seriously look at the claims of history in reality. In reality The Church of history is Catholic, full stop.

Irish Pete

 

Sorry Catholic Convert, what you said was a mouthful of good stuff to think on. I'm going to download this stuff myself.

 

Oh, Irish Pete, no apology needed. I am thoroughly enjoying your posts. You seem like a lad who had to really do his homework to get into the Church of our Lord. Keep at it, man!!

Cordially in our Eucharistic Lord,

Brother Ed

 

There is the School of Celtic Studies in Dublin which houses the most scholarly information available.
I would encourage us all to do some homework during this holy season of Advent which ends at Christmas and even into the new year.
I think it would help to answer some questions and perhaps not answer some questions which today are still very ambiguous and open to conjecture.
The web site is: www.celt.dias.ie

God Bless us, yes, one and all!
Happy Christmas!
Peter

 

Peter,
I went to www.newadvent.org/cathen and looked up Ireland. The information there was similar to that in Butler's Lives of the Saints on St. Patrick.

A Merry and Blessed Christmas to all on this thread.

Pauline

 

Michael, you said:
"You asked to whom do Protestants adhere and believe--well, to Jesus Christ as revealed and witnessed to by the apostles in the New Testament. Any "tradition" that contradicts that authoritative witness must be dismissed as a "tradition of men.""

I know that sounds like good rhetoric from the pulpit but if that holds any water then, all the protestants need to come together, drop their denominational differences, which are significant I might add and say that you all just want to adhere to "Jesus Christ as revealed and witnessed to by the apostles in the New Testament."
It would never work, hence my point that truth divided is no longer truth.
If Jesus was on earth in body, which of your "churches" would He recognize as His?
All of them? Some of them? One of them?
Would He not be uncomfortable with the fact that everybody had their own interpretation of what He said rather than "adhere" to what He did teach?

How you stated things, I would presume that you believe in "Sola Scriptura" which is a nice idea, until you try to prove such a theory from Scripture. Something which Scripture does not even do.
Also for the first four centuries, how would your concept of "Sola Scriptura" have worked in the Church considering the fact that the Canon had yet to be put in place?
What authority would have been final before each and every man, woman and child had a copy of The Scriptures?
Consider also that after the Canon was available (and I mean the full Canon and not the one which Martin Luther chopped into bits to suit himself, as well as added to) it was not always in the language of every common person and even if it was, not every common person could read his or her own language. How would each individual fair as far as "Sola Scriptura" is concerned as far as reading it, as well as having the scholarly means to interpret it? The Church was the final authority and always has been.
"Sola Scriptura" is not only a theory against what Scripture says about itself but it was also historically impractical. This is why Jesus established His Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15b).

As far as what you also said:
"And as to your statistics about denominations, the fact still remains as I stated--that 85% of American Protestants belong to seven denominational families (*The Religious Bodies of America,* by F. Mayer)."

I'm not going to argue against one source and neither should you argue for. On the other hand, you could always state that there is really only two denominational camps, Catholic and non-Catholic.
If you look into your newspaper's religious section or go to your phonebook, you will find more sub-headings for denominational factions than what your source or you claim that there are. In fact, page after page exists in some states.

Let's say your research is correct, and there are "seven denominational families". Which one adheres "to Jesus Christ as revealed and witnessed to by the apostles in the New Testament."? And don't forget in your own words: "Any "tradition" that contradicts that authoritative witness must be dismissed as a "tradition of men.""

Irish Pete

 

Michael,
There is a serious problem with saying that the Church is where ever two or three are gathered in the name of Jesus Christ. Read Mt 18. Notice the verses you refer to come right after the passage on going to the Church for the final say on any dispute among Christians.

There has to be a visible Church to go to if a person is going to obey that passage. And the two or three that gather are going to have to be in obedience and fellowship with that Church in order for Jesus Christ to be in their midst. The verses about the two or three have to be understood in the context of the visible Church that makes the final decision on matters.

Therefore, any Protestant who disputes with another on a doctrinal questions, is supposed to have a visible Church authority to go to in order to get the matter settled.
It has to be an authority that all Christians can to to on such matters. So it cannot be your local congregation.

Pauline

 

<<It has to be an authority that all Christians can to to on such matters. So it cannot be your local congregation.>>

If you admit that Protestants and Sepratists are Christians then according to your logic it can't be the local Church of Rome either.


HankD

 

HankD,
If by "local Church of Rome" you mean our parish church here in my town -- you are 100% correct.

To fit that Scripture, it has to be One Church, Universal (available to everyone in the world), Holy (with the Holy Spirit as it's soul and guiding it), and Apostolic (giving us the same Faith that Jesus gave the Apostles).

A Merry and Blessed Christmas, Hank and Michael, Peter and everyone posting on this thread.

Pauline

 

Michael,
Thank you for accepting that I am a born-again Christian. I really appreciate that.

What if the RCC is that Apostolic Church, teaching and practicing what Jesus Christ gave the apostles to pass on? What if the writings of NT time Christians, leaders of the churches who knew and were ordained by the apostles themselves, show this? What would your reaction be then?

Pauline

 

Dear Pauline,

You wrote…

<<If by "local Church of Rome" you mean our parish church here in my town -- you are 100% correct.
To fit that Scripture, it has to be One Church, Universal (available to everyone in the world), Holy (with the Holy Spirit as it's soul and guiding it), and Apostolic (giving us the same Faith that Jesus gave the Apostles). >>

I would perhaps trust the councils in which the Church of Rome was involved up to the 2nd or 3rd century, for clarification of certain doctrine such as the Trinity and the Person of Christ. After that the Church of Rome seems to get progressively worst in terms of their amalgamation with the local Paganism and by the 10th century it is the head of the Holy Roman Empire and involved with violence against separatists. This to me disqualifies them as "first among equals" if they even had that title (from God) in the first place.

Personally, I believe that the Scripture teaches the autonomy of the local church and the two offices of the church (pastor and deacon) as the local authority. I also draw upon spiritually gifted teachers of like mind for clarification of doctrinal points.

<<What if the RCC is that Apostolic Church, teaching and practicing what Jesus Christ gave the apostles to pass on? What if the writings of NT time Christians, leaders of the churches who knew and were ordained by the apostles themselves, show this? What would your reaction be then?>>

Although you didn't direct this at me Pauline, I will say this:

The Church of Rome was one of the local churches founded by the apostles. No where in the Scripture is this local church given pre-eminence except that the Book to the Church at Rome comes first in the Scripture as an epistle to a local Church. There is nothing in the content of that Book to suggest any kind of pre-eminence or rule over the other local churches written to in the Scripture. In the final Revelation of the Scripture (Apocalypse) the Church of Rome is not even mentioned but the churches of Asia Minor.

The first "churches" (plural) were established in Jerusalem.

Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

We have the witness and decrees of the Apostles in the Word of God, we need no other.

The "true" Church is known but to God, this is The Church of the Firstborn from the dead whose names are written in heaven which Church has God Himself as the Head. This is the Church against which hell shall not prevail.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Any local church is a mixture of both the saved and the lost (Matthew 13 - The wheat and the tares).

At the Coming of the Lord, the great separation of the local churches will occur.

Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

<<A Merry and Blessed Christmas, Hank and Michael, Peter and everyone posting on this thread.>>

And to you as well Pauline.

HankD

 

Was St. Patrick Catholic?
by James Akin

Patrick was born in 385 western Great Britain into a high-ranking Roman Christian family; he died in Ireland in 461, though some accounts put his death later. His grandfather was a priest and his father--Calpurnius--was a deacon, as well as prosperous nobleman and local Roman official. Patrick’s native language was Latin.

His birth name was, reportedly, Maewyn, and the Latin name Patercius (Gaelicized to "Patrick" by the Irish) was given to him by Pope Celestine just before his mission to Ireland, as a token of the fruitfulness of his future mission, which would make him the pater civium (father of the people) of the Irish race.

He writes that as youths he and his companions "turned away from God, and did not keep his commandments, and did not obey our priests, who used to remind us of our salvation" (Conf. 1). But when he was sixteen he was kidnapped by Irish pirates and sold into slavery, where he served as a shepherd. This revolutionized his life; his faith and zeal for God were ignited, and he spent much time praying and fasting. After six years, he escaped, being led by private revelations along a safe route back to Britain. Afterwards, he was commissioned in another private revelation to serve as a missionary to Ireland.

To prepare, he traveled to France and spent around two decades as a monk—studying, praying, and practicing penance. He was ordained to the priesthood, and in 432 was sent to Ireland to serve St. Palladius, who had been consecrated bishop and sent to Ireland by Pope Celestine. When Palladius died on a trip to Britain, Patrick was chosen as his successor and was consecrated bishop by St. Germanus, the papal representative overseeing the Irish mission.

Patrick experienced enormous success in converting the Irish, and three assistant bishops from France were sent to help him, among them St. Sechnall (aka Secundinus). Within his generation the Irish had been transformed by God’s grace into a Christian (and Catholic) people.

In 441 Patrick went to Rome to seek special approval of his ministry in Ireland, and the newly-elected Pope Leo the Great personally confirmed Patrick’s full adherence to the Catholic faith. This is significant since some today assert that Patrick was not Catholic. In this country, the challenge is mainly made by Irish Americans who have abandoned the Church for Protestantism and wish to co-opt Patrick and represent him as a non-Catholic figure.

This is an impossible task, as Patrick was a Latin-speaking Roman noble, grandson of a Catholic priest, son of a minor official of the Roman empire, who had repeated private revelations, practiced penance, spent two decades as a monk, was ordained a priest and sent to serve on the papal mission to Ireland, was then ordained bishop by a papal representative, and had his fidelity to Catholic teaching specially confirmed by Pope Leo the Great (of whom the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon cried "Peter has spoken through Leo!"). He described himself as a Catholic, and a list of canons he drew up for the Irish church orders that any dispute not resolved on a local level was to be forwarded to Rome for decision.

The two writings from his pen that survive—his Confession and Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus—are both in Latin, and both attest to his Catholic faith. The Letter—which Patrick wrote in a blazing fury after some of his newly baptized converts had been slaughtered during a raid by a British ruler—records his belief in the episcopacy, the ministerial priesthood, confirmation, the value of monks and nuns, purgatory, priestly absolution, and "doing hard penance" (the last two, he said the murdering soldiers needed). His later Confession has a mild tone (not being a response to a massacre) and mentions many of the same Catholic distinctives, as well as fasting, loss of salvation, and Patrick’s many private revelations. Another important source is a Latin hymn written in praise of him by his assistant bishop Sechnall, who records many of Patrick’s beliefs, among them the sacrifice of the Mass, merits, the fact the Church is built on Peter, and baptismal regeneration.

Any disgruntled claims that Patrick was not Catholic are just blarney.

(A version of this article appears in the March 1997 issue of This Rock magazine.)

Some Quotes
St. Patrick
"I, Patrick, the sinner, am the most rustic and the least of all the faithful . . . had for my father Calpornius, a deacon, a son of Potitus, a priest, who belonged to the village of Bannavem Taberniae. . . . At that time I was barely sixteen years of age . . . and I was led into captivity in Ireland with many thousands of persons, in accordance with our deserts, for we turned away from God, and kept not his commandments, and were not obedient to our priests, who were wont to admonish us for our salvation" (Confession of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 452]).

"And there truly [in Ireland] one night I heard in my sleep a voice saying to me, 'You fast well; soon you will go to your fatherland.' And again, after I very short time, I heard the heavenly voice saying to me, 'Lo, your ship is ready.' And it was not near at hand, but was distant, perhaps two hundred miles. And I had never been there, nor did I know any person living there. And thereupon I shortly took flight and left the man with whom I had been for six years. And I came in the strength of God, who prospered my way for good; and I met with nothing to alarm me until I reached that ship" (ibid., 17 [A.D. 452]).

"And once more, after a few years, I was in Britain with my family. . . . And there indeed I saw in a vision of the night a man whose name was Victoricus coming as it were from Ireland with countless letters. He gave me one of them, and I read the beginning of the letter, which was entitled 'The Voice of the Irish.' And while I was reading aloud the beginning of the letter, I thought that at that very moment I heard the voices of those who dwelt beside the Wood of Foclut [in Ireland], which is nigh unto the Western Sea. And thus they cried, as with one mouth, 'We beseech you, holy youth, to come and walk once more among us!" (ibid., 23).

"And especially there was one blessed lady of Scotic birth, of noble rank, and most beautiful, of full age [i.e., an adult], who I had baptized. And after a few days she came to us for a special counsel. She told us in confidence that she had received a message from God, and it admonished her to become a virgin of Christ [i.e. a nun] and so come nearer to God. Thanks be to God, on the sixth day afterwards, most admirably and most eagerly she embraced that which all virgins of Christ do" (ibid., 42).

"Let those who will, laugh and mock. I shall not be silent nor conceal the signs and wonders which were shown to me by the Lord many years before they came to pass, since he knows all things even before the world's beginnings" (ibid., 45).

"I, Patrick, the sinner, unlearned as everybody knows, avow that I have been established a bishop in Ireland. Most assuredly I believe that I have received from God what I am. And so I dwell in the midst of barbarous heaths, a stranger and an exile for the love of God" (Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus 1 [A.D. 452]).

"[The murderer] Coroticus . . . fears neither God nor his priests, whom he [God] chose and to whom he granted that highest, divine, and sublime power, that whom they should bind on earth should be bound in heaven" (ibid., 6 [A.D. 452]).
St. Sechnall
"Hear, all you who love God, the holy merits of Patrick the bishop, a man blessed in Christ; how, for his good deeds, he is likened unto the angels and, for his perfect life, he is comparable to the apostles" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 444]).

"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [St. Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (ibid., 3 [A.D. 444]).

"[St. Patrick] boldly proclaims to the [Irish] tribes the Name of the Lord, to whom he gives the eternal grace of the laver of salvation; for their offenses he prays daily unto God; for them also he offers up to God worthy sacrifices" (ibid., 13 [A.D. 444]).

 

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ30.HTM

 

Michael,
Oh come on.....1952? Research has continued on since that time you know. How about some more contemporary sources? I did see the bibliography but time doesn't stand still. There are always new findings.
I was also trying to figure out whether your source was considering St. Patrick to be a "Southern Baptist"? Or was he "Independent Baptist"? "Free-will Baptist"? "Fellowship Baptist"? "Baptist Union"?
I'm confused Michael. What kind of Baptist was St. Patrick? I might of missed that in the article.
Which Baptist communion would he have most likely belonged to? I hope that it was the same one which Our Lord established.

Just some thoughts!
Irish Pete