Christian Forums

Have any one here ever heard of the old Celtic Church, or the monks of culdee? They were an early christian church from Ireland and the British Isles during the dark ages, and before. What do we know of them?

I once read a book called Celt and Saxon by Peter Berresford which I think went into some detail on this.

I believe the Celtic Church was similar to the Orthodox Church in Russia and Greece.

Celtic churches are the indigenous Christian churches of England.

St. Patrick (while often misdiagnosed as Catholic) was a Celtic missionary.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 23, 2008 - 10:34:49
Celtic churches are the indigenous Christian churches of England.

St. Patrick (while often misdiagnosed as Catholic) was a Celtic missionary.

I have a book called Celtic Spirituality. It is translated by Oliver Davies. The early Celtic Christians practiced a purer form of the Christian faith. The Roman Catholic church, as it "forced" its way into the British Isles, corrupted this purity.

There have been several areas of research regarding this early movement. The Church of Christ and others could learn much from the writings of these early Christians.

These "Celtic Christians" came out of pagan backgrounds. If you could step into their time, you would have found a group of people who bowed down to pagan gods and engaged in acts not much different than the Romans. There were Druids. The elements fire, water, earth, and wind were worshiped. In the path to Christianity, the elements became heart, mind, body, and spirit. Pagan worship was overthrown.

If you have an Irish, Scottish, or English heritage ( or any other), you might find it interesting to study the conversion of those people to the Christian faith. The Church in the British Isles was not easily established. It came about through much shedding of blood. There were wars between Druids and the early Christians. (That war still takes place today.)

Churches today that  are truly concerned about restoration would do well to look at these people called Celtic Christians. A common heritage exists. I wish we could truly discover what restoration means.

I've always heard they started "Halloween"... praying on the simple village people to "Give up" the food they wanted.   

No, they didnt start Halloween, that custom has its roots in the ancient pagan-druidic rituals. The Celtic Christians did indeed have a hard road to walk in starting a Christian movement in the home Isles. St. Patric, St. brendan and St. Molaise were part of the ancient Celtic church. This Celtic church was not as organized as the Roman church was in those days, and the individual churches had a little more freedom.
    When the Roman Empire fell in the late 400's, all of Europe fell into a long period of chaos known as the dark ages. But Ireland, on the fringe of the known European world, was not as affected by the collapse, as it had never been part of the Roman world. Ireland in those days was known as an island of monks and scholars, and it was the old Celtic church that saved a lot of our knowledge of the ancient world and the classical learning of earlier days. Many of the irish could read, when there were very few books in the rest of Europe. At least we do owe the monks and clerics of the old Celtic church some thanks for that.
     I have seen it said that the ancient Celtic church was a lot more like the protestant churches in doctrine than we may realize. But, they were pressed pretty hard around the 1200's, as the Roman Catholic church achived ascendancy. I am still looking into the Celtic church as a curiosity, as I have more interest than knowledge at this point.
     As yet, I have not learned what to think of the ancient Celtic church, I am still learning. It is fun though, to learn things about our ancient Christian brothers and sisters.

Quote from: Will Lee on Thu Oct 23, 2008 - 23:22:46
    When the Roman Empire fell in the late 400's, all of Europe fell into a long period of chaos known as the dark ages. But Ireland, on the fringe of the known European world, was not as affected by the collapse, as it had never been part of the Roman world. Ireland in those days was known as an island of monks and scholars, and it was the old Celtic church that saved a lot of our knowledge of the ancient world and the classical learning of earlier days. Many of the irish could read, when there were very few books in the rest of Europe. At least we do owe the monks and clerics of the old Celtic church some thanks for that.
   

Have you read How the Irish Saved Civilization?

Some folks trash it, but it was an interesting read.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 23, 2008 - 10:34:49
Celtic churches are the indigenous Christian churches of England.

St. Patrick (while often misdiagnosed as Catholic) was a Celtic missionary.

Help out here........what Church did St. Patrick belong to?

Quote from: Rahn on Thu Oct 23, 2008 - 21:15:05

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 23, 2008 - 10:34:49
Celtic churches are the indigenous Christian churches of England.

St. Patrick (while often misdiagnosed as Catholic) was a Celtic missionary.

I have a book called Celtic Spirituality. It is translated by Oliver Davies. The early Celtic Christians practiced a purer form of the Christian faith. The Roman Catholic church, as it "forced" its way into the British Isles, corrupted this purity.

There have been several areas of research regarding this early movement. The Church of Christ and others could learn much from the writings of these early Christians.

These "Celtic Christians" came out of pagan backgrounds. If you could step into their time, you would have found a group of people who bowed down to pagan gods and engaged in acts not much different than the Romans. There were Druids. The elements fire, water, earth, and wind were worshiped. In the path to Christianity, the elements became heart, mind, body, and spirit. Pagan worship was overthrown.

If you have an Irish, Scottish, or English heritage ( or any other), you might find it interesting to study the conversion of those people to the Christian faith. The Church in the British Isles was not easily established. It came about through much shedding of blood. There were wars between Druids and the early Christians. (That war still takes place today.)

Churches today that  are truly concerned about restoration would do well to look at these people called Celtic Christians. A common heritage exists. I wish we could truly discover what restoration means.

WOW

Now I have heard it all!  Even the Pagans were more Christian then those Pagan Catholics - oops I mean - shoot I am not even sure how to slur them anymore now that we accept the Pagans!

Boy, I used to be afraid of the boogieman - now I have the pope!

Pagans hide your children - in a Protestant Church (now that you are understood and accepted!) THE CATHOLICS ARE COMING!!

Quote from: Mere Nick on Sun Oct 26, 2008 - 17:31:10

Quote from: Will Lee on Thu Oct 23, 2008 - 23:22:46
    When the Roman Empire fell in the late 400's, all of Europe fell into a long period of chaos known as the dark ages. But Ireland, on the fringe of the known European world, was not as affected by the collapse, as it had never been part of the Roman world. Ireland in those days was known as an island of monks and scholars, and it was the old Celtic church that saved a lot of our knowledge of the ancient world and the classical learning of earlier days. Many of the irish could read, when there were very few books in the rest of Europe. At least we do owe the monks and clerics of the old Celtic church some thanks for that.
   

Have you read How the Irish Saved Civilization?

Some folks trash it, but it was an interesting read.

Be careful Cahill is one of those Catholics - in fact, he actually has the nerve to claim that St. Patrick was one too!

     If you are interested in learning about the old Celtic Church, then the sources are there, like the ones already mentioned. I did not understand midnight's post. I'm not sure why anyone should be wanting to cause slurs over a historical discussion? But anyway, back to the subject.
     St. Patric was a founder of this early church. There was also St. Brendan and St. Molaise there too, just to name a few. Try looking up and researching Armagh and Devenish Island, as well as Iona and the monks of Culdee. There is some really interesting and helpful stuff to be learned here. Ta Ta!

Historically speaking, the idea of a "Celtic" Church is an anachronism. The Celtic Church was simply the Western Latin Church in the British Isles (Britain, Ireland and Wales, Scotland) before the 7th century Council of Whitby (664 AD). After Whitby the Irish Church gradually came into line with the Roman Church and adopted Roman usages.

The Celtic Church was founded, after all, by Western monks such as (in Ireland) Palladius and Patrick (who was British), Aidan and Columba (in Britain and Scotland), etc.

Doctrinally speaking there were no significant differences in Ireland before the Council of Whitby. The ecclesiastical hierarchy was different however, structured as it was around a monastic network ruled by abbots, the Irish tonsure (religious haircut) was different than the western one, a distinctive form of penance evolved, in which confession was made to a priest privately who then meted out penance from a written penitential, and of course the Irish Church celebrated Easter on a different date.

A great and highly informative book on Celtic Christianity, which dispels many of the myths, is Dr. Thomas O'Loughlin's Celtic Theology: Humanity, World and God in Early Irish Writings.

There's a modern Celtic Synod:

http://www.celticsynod.org/

There is also a modern Church of the Culdees:

http://members.peak.org/~culdee/

Pax.

Hello There!

Wow what a topic!     I didnt think I'd come here and see this!

The picture on my profile is lismore lighthouse, lismore was one of the centres of the Celtic Christian Church where St Moluag was based.  Less famous than St Columba and Iona, but a big missionary centre. This is a great topic!

I love talking about the Celi De! They were an amazing church, but seen as heretical by the RCC.  They were quarto-decimans, which meant they followed the Jewish date for Easter {14 Nisan}  the celts weren't into replacement theology.  At the synod of Whitby the RCC confronted the Celtic Church over the date of Easter etc, after some further persecution the Celtic Church began to die. The last Celtic Christian monks were martyred I believe.  A difference over the date for Easter doesnt seem major, but when you think about it,  why they had the different date, it effects a lot of different doctrines. St Augustie and others moved th church away from its Jewish roots and rooted it in various funny things, the Celts didnt go along with it.

Have you ever read Adomnan of Iona's life of St Columba?  Great book! After lismore Iona is my favourite Scottish Island!

This topic makes me feel at home, thanks!



Some books I recommend:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-St-Columba-Penguin-Classics-Adomnan/dp/0140444629/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231178503&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celtic-Church-Britain-Leslie-Hardinge/dp/1572580348/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231178442&sr=8-2

Quote from: midnight on Sun Nov 16, 2008 - 17:31:46

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 23, 2008 - 10:34:49
Celtic churches are the indigenous Christian churches of England.

St. Patrick (while often misdiagnosed as Catholic) was a Celtic missionary.

Help out here........what Church did St. Patrick belong to?

Like St Columba, everyone claims St Patrick.  The Catholics, the protestants, various groups.  However I read what a 19th century Duke of Argyll had to say about St Columba, Argyll was a famous Presbyterian, claiming that while St Columba was one of them, they could not believe the accounts of what Columba said and did.  The Catholics are the same, they will claim Columba and Patrick because of the fame of these guys, but will not agree with what they are reported to have said and done. 

The truth is I think that these men belonged to God more than to any human church!

St. Patrick was born c. 390 AD in Britain near the unidentified Romano-British village of Bannanventum Taberniae (Britain having been a province of the Roman Empire). His Latin name was Patricius, and he was born the son of a well-to-do minor official; his grandfather, Potitus, had possibly been a presbyter of the church (this was before clerical celibacy was mandatory in the Western Church).  As a boy, Patrick probably did not take his faith very seriously. When he was about 15, Patrick committed some unnamed sin which haunted him the rest of his life and was latrer used to try and discredit his ministry in Ireland by someone he thought was his friend.  Also when he was about 15, Patrick's villa was raided by Irish pirates and he was carried off and sold into slavery, probably in Northeast Ireland. At this time Ireland, or at least the interior of Ireland, was still primitive-at least by British or continental standards. Rome never bothered to conquer the island and the native Celtic religion with its druid priests was still the dominant faith when Patrick first arrived, though there were isolated pockets of Christians near the coastal Roman trading settlements.

The Irish themselves lived in large clans, ruled by chieftains, and unfortunately, slavery was routinely practiced by them, with maraudiung bands of Irish slavers roving the sea between Britain and Ireland; only healthy, able-bodied slaves young enough to be broken were sold-children and the elderly were usually killed. Any males considered potential risks for escape or revolt were also killed.

After five or six years years working as a shepherd, Patrick had a dream which he believed was from God telling him to escape from his master, that he would be able to obtain passage on a ship, which he did, eventually returning to Britain and his family. While at home with his family Patrick had two visions of a man he had known as a slave in Ireland, urging him to return to Ireland as an evangelist. So Patrick entered holy orders. In 430 he returned to Ireland, perhaps as a priest or deacon serving under Bishop Palladius, the first recorded missionary bishop in Ireland; sometime after his arrival in Ireland, Patrick was consecrated a bishop.

Patrick died about 460 AD, after a long career as missionary bishop to the Irish. Due to a lack of records much is unknown about Patrick's life and career; as with most early saints there is much fantastic hagiography surrounding his life, such as his allegedly driving the snakes out of Ireland (there hadn't been snakes in Ireland for centuries) or teaching the concept of the Trinity via a shamrock, most of which stories date from centuries after Patrick. The only two extant writings we have of Patrick's are his "Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus" and his "Confessio."

The "Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus" is a letter excommunicating a Celtic chieftain named Coroticus whose men had slaughtered a group of newly baptized virgin converts of Patrick's. The "Confessio" was written near the end of Patrick's life; it is his written testimony to his life and ministry, and is the source of most of the scanty information we have for Patrick's life and career.

From his two surviving writings, we know that Bishop Patrick was a very humble man, who was perhaps embarrassed by his lack of a formal education-his being abruptly interrupted when he was captured and sold into slavery as a teenager; his Latin is the rather rustic vernacular, not the polished Latin of the bishops, philosophers and scholars.

As before stated, little detail is known of Patrick's life. In his writings, Patrick hints at some sort of betrayal he experienced by a good friend, who used Patrick's confession of a youthful sin or indiscretion in an attempt to discredit him, which wounded Patrick deeply.

Patrick's works exhibit a thorough knowledge of scripture. The Bishop also took his pastoral duties very seriously; he was outraged at the slaughter of several new members of his flock by Coroticus' men and, via his subsequent letter of excommunication, let the chieftain know in no uncertain terms how he felt about these women's deaths.

Bishop Patrick was a deeply spiritual man of God whose legacy is much deeper than green beer and "Kiss me, I'm Irish" badges.

A few good studies of Patrick are: The Life and Writings of the Historical Saint Patrick by the Rev. R. P. C. Hanson; The Life of St. Patrick and His Place in History by J. B. Bury; St. Patrick of Ireland by Philip Freeman, and Sister Marie de Paor's Patrick" Pilgrim Apostle of Ireland.



In Patrick's day there were no Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches, less still any kind of distinctly "Celtic" church. The one church didn't oficially split into Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox wings until 1054 AD. Patrick was a member of the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church everyone who was a Christian belonged to.

Pax.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 16:54:45
The one church didn't oficially split into Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox wings until 1054 AD. Patrick was a member of the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church everyone who was a Christian belonged to.
Pax.

There were many different churches and groups before 1054, most of those who didnt agree with the doctrines of the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church were persecutd out of existence and labelled 'heretics'.

God Bless You

That was a very informative and much appreciated post, my thanks. I wonder now, about St. Molaise and his founding of the church on Devinish island, or was it Armagh? Where the bird singing to him was the Holy Spirit? Was this a teaching that he himself provided, or was it ascribbed to him at a later date? How much of this was attributed to him during his lifetime, and how much might have been added later? Was the any mystiscism eroneosly added in later by others, or was this a true account given by St. Molaise himself?

Quote from: lismore on Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 18:39:20

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 16:54:45
The one church didn't oficially split into Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox wings until 1054 AD. Patrick was a member of the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church everyone who was a Christian belonged to.
Pax.

There were many different churches and groups before 1054, most of those who didnt agree with the doctrines of the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church were persecutd out of existence and labelled 'heretics'.

God Bless You

Some bona fide heresies were, but other communions such as the Coptic (Ethiopian) Church (the Monophysite heresy) still exist. The Jacobite and Nestorian Churches flourished in Asia  Minor and Asia for another thousand years, well into the Middle Ages. Dr. Philip Jenkins has just wriiten a book called The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, which examines these African and Asian Christian communions.

Pax.

Quote from: lismore on Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 18:39:20There were many different churches and groups before 1054, most of those who didnt agree with the doctrines of the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church were persecutd out of existence and labelled 'heretics'.

Ah, yes, elements of the "trail of blood" history of the Church, in which we align ourselves with any fringe group so as to avoid tracing the Church Jesus founded through any semblance of an "institutional" "organization."  Instead of apostolic teaching, persecution by the institution becomes the litmus test of authentic Christianity.  So we lionize Gnostics, Montanists or any other group who has elements we like better than the institution.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 13:10:10

Quote from: lismore on Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 18:39:20There were many different churches and groups before 1054, most of those who didnt agree with the doctrines of the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church were persecutd out of existence and labelled 'heretics'.

Ah, yes, elements of the "trail of blood" history of the Church, in which we align ourselves with any fringe group so as to avoid tracing the Church Jesus founded through any semblance of an "institutional" "organization."  Instead of apostolic teaching, persecution by the institution becomes the litmus test of authentic Christianity.  So we lionize Gnostics, Montanists or any other group who has elements we like better than the institution.

Is that not a given in this age defined by the ideas and works of Luther, Calvin, Servetus, Socinus, Cranmer, Cromwell, Fox, and Mary Baker Eddy, all rolled up together and synthesized?

I think it was Richard II that benifitted by a papal bull which allowed him to send the Norman knight known as "Strongbow" to Ireland with a military force to help a deposed regional king get his kingdom back? I think the reasoning that the pope (an Englishman) gave in issueing the papal bull was because there were heresies (Celtic church) being practiced in Ireland. Of course the first thing that Strongbow did upon arriving in Ireland was to burn the city of Wexford to the ground and put many of the citizens to the edge of the sword.

The RC church began to gain primacy in Ireland pretty soon after the English conquest began, I think. Do I have it pretty much right? Im not being contentious, just trying to learn.

There was nothing distinctly "Celtic" about the Catholic Church in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, save the standard minor regional variations (such as differences in the Irish monastic system, style of tonsure, the date of the Irish celebration of Easter, etc.). So aside from the standard regional variations, Irish Catholicism was practically identical to English and continental Catholicism. But at the Council of Whitby in the 7th century the Irish Church finally accepted Roman usuages.

The Church in Ireland after all, was originally planted in the 4th century, largely by Roman Catholic missionaries from Britain and continental Europe like St. Palladius and St. Patrick.

The Normans/English had been attempting to subdue Ireland since shortly after the Conquest in the late 11th century. They tried to Anglicanize the country, at one point outlawing (unsuccesfully) specifically Irish customs such as language, names, dress, etc.

The idea of a distinctly Celtic Church that was substantially distinct from Roman Catholicism is a popular myth.

Pax.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 11:52:44
There was nothing distinctly "Celtic" about the Catholic Church in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, save the standard minor regional variations (such as differences in the Irish monastic system, style of tonsure, the date of the Irish celebration of Easter, etc.). So aside from the standard regional variations, Irish Catholicism was practically identical to English and continental Catholicism. But at the Council of Whitby in the 7th century the Irish Church finally accepted Roman usuages.

The Church in Ireland after all, was originally planted in the 4th century, largely by Roman Catholic missionaries from Britain and continental Europe like St. Palladius and St. Patrick.

The Normans/English had been attempting to subdue Ireland since shortly after the Conquest in the late 11th century. They tried to Anglicanize the country, at one point outlawing (unsuccesfully) specifically Irish customs such as language, names, dress, etc.

The idea of a distinctly Celtic Church that was substantially distinct from Roman Catholicism is a popular myth.

Pax.

As careful as you are in your comments, I would gently remind you that prior to about the twelfth or thirteenth centuries A.D., there was no Roman Catholic Church as such.  It was the Catholic Church, which at that time also included what is now called the Eastern Orthodox.

But you are correct in that Irish Catholicism was pretty much the same as the rest of the Church in the world, but that for some of the disciplinary rubrics (monastic tonsure) and canonical matters (the date of Easter decided at I Nicaea), it was identical.  Down to, if I may, the use of icons.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 13:10:10

Quote from: lismore on Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 18:39:20There were many different churches and groups before 1054, most of those who didnt agree with the doctrines of the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church were persecutd out of existence and labelled 'heretics'.

Ah, yes, elements of the "trail of blood" history of the Church, in which we align ourselves with any fringe group so as to avoid tracing the Church Jesus founded through any semblance of an "institutional" "organization."  Instead of apostolic teaching, persecution by the institution becomes the litmus test of authentic Christianity.  So we lionize Gnostics, Montanists or any other group who has elements we like better than the institution.

No, we dont lionize Gnostics, Montanists or such. I dont think we should have persecuted them either.  But lumped together with these groups were undoubtedly some believers caught in the trap of institutional religion.  'If you dont agree with these 9,000 shifting truths you are a heretic'.

God Bless You

By the way, what, specifically is the definition of "institutional religion"?  It's a phrase that gets through around a lot, but to quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

OK, I a confused a little perhaps. I suppose I use the term Celtic church because that is how I have seen it refered to so often. I wasunder the impression that there was a Celtic church apart from the Catholic church in the dark ages. I had it in my mind that the Catholic church gradually formed in Europe (mainland while the Celtic church, or Iona church, just kind of started with missionaries like Patric, but never really formed as tight of an organized body as the Catholic church. Is that right, in that what I often call the Celtic church was a rather loose collection of evangelical institutions?

Quote from: Will Lee on Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 23:30:23Is that right, in that what I often call the Celtic church was a rather loose collection of evangelical institutions?

No.  As you do further research on the matter, you will find that many of the books you may first encounter--because they are popular and therefore easily acquired--are spouting a mythology.  That mythology is essentially a form or Rousseauan noble savage: civilization (read [institutional] Christianity) makes the pure and noble pagan bad and evil.

That's essentially what's going on in a lot of the pop Celtic Christian studies.  Oh, those early Celtic Christians, so close to nature, so free and unencumbered by that papal institutional religiosity, blah blah blah.

In fact, what you'll find is that the Celtic Church was just simply the Church Catholic in Ireland.  There were, as has already been noted, some liturgical and canonical differences, but not much.  And, contrary to what's been put out there on this thread, Rome didn't come and ruthlessly enforce canonical discipline, the Celts decided it themselves under their own Abbess Hilda of Whitby.  Was there disagreement and controversy?  You bet.  There always is around these sorts of decisions.  But the synod didn't have anyone beheaded or burned at the stake for not going along.

Quote from: CDHealy on Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 12:09:32

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 11:52:44
There was nothing distinctly "Celtic" about the Catholic Church in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, save the standard minor regional variations (such as differences in the Irish monastic system, style of tonsure, the date of the Irish celebration of Easter, etc.). So aside from the standard regional variations, Irish Catholicism was practically identical to English and continental Catholicism. But at the Council of Whitby in the 7th century the Irish Church finally accepted Roman usuages.

The Church in Ireland after all, was originally planted in the 4th century, largely by Roman Catholic missionaries from Britain and continental Europe like St. Palladius and St. Patrick.

The Normans/English had been attempting to subdue Ireland since shortly after the Conquest in the late 11th century. They tried to Anglicanize the country, at one point outlawing (unsuccesfully) specifically Irish customs such as language, names, dress, etc.

The idea of a distinctly Celtic Church that was substantially distinct from Roman Catholicism is a popular myth.

Pax.

As careful as you are in your comments, I would gently remind you that prior to about the twelfth or thirteenth centuries A.D., there was no Roman Catholic Church as such.  It was the Catholic Church, which at that time also included what is now called the Eastern Orthodox.

But you are correct in that Irish Catholicism was pretty much the same as the rest of the Church in the world, but that for some of the disciplinary rubrics (monastic tonsure) and canonical matters (the date of Easter decided at I Nicaea), it was identical.  Down to, if I may, the use of icons.

You're right of course. I should've been a wee bit more precise there.

Pax.

Quote from: Will Lee on Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 23:30:23
OK, I a confused a little perhaps. I suppose I use the term Celtic church because that is how I have seen it refered to so often. I wasunder the impression that there was a Celtic church apart from the Catholic church in the dark ages. I had it in my mind that the Catholic church gradually formed in Europe (mainland while the Celtic church, or Iona church, just kind of started with missionaries like Patric, but never really formed as tight of an organized body as the Catholic church. Is that right, in that what I often call the Celtic church was a rather loose collection of evangelical institutions?

CD is absolutely right here. The idea of a "Celtic Church" separate and apart from the  catholic Church throughout the rest of Europe is a myth. You read it a lot in New Age and/or Gnostic type books.

The Irish were conscious that they received Christianity from the British, while the British were conscious of their link with the church in Brittany (in modern-day France). All were in communion with Rome and Byzantium. And as I said, the Irish Church at the 7th century Council of Whitby (in Yorkshire, England), finally accepted Roman ususages.

May I recommend Thomas O'Loughlin's Celtic Theology: Humanity Word and God in Early Irish Writings? This is a great book which, among other things, expodes the myth of the "Celtic Church."

Pax.

A question: In the next couple of months I'm going to be studying (and then teaching) some Celtic mythology.  Was there any attempt by Christians in this area to incorporate any themes or personalities as they moved in?  For instance, I know that Norse gods were encouraged to be thought of as ancestors of families and people rather than forgotten altogether.

Just wondering.

Quote from: lismore on Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 12:18:07

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 13:10:10

Quote from: lismore on Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 18:39:20There were many different churches and groups before 1054, most of those who didnt agree with the doctrines of the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church were persecutd out of existence and labelled 'heretics'.

Ah, yes, elements of the "trail of blood" history of the Church, in which we align ourselves with any fringe group so as to avoid tracing the Church Jesus founded through any semblance of an "institutional" "organization."  Instead of apostolic teaching, persecution by the institution becomes the litmus test of authentic Christianity.  So we lionize Gnostics, Montanists or any other group who has elements we like better than the institution.

No, we dont lionize Gnostics, Montanists or such. I dont think we should have persecuted them either.  But lumped together with these groups were undoubtedly some believers caught in the trap of institutional religion.  'If you dont agree with these 9,000 shifting truths you are a heretic'.

God Bless You

What people, esp. gnostic cheerleaders like Elaine Pagels and Karen King, often forget, is that the gnostics were evey bit, if not more, intolerant, than orthodox Christians are said to have been. This modern idea that Pagels espouses of alll these different gnostic sects living in peace and harmony with each other and in which everyone was free to believe what he/she liked is a myth. Because its what modern gnostics and neo-gnostics want, these folks assume that historic gnostics would agree, whereas nothing could be further from the truth.

Orthodox author Frederica Matthews-Green writes:

"Gnosticism was elitist; Christianity was egalitarian, preferring "neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free.

    I am soaking up a lot of info here. What I am most interested in is what the Churches in Britain would have looked like in, say, 500 ad. Are you saying ( forgive me for being ignorant) that all of the Christian churches in Britain, Ieland, Wales, and Scotland were part of and organized into the Roman Catholic Church?
Also, I am under a misconception as to whether or not the earliest 4t-5th century monks (like the monks of culdee) were bound by vows of celibacy like the Benedictine order is, for example?
    I guess what realy threw a lot of folks was the "Celtc cross" being different, having a circle around its center. That is kind of suggestive of a different organization. Popular misconception being that the continuous wars and invasions of saxons after the withdrawl of Roman troops left the ancient celtic missionaries to Ireland in a more or less hard to reach position, and thus the Christianising of Ireland went on with little direction from Rome, and so they had to go it more or less alone. At least that what I had thought.

Quote from: Will Lee on Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 00:05:39I am soaking up a lot of info here. What I am most interested in is what the Churches in Britain would have looked like in, say, 500 ad. Are you saying ( forgive me for being ignorant) that all of the Christian churches in Britain, Ieland, Wales, and Scotland were part of and organized into the Roman Catholic Church?

No, because there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church in AD 500.  There was only the Church, which had been founded by Christ on Pentecost.

What did the Churches of Ireland look like?  They worshipped liturgically, had a sacramental understanding of grace, confessed the Nicene Creed, and so on.

Quote from: Will Lee on Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 00:05:39Also, I am under a misconception as to whether or not the earliest 4t-5th century monks (like the monks of culdee) were bound by vows of celibacy like the Benedictine order is, for example?

Yes, they would have made vows of celibacy.  The Benedictines, however, did not come into existence until the sixth century because Benedict wasn't alive till then (he died in AD 543)

Quote from: Will Lee on Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 00:05:39I guess what realy threw a lot of folks was the "Celtc cross" being different, having a circle around its center. That is kind of suggestive of a different organization.

That's a huge and illogical leap.  In point of fact, if you look at images of the Cross through history, there is a lot of diversity, and no one particular version defines anyone particular group.

Quote from: Will Lee on Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 00:05:39Popular misconception being that the continuous wars and invasions of saxons after the withdrawl of Roman troops left the ancient celtic missionaries to Ireland in a more or less hard to reach position, and thus the Christianising of Ireland went on with little direction from Rome, and so they had to go it more or less alone. At least that what I had thought.

Much missionary work in the West, was done locally and without much direct interference with Rome.  In fact, the missions to the British Isles were already way, when Rome sent Augustine of Canterbury to sort of oversee things.

CD is right. The Celtic/Irish Church looked like the Latin Church in Britain, or Gaul, or Italy. Thomas O'Loughlin addresses this in his Celtic Theology:

"Was there a form of Christianity in these islands distinctive from that in the rest of the Latin world, or put in more socio-political terms, was there a 'Cletic Church'? . . . Moreover, the 'Celtic Church' notion fails to recognize the most obvious facts: the early medieval writers whom we shall examine all sought that theological ideal that truth was 'what was held always, everywhere, by everyone,' and if they had suspected that they were in any way idiosdyncratic, they would have been the first to adapt their ideas to that of the larger group. Equally, when we look at where their works have survived, we find that for the most part it is in continental manuscripts, which shows that not only the scholars but their works were received and appreciated without any awareness of deviancy. The acid test is this: did the Christians in the Celtic lands have a markedly different liturgy or system of law? Here the most brief sampling of the evidence shows that the Irish material is no more distinctive than materials from any other part of the Latin world of the time. For example the Stowe Missal contains the Roman rite and its local additions would not amount to judging it a distinct rite.  The best example for legal structures is the Collectio hibernensis; it reflects the social situation in Ireland, but it was used throughout Europe and many of its sentenciae can be followed from collection to collection until they are found in Gratian.

"The counter-example of the Easter-dating controversy does not undermine this position. At issue was a very technical piece of maths that only bothered a small number of people for a limited time, and would hardly surface on the horizon of history save that it was a techincal matter close to the heart of Bede."

O'Loughlin says that the origin of the notion of a distinctly "Celtic" Church lies within the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation. The Irish who rejected Rome in the present still wanted to appropriate the past as their own. If the past was their past, and their present involved the very conscientious rejection of Rome, then the past had to be non-Roman as well. He also argues that Irish nationalists also contributed. If Ireland was to stand alone as a nation then it had to have the antquity and dignity of a nationhood which had been conquered. To be just an island on the western fringe of Europe was no good-that was merely an argument that it should be a rural province ruled by a capital which happened to be in London.  For a nation "long a province" to be a nation once again," it had to have a distinctive language, an ancient history, and a pride in its individual and distinctive achievements.

The third group O'Loughlin says contributed to the myth of the "Celtic" Church was/is people in other countries who view the "Celtic World' as a romantic alternative to the decay and corruption  of the decadent Roman Empire, thence as the noble bearers of civilization to its barbarian successors. This, he says, reduces the fall of Rome, barbarian invasions, and the conversion of Europe down to a single narrative of black and white. Finally a plucky band of Irish monks saves the day. Interestingly O'Loughlin refers to Thomas Cahil's popular How the Irish Saved Civilization as a modern example of this.

Pax.