Celtic Christianity

Harry Weatherford

OP

I always see posts about the different sects of Christianity. But yet there are some that seem unknown to people. One which I subscribe to is Celtic Christianity. It existed in the British Isles long before Roman Catholicism. The practice thought monastic, believed that it was God, country, family was utmost importance. That Christ was the only way to god and that not only spoke with the bible but spoke through nature and dreams. Also believed in the power of the holy spirit to do all things. To the Roman Catholics this was heresy and wanted to stamp it out. They believed it was evil because they considered it dark magic. When in truth, as Saint Coulomb put it, "all that I do is in accordance to the will of God. And Christ is my high priest." What are your thoughts?

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Can you document Rome considered Celtic Christianity "dark magic"?

Continued

in V.

II

David Jackson

I don't think Rome particulalry cared about what the Celtic Christians believed. What bothered them is that they didn't acknowledge Rome's authority.

It's playing out today with Brexit. England wants out and it infuriates the continental, Roman-based system that there are nations that won't knuckle under. Especially Anglo-Saxon ones, whom they especially disliked to begin with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"to begin with"

Rome treaty or sth else?

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl In ancient times. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons resisted Roman domination. They defeated Rome at Teutoburg Wald and so were never conquered by them, as the rest of western Europe was.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Germanic Anglo-Saxons resisted Roman domination. They defeated Rome at Teutoburg Wald and so were never conquered by them, as the rest of western Europe was."

Some Germans certainly did, like I have heard Arminius the Cheruscan.

I also think Cheruscans are more properly considered Bavarians than Anglo-Saxons, or perhaps Suabians.

Anglo-Saxons, by contrast, were siding with Rome on the Easter date conflict, and Rome therefore backed their conquest of Celtic Britain.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Arminius (Herman) was from northern Germany, where the Saxons were. They later mostly migrated to England.

The Saxons invaded England while they were still pagan. They didn't convert to Christianity until later. Rome would not have backed them for that reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Rome backed them when they converted, since they converted in very Rome loyal fashion, compared to Celts.

Btw, you seem to be correct on Cheruscans, the ones I was thinking of were Semnones.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl They invaded England before they converted, though. That's what the whole Arthurian legends are about - a pagan people invading the Christianized Celtic people of Britain. It occurred after the Romans left the islands.

Rome backed them after they converted to the Roman views.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"They invaded England before they converted, though."

Not all of it.

For instance, Mercia arguably remained Celtic for some time, certainly so did the Hen Ogledd.

" It occurred after the Romans left the islands."

After the legions - the left behind Celtic high nobility arguably felt like heirs of Rome.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Mercia eventually fell to the Saxons. I think it was under King Penda.

Yes, the Britons felt lke they were the heirs of Rome and saw the Angles and Saxons as barbaric invaders.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"eventually fell to the Saxons."

Eventually. By the time Penda was defeated, Anglo-Saxons were very Roman.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, the Anglo-Saxon establishment became Romanized in their religion not long after conquering most of the island.

That lasted until the Viking invasions c. AD 1000 when more non-Christian invaders came from Scandinavia. Eventually they broke with Rome under Henry VIII and Rome has been trying to get them back ever since.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" the Anglo-Saxon establishment became Romanized in their religion not long after conquering most of the island."

Or of its South and East ... according to Belloc, then is when they started conquering the rest.

"Eventually they broke with Rome under Henry VIII"

To the detriment of everyone, temporal for the faithful and obviously more like eternal for the schismatics.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl It was good that they broke with Rome. Rome is the enemy of God's people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

David Jackson

They will form the Revived Roman empire of the end times described in the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where do you get it from that Roman Empire is the identity of Babylon?

Rome may well be its locality, but Empire, Imperial dignity, was what "held back" (II Thess)

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl That passage is about the future, in the end times. The Roman system will remove the true church through persecution and deportation to make room for the antichrist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes : Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Thessalonians : Chapter 2
http://drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm

The true Church CANNOT be taken out of the way.

So, it must be sth less. Like Roman, Imperial, dignity.

Look what happened when Charles of Austria and Nicolas of Russia were taken out of the way 100 years ago.

Appendix

Citing the note of Challoner to verse 3:

[3] "A revolt": This revolt, or falling off, is generally understood, by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman empire, which was first to be destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist. It may, perhaps, be understood also of a revolt of many nations from the Catholic Church; which has, in part, happened already, by means of Mahomet, Luther, &c., and it may be supposed, will be more general in the days of the Antichrist.

III

James T Beaton

What is Celtic Christianity? I’m Scottish and English.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Schismatic Catholicism, except when it's not plain Catholicism.

Harry Weatherford

Celtic Christianity believed in living in harmony with the land and God. Didn't believe in praying to saints and Mary. Believed that all things were connected. Lived humbly and believed that God was everywhere and everything that was in nature.

I must say though, even though they didn't pray to saints, they did believe that they still do God's bidding

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Can you document those allegations?

IV

Anil Wadhwani

God gave all scriptures through the bible. Adding to it will get people in trouble.

Emma Surtees

How cfan you be sure its not been added too

Anil Wadhwani

The bible is complete. And with the books included, it shows our near future and the future till eternity after the 1000 year millennium.

Natasha Jordaan

Oh it’s been added to and omitted from countless times without authority from God...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It has been defined by God's authority, since by the Church's authority at Trent.

Emma Surtees

Unless you are at message sent able to percieve it with no barrier to your senses you can only ever be sure of message recieved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fact is, there is no barrier between the decision of Trent and the senses of Catholics checking it, since the decision was documened.

Emma Surtees

But there is a barrier between your senses and it

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Barrier means sth blocking.

Now, in case sth is publically documented, in the case for instance of solemn decisions, there is indeed indirectness, but not in the sense of actually blocking checkability;

V

Harry Weatherford

Unfortunately we have very little documentation on the Ceili De. Most of what we have is from the time of Cullmceil. (Saint Coulomb) when he was accused of using druidic magic. As well some legends and documentation of an argument on the calculation of Easter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" when he was accused of using druidic magic."

By whom?

"documentation of an argument on the calculation of Easter."

Sounds exactly what I have heard of the conflict, plus perhaps Celtic monks doing harder ascetism.

Harry Weatherford

Accused by the Roman Church, it is the where we get the saying Christ is my arch druid (high priest) and all I have done I'd in accordance with his teachings

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Accused by the Roman Church"

Would you mind context? Documentation?

See below, I get a very divergent story from yours simply by checking wikipedia.

Continued

under VII.

VI

Natasha Jordaan

God speaks to me in various ways outside of the Bible. Sometimes audibly, sometimes more like crystal clear telepathy, He sometimes communicates from inside of me. He explains things through visions. There is nothing dark about my experiences with Him.

Anil Wadhwani

God still speaks through Words of knowledge and dreams and prophecies. However, if any of it go against the written Word. it is not true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Exactly what Rome would say.

James T Beaton

It is more often than not goes against the Word of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

James T Beaton Why?

VII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I took a look at wikipedia both on Columbanus and Columba - you seem to have heard a version conflating both as well as demonising Rome.

Columba was excommunicated, but not any indication Rome was involved.

Columbanus was in conflict about Easter date, and was not excommunicated, but in fact appealed to ... Rome.

Harry Weatherford ...

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl as I said. We have scant info on the Ceili De. Yes he did appeal to the Roman Church to change their calculation of Easter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"scant info"

Scant my arse!

We have ample info, but your sect doesn't want you to read it, since it could lead to your:

• a) becoming Catholic
• b) becoming Orthodox
• c) rejecting the Ceili Dé.

"Yes he did appeal to the Roman Church to change their calculation of Easter."

I don't think that was the exact content of the letter, no.

Harry Weatherford

The Ceili De calculated that Easter was about a week before what the Romans calculated. This caused an up roar. So much so that there was a council. However the Ceili De was shot down because by this time the Roman Church had such a hold. You want to say I'm wrong?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes.

• 1) There were two uproars, one in France around Columbanus, another in England about Synod of Whitby
• 2) The Ceili Dé were NOT shot down either time, though Whitby came closer, in chosing Roman rather than Irish missionaries.
• 3) The Roman Church did not have enough hold to get Easter celebrated after Roman calendar all over British Isles to the time of Richard de Clare, a k a Strongbow. This was nearly 600 years after the first and nearly 500 years after the second uproar.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl really? The easter that is observed is based on the roman calculation, not the Irish.the Ceili De was shut down. As a matter of fact that they were thought so little of they were forced basicly to be laymen and eventually phased out almost of existence. There were a few pockets that survived living in monasteries away from roman thoughts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"was shut down."

Not in Columban's nor in Columba's time.

"As a matter of fact that they were thought so little of they were forced basicly to be laymen and eventually phased out almost of existence."

Perhaps in Strongbow's time.

In Columbanus' time, the conflict was over when he went from Gaul to Italy. Not sure whether the Popes granted him the right to use his Easter or he went with the Pope's (which is more probable), but he founded Bobbio, which is where his biographer lived.

You are aware there are a few centuries between 585 and 1169, right?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes I am well aware.

Gbemisola Awelewa

Hmmmm, Interesting!

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am also aware that from late 600 early 700 ad Ceili De was for all purpose subjugated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"from late 600 early 700 ad Ceili De was for all purpose subjugated."

Absolutely not true.

They were still going strong where they came from.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl it is. From about mid 700s their mention were few and far between. Their lack of influence can be seen in the manuscripts dating from the 800s on. During this time much of the land they had was disposed to the Roman Church and became basicly no more then grounds keepers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"From about mid 700s their mention were few and far between."

Not where they were from, Celtic parts of British isles.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl they are only strong because of the few that survived

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But this is a mythology. In fact, Celtic Christians had locally another discipline of monks, and they were not successful in imposing it either in France or England. They were successful in spreading God's word - by adapting to Benedictine customs.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl how do you mean? I don't understand how you phrased the last post

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Irish monks living like Irish monks were NOT successful, but Irish monks living like the monks they went among WERE successful.

Except on Ireland and Wales and Scotland, and so, where they were successful up to Norman conquests.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl that I understand however that was few communities. Do you agree with that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl very few survived most were subjugated to be laymen. Scribes and so forth without holding any real power

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, it was ALL OF Irish, Welsh etc Christendom.

Precisely as after they had had their day as missionaries, and run into a conflict, ALL OF Christians in f inst Gaul celebrated Roman Easter.

"very few survived most were subjugated to be laymen"

What the heck are you talking about?

Strongbow?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl to be honest I know nothing of Strongbow. What I do know is the fact that after the 700s many communities were taken over by the roman Church, forced to practice the dogma of the Roman Church and since they didn't have the "education" were deemed no more then servants to the church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but that is gibberish, if you add "survived". And since you add even here "forced".

In the Celtic parts, the Ceili Dé throve, in the rest, they were foreigners anyway. There was no occasion I know of on which they were persecuted. They decided to adapt.

And indeed, Irish Latin was a bit bad.

I think YOUR sect has amalgamated what happened c. 800 on the Continent with what really happened at Norman conquest.

Centures later. Do you get it now?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl allow me to ask. Are you Roman Catholic? I only ask to see where you are coming from. Because these are the facts. Before the Roman Church taking over, the Ceili De did not pray to Mary, nor the saints. They celebrated Easter a couple of days after when Passover was celebrated. They were the ones that the kings would consult, as well believed that only god could forgive sin not a priest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl as far as "surviving" I refer to the few communities that completely cut them selves off from society. The ones "forced" I refer to the ones that the Roman Church seized control of the communities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Are you Roman Catholic? I only ask to see where you are coming from."

Most definitely, yes.

"Because these are the facts."

You haven't linked to any documentation.

"Before the Roman Church taking over, the Ceili De did not pray to Mary, nor the saints."

That is mythology, not history.

"They celebrated Easter a couple of days after when Passover was celebrated."

Yes, Sunday after. Bc that was the Roman Calendar in St Patrick's day.

"They were the ones that the kings would consult,"

Like kings have consulted monks elsewhere, yes.

"as well believed that only god could forgive sin not a priest."

They had all seven sacraments, including sacramental absolution of sins.

// as far as "surviving" I refer to the few communities that completely cut them selves off from society. //

This is not a "survival" that has been documented.

From "Dark Ages" (600 - 800) to Strongbow, you have Celtic Church technically in schism from Rome or at least from Anglo-Saxon Rome loyal clergy and you have a "separate Church" about as much as you have with Eastern Orthodox, or a bit less. This separate Church covered ALL of the Celtic lands on British Isles, while all Rome loyal (celebrating Easter on newer Roman calendar) clergy were on British Isles attached to couurts speaking Anglo-Saxon.

Precisely as you had Orthodox clergy at the Byzantine court separated from Rome from 1053 or 1054 to the taking of Constantinople in 1204 or sth.

This is much more than just a "survival".

// The ones "forced" I refer to the ones that the Roman Church seized control of the communities. //

Celtic Church never intended to be un-Roman in the first place. Precisely as Orthodox Church don't intend to (heard of "second Rome, third Rome" ideologies?). This means it was an easy step for a Celtic founded monastery on the continent to shift discipline from Celtic to Roman. It was only on the British Isles that such a step was seen as a disloyalty, since it favoured the Anglo-Saxon invasion (as it was still seen at Celtic courts despite many Anglo-Saxons in 664 already descending from lots of Celts), and so it was seen as national treason. Much like Orthodox Byzantines would see "Romeing" as a treason to the Byzantine superiority complex.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl bullocks. The monasteries existed before Roman Church take over. The full Roman Church take over started in the early 500s. The Ceili De monasteries were established about late 300s early 400s. Is is believed that the traditions originated in Asia Minor. And yes with the bible this can be confirmed just with the book of Galatians which was a Celtic settlement in Asia Minor. It was not till after the fall of Roman empire when the Roman Church really began to spread into the British Isles with Augustine at the for front. Yes they have the sacraments, yes they had the bible as put together at the Nicien conference. How ever the calculation of easter was based on the Jewish calendar. Therefore Easter was a floating Holy day that may occur during the week. However I his is the correct calculation.

They did not pray to Mary nor the saints, even to this day it is in their belief statement. That was something that was forced on them. It was idolatrist and against their belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You get your documentation from "their" belief statements "to this day"?

Now, that is bullocks.

"That was something that was forced on them. It was idolatrist and against their belief."

Totally undocumented, since the group which is saying this cannot document its continuity with earlier Celtic Christians.

"The monasteries existed before Roman Church take over."

Before the mainstream Latin tradition takeover of them ... also known as Reform of St Benedict of Aniane (who went by the rules known as rule of St Benedict of Nursia and Rule of the Master).

"It was not till after the fall of Roman empire when the Roman Church really began to spread into the British Isles with Augustine at the for front."

And how come Celts in Roman Empire had a different Church from Roman Empire? And how come Roman Empire shifted Church between 410 when there were still legionaries in "England" and 597 when St Augustine was consecrated bishop to go to "England"?

"Yes they have the sacraments,"

All seven, including Confession or Penance - in which the priest forgives on God's behalf.

Had, btw, I am not vouching for your contacts having valid sacraments.

"How ever the calculation of easter was based on the Jewish calendar. Therefore Easter was a floating Holy day that may occur during the week. However I his is the correct calculation."

Not quite true, Easter was Sunday with them as well.

VIII

James T Beaton

In my research in my ancestors’ history.

Most of my family were from Presbyterians and Puritans.

Celtic Christianity is a movement wherein ancient practices that were presumed to be followed in Christianity in the British Isles are integrated into current Christian practice.

The main issue was Celtic Christians claim that extra-biblical legend says that Joseph of Arimathea was a relative of Mary’s and took the young Jesus to the British Isles.

Celtic Christian practice is no longer active except in certain tribes.

The claim is that Celtic Christianity teaches the traditions of the early Christians in the British Isles before Roman Catholicism gained ground there.

The Celts were a loose association of tribes and often leads to scriptural errors. They were also known as the Gauls by the Romans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think you have a relative who was cardinal archbishop of Edinburgh as well ...

Until Puritans murdered him.

Checked wiki, found that is so.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl Heresy happens.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, it seems it happened to your family after a good Catholic was murdered ...

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl During that era, most denominations and Christianity, even Catholics handled heresies that way.

We no longer practice it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I suppose you refer to Ravaillac ...

Who was not exactly typical of Catholics.

If you think of St Bartholomew's Eve massacre, it was as far as I can tell half and half an execution, since on the king's orders and for his safety.

1546 was before both Ravaillac and St Bartholomew's Eve massacre.

IX

Don Nugent

Although not 100% followers of evangelical Christianity these Celts had the very correct idea of rejecting Roman heresies. Of course as usual wherever they can use force Rome will use force, murder, kill, and torture, under the guise of a "Holy Mother Church". We should have a holiday to remember those who have suffered under "Holy Mother" tyranny.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Although not 100% followers of evangelical Christianity"

Understatement of the year.

"these Celts had the very correct idea of rejecting Roman heresies."

Like the Easter calendar?

"Of course as usual wherever they can use force Rome will use force, murder, kill, and torture, under the guise of a "Holy Mother Church"."

What exact thing are you referring to, prior to Strongbow and similar?

"We should have a holiday to remember those who have suffered under "Holy Mother" tyranny."

Oh, after Foxe' Book of Martyrs became your martyrology, as a Catholic joked, you are promoting martyrs' feasts .... recatholicing fast, aren't you?

Don Nugent

Yes, a Catholic would joke about those they burned at the stake. Very proud of that. Rejoicing. Such a anti biblical cult. Not just unbiblical but anti biblical preaching another gospel.

Tom Dorsey

Don Nugent should we post every known Catholics killed by protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Yes, a Catholic would joke about those they burned at the stake."

I think it is a joke that you can take all and any burnt at the stake as Christian martyrs.

I don't think their death is a joke, but I do think your mixing all of them together is.

St Joan of Arc is not comparable to Jacques Molay.

Even on your side, a Calvinist burnt by a Spaniard is not comparable to an Albigensian burned in Toulouse.

"should we post every known Catholics killed by protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries?"

We do celebrate St Fidelis of Sigmaringen.

That part is not really jokeworthy. If they wanted to hold a feast for Lollards burned in Coventry ... nearly respectable, even if they are wrong. Tyndale already is celebrated by Anglicans.

BUT here we have both Foxe and Don Nugent mixing Lollards with Albigensians, just bc both were burned on the stake by Roman Catholics.

But another joke is, part of Protestantism is protesting about celebrating and venerating martyrs and making holidays for them ... Foxe and this proposal by Don Nugent ...

I might want to add, the Catholic who joked about Foxe's new martyrology was doing so in England - where Catholics were risking death.

X

Tom Dorsey

LOL, St. Columbanus was a Catholic!!!!

Harry Weatherford

No one is disputing that. He was one of the last remaining Ceili De that had to come under the rule of the Roman Church. Though there is no record that states that he believed everything the church practiced

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford he was sent to the Isles by the Catholic Church!!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tom Dorsey - you are confusing him with St Augustine of Canterbury/

"He was one of the last remaining Ceili De that had to come under the rule of the Roman Church."

Mists of Avalon ....

"Though there is no record that states that he believed everything the church practiced"

How is there not, if he was trusted by the Church?

Harry Weatherford - Matthew 28:20 says the Church exists every day.

That alone does not make your version of what Celtic Church was a candidate, since you think it went down by becoming more mainstream Catholic.

B u t, it also implies Church is visible (teaching them ...) and therefore puts a burden of proof on whatever is claimed to be the Church : it needs to be documented.

You cannot just make up "the true Church is what St Columbanus believed before he submitted to Roman Catholicism" since you cannot document his diverging from it afterwards.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl umm no, he was a Catholic missionary

Harry Weatherford

Tom Dorsey Tom Dorsey actually st Augustine was sent by Rome. Columba studied under Irish monks and lived there till he was exiled by the king. Which is when he went to Iona

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford didn't know Augustine was ever in the British Isles?

Harry Weatherford

When did he go to Rome to be commetioned

Tom Dorsey he went with the princess/queen of the franks when she married the king of England at that time

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford who? Augustine?

Harry Weatherford

Tom Dorsey yes

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"umm no, he was a Catholic missionary"

Yes, but from Ireland and on the Continent. He died in Bobbio, which he founded and where Jonas of Bobbio wrote his vita.

"didn't know Augustine was ever in the British Isles?"

You are perhaps thinking of St Augustine of Hippo, contemporary of St Jerome and prolific Church Father.

I specified St Augustine of Canterbury, sent by Pope St Gregory I.

"he went with the princess/queen of the franks when she married the king of England at that time"

Confirmed by quote from wiki:

// In 595, Gregory chose Augustine, who was the prior of the Abbey of St Andrew's in Rome, to head the mission to Kent.[13] The pope selected monks to accompany Augustine and sought support from the Frankish royalty and clergy in a series of letters, of which some copies survive in Rome. He wrote to King Theuderic II of Burgundy and to King Theudebert II of Austrasia, as well as their grandmother Brunhild, seeking aid for the mission. Gregory thanked King Chlothar II of Neustria for aiding Augustine. Besides hospitality, the Frankish bishops and kings provided interpreters and Frankish priests to accompany the mission.[25] By soliciting help from the Frankish kings and bishops, Gregory helped to assure a friendly reception for Augustine in Kent, as Æthelbert was unlikely to mistreat a mission which visibly had the support of his wife's relatives and people.[26] Moreover, the Franks appreciated the chance to participate in mission that would extend their influence in Kent. Chlothar, in particular, needed a friendly realm across the Channel to help guard his kingdom's flanks against his fellow Frankish kings. //

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, he spent his early clerical years in Catholic monasteries

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You did get that the one Harry Weatherford was talking of was St Columba, Tom Dorsey?

The problem is not whether he spent any years in monasteries or whether they were "Catholic" in a broad sense, the problems are:

• were they Irish or general Latin tradition?
• if Irish, did that amount to a separate religion, in fact?

For St Augustine of Canterbury, we know it was Latin tradition.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl I would like to see reliable documentation showing the Christian Celts were anything but Catholic??

And if they were, documentation showing when and why they changed?

Kinda reminds me of the Baptist claim that St. Patrick was actually a Baptist LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, reliable documentation, we can argue anything from Roman Catholic to Eastern Orthodox to something inbetween both which doesn't exist anymore.

Obviously at some points Celtic Church were really in schism, locally in England after Synod of Whitby and more generally considered schismatics in the time of Strongbow, when subduing Ireland was considered a kind of crusade.

But we are dealing with Harry Weatherford - a man probably able to claim St Patrick was a Baptist.

Or at least not far from.

So, in this context, St Augustine of Canterbury was of course from a mainstream Latin type monastery, but Sts Columba and Columban from Irish type monasteries.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl can you prove that? Papal declaration maybe?? Or is that just someone's guesswork??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Nel VI secolo papa Gregorio I, di famiglia anicia, costruì dall'altra parte del Clivus un monastero, in cui visse a lungo, e nel 575 una piccola chiesa dedicata a sant'Andrea, da cui il nome "Monastero di Sant'Andrea"."

"In 595, Gregory chose Augustine, who was the prior of the Abbey of St Andrew's in Rome, to head the mission to Kent"

The latter being from St Augustine of Canterbury on wiki, and the former being from Italian version of the article it links to at St Anrews in Rome - the monastery is now Gregorio magno.

Now, here is from the article on St Columbanus:

"Columbanus (the Latinised form of Columbán, meaning the white dove) was born in the Kingdom of Meath, now part of Leinster, in Ireland in 543,[1] the year Saint Benedict died at Monte Cassino.[7] Prior to his birth, his mother was said to have had visions of bearing a child who, in the judgment of those interpreting the visions, would become a "remarkable genius".[8] Columbanus was well-educated in the areas of grammar, rhetoric, geometry, and the Holy Scriptures.[1][9]

"Columbanus left home to study under Sinell, Abbot of Cluaninis in Lough Erne.[Note 2] Under Sinell's instruction, Columbanus composed a commentary on the Psalms. He then moved to Bangor Abbey on the coast of Down, where Saint Comgall was serving as the abbot. He stayed at Bangor until his fortieth year,[1] when he received Comgall's permission to travel to the continent."

Bangor would seem to be on Ireland, right? By contrast, he founded more than one monastery in both Gaul and - where he died - Italy, namely the last one Bobbio.

And from the article on St Columba or Colum-kille:

"Colmcille was born to Fedlimid and Eithne of the Cenel Conaill in Gartan, a district beside Lough Gartan, in Tír Chonaill (mainly modern County Donegal) in the north of Ireland. On his father's side, he was great-great-grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages, an Irish high king of the 5th century. He was baptised in Temple-Douglas, in the County Donegal parish of Conwal (midway between Gartan and Letterkenny), by his teacher and foster-uncle Saint Crunathan.[8][9][10] It is not known for sure if his name at birth was Colmcille or if he adopted this name later in life; Adomnán (Eunan) of Iona thought it was his birth name but other Irish sources have claimed his name at birth was Crimthann (meaning 'fox').[11] In the Irish language his name means 'dove', which is the same name as the Prophet Jonah (Jonah in Hebrew is also 'dove'), which Adomnán of Iona as well as other early Irish writers were aware of, although it is not clear if he was deliberately named after Jonah or not.

"When sufficiently advanced in letters he entered the monastic school of Movilla, at Newtownards, under St. Finnian who had studied at St. Ninian's "Magnum Monasterium" on the shores of Galloway. He was about twenty, and a deacon when, having completed his training at Movilla, he travelled southwards into Leinster, where he became a pupil of an aged bard named Gemman. On leaving him, Colmcille entered the monastery of Clonard, governed at that time by Finnian, noted for sanctity and learning. Here he imbibed the traditions of the Welsh Church, for Finnian had been trained in the schools of St. David."

So, St Augustine of Canterbury was from mainstream Roman tradition, Sts Columba and Columban (Colmkill and Columbanus) are from the Irish one.

But our friend Harry seems to have some confusion here too.

Between the two latter ones. Columban was in conflict with Latin mainstream tradition over Easter date BUT he was not excommunicated nor even slightly discouraged by Rome. That story is why he went FROM Gaul TO Italy, founding Bobbio.

Columba on the other hand was excommunicated, but that was a purely internal affair within Irish Christianity.

It is neither infallible Papal teaching, nor someone's guesswork, but in between, well documented history.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl did I miss something , where did this say Columbanus was a schismatic???

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I never said Columbanus was.

I said that the Celtic Church eventually was, like in the time of Strongbow.

Harry Weatherford is projecting that situation of schism back onto the times of Columbanus.

That is why it is important that Columbanus:

• 1) was raised in Irish monasteries
• 2) did enter into some kind of conflict with mainstream Latin clergy in Gaul over the date of Easter.

To him this is proof positive Columbanus and the then popes belonged to different confessions, which is rot.

In fact, he quit Luxeuil and similar places to found a monastery in Italy, that of Bobbio. Apparently with the full blessings of the then Popes.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl I just love how you think that I am speaking and thinking. Fact: there are mention of Christianity in the British Isles as early as 200 ad by a man from Africa. This is before the Niceian Synod. Fact: there had been many disputes between RC and the Ceili De from dating calculation to the wealth that the RC was accumulating for it self. Fact by the end of 300 beginning of 400 was the start of the transition to RC in the British Isles. By 500 ad was the full head on "assault" for transition. Fact: the RC is well known to convert or die type of mentality. Fact: anything that did not coincide with their dogma they suppressed and or destroyed. I have read what I could from both sides and tend to agree with this. The Celtic Christians had the 7 sacraments, they did hold services in somewhat the same as RC. Here were the differences, they did hold Mary and the saints in high regard yet they did not pray to them for they believed that only through Christ could you come to the father. They did not believe in wealth, what wealth that was taken in was used for the good of the community. Not only did they teach the bible, they also taught philosophy, sciences, they taught of culture and respect. They taught about nature and the healing properties of the natural world. They believed in the visible and invisible worlds. With the RC it was do as I say. The RC believed in ruling with fear. Suppressing people to think for themselves. Believed in forced conversion or die. And as to your assumption that "he would probably tell you Patrick was a Baptist" is asinine IF Patrick even existed. The RC is well known for cover ups and destruction. If it was up to the RC we would probably still be in the dark ages.

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford why don't you post these "facts" along with sources please??

Harry Weatherford sounds like the typical protestant propaganda

Harry Weatherford

Tom Dorsey look at any history book. The inquisition, witch trials, suppression of the likes of Galileo, genocide of native Americans that would not convert, destruction of books that was thought to be of the devil or did not coincide with their belief, destruction of of the knights Templar. Should I go on?

Tom Dorsey now with that said, as far as "Protestant propaganda" they ate just as bad. Horrendous interpretation of the scripture, enslavement as well, their own greed. Both RC and Protestant are corrupted by greed and power.

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford we're talking about Columbanus

Harry Weatherford

Tom Dorsey no. I was using Columba as an example. You and Hans-Georg Lundahl were talking about Columbanus. Two separate people. One was Irish monk the other was Roman Catholic

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Fact: there are mention of Christianity in the British Isles as early as 200 ad by a man from Africa."

No Catholic would dispute this.

However, let's be clear, this was Christianity among Celts in the ROMAN parts of Britain. Later, this was EITHER supplanted by the later mission to Anglo-Saxons OR merged with the Irish tradition, which was not from 200, but from when Celtic-Roman Patricius had been taken by Niall of the Nine hostages and later returned to save their souls.

"This is before the Niceian Synod."

No Catholic would dispute this either.

"Fact: there had been many disputes between RC and the Ceili De from dating calculation to the wealth that the RC was accumulating for it self."

Had been?

By 200? This is before both the Ceili Dé (since they start with St Patrick) and what you seem to imply was the start of RC.

The Ceili Dé were not full on Quarto-decimans, they were about as Quarto-deciman as St Patrick, which means, as Quarto-deciman as the then Pope.

You seem to want to attach them to earlier Quarto-deciman and condemned sects.

"Fact by the end of 300 beginning of 400 was the start of the transition to RC in the British Isles."

Non-fact.

"By 500 ad was the full head on "assault" for transition."

Non-fact.

"Fact: the RC is well known to convert or die type of mentality."

NOT by 500 AD, no.

"Fact: anything that did not coincide with their dogma they suppressed and or destroyed."

False statement in principle and anachronistic as to date.

Anything which contradicted dogma was to be seen as false.

Suppressing or destroying by physical violence against people professing to be Christians (even if in error) was NOT a thing by 500 or even 400 AD.

"I have read what I could from both sides and tend to agree with this."

You are still vague about where you read from the "Celtic" side.

"The Celtic Christians had the 7 sacraments, they did hold services in somewhat the same as RC."

This means, among other things, they thought priests had the power to absolve and they thought Holy Mass was a real sacrifice.

"Here were the differences, they did hold Mary and the saints in high regard yet they did not pray to them for they believed that only through Christ could you come to the father."

Would you mind telling me where you have this from?

"They did not believe in wealth, what wealth that was taken in was used for the good of the community."

RC does not believe in wealth, and is using wealth taken in for good of the community.

"Not only did they teach the bible, they also taught philosophy, sciences, they taught of culture and respect. They taught about nature and the healing properties of the natural world. They believed in the visible and invisible worlds."

What's different from RC here?

"With the RC it was do as I say. The RC believed in ruling with fear."

Where do you get that from?

"Suppressing people to think for themselves. Believed in forced conversion or die."

No. Much later, like the times of St Thomas Aquinas, men argued some who had merited death penalty could be spared if converting or reconverting. NO ONE in Catholicism has argued that peaceful and innocent non-CHristians could be licitly put before such a choice.

"And as to your assumption that "he would probably tell you Patrick was a Baptist" is asinine IF Patrick even existed. The RC is well known for cover ups and destruction. If it was up to the RC we would probably still be in the dark ages."

In other words, St Patrick could have been anything you like, because RC would have covered it up, so I can make up what I want about what was knowledge before that cover up.

NICE ... but not in the light of [Matthew 5:15].

Also, Sts Columba and Columban and the rest all believed in St Patrick.

Harry Weatherford "look at any history book."

I suppose your history books are by Protestant Historiographic tradition, probably even Whig bias.

"The inquisition,"

Started centuries after Columba and Columbanus.

"witch trials,"

Dito and stopped earlier under Spanish Inquisitors than in Salem.

"suppression of the likes of Galileo,"

Giordano Bruno was arguing the Holy Ghost was world soul of OUR solar system. Galileo had the good sense to actually repent of his idiocy (a learned idiocy, but still an idiocy) a year before he died.

"genocide of native Americans that would not convert,"

Projection, what?

Look at the origin of the name Manhattan and the origin of the name Mexico. Then check which Indian language is still spoken today.

"destruction of books that was thought to be of the devil"

Books of magic were destroyed by St Paul's converts too.

"or did not coincide with their belief,"

Or contradicted it ... yes.

"destruction of of the knights Templar."

Oh boy ... Jacques Molay had been forced to trample on a Crucifix. He had not suppressed this tradition for initiation. He was bonfire worthy. He raped consciences of those becoming Knights Templar.

Harry Weatherford "Two separate people. One was Irish monk the other was Roman Catholic"

BOTH were Irish monks and BOTH were Roman Catholics.

You confused their stories, at least earlier.

ColumbaN was the one in the Easter conflict, he simply moved to Italy after some correspondence with Rome.

ColumbA was the one who got excommunicated ... by OTHER Irish monks.