- Status
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Rome.
J
jesusluv
Guest
This is the very stripped down version of Christianity to the british isles. This comes from st-cuthberts.net/celhist.htm#beginning . I know some will simply write it off as “they made it fit what they wanted it to”, but so has Rome in some cases of history.
****Celtic Christian History ****
**In the Beginning **
Christianity first came to the Celts in the 2nd century (or possibly earlier,) during the Roman occupation, probably through individual converts in the army. However, it was not until late in the 4th century that the distinct characteristics of Celtic Christianity began to emerge. After the Romans withdrew from Britain, there was nearly 200 years of significant separation between the Celtic and Roman mission and churches, when Celtic spirituality was free to develop away from Roman domination.
The most significant development of Celtic Christianity, was its understanding of the Christian gospel independent from what was taught by Rome. Roman Christianity tended to be authoritarian, hierarchical, male dominated, rational, strongly legalistic, with a powerful need for control and uniformity and an understanding of governance which was inherited from a dying Roman Empire.
In contrast, the Celtic church celebrated grace and nature as good gifts from God and recognised the sacredness of all creation. It had a love of mysticism and poetry, a deep respect for the feminine, included women in its leadership and allowed clerical marriages. The Celtic understanding of church leadership was rooted in its rural and agricultural communal culture, and the great Celtic monasteries emerged from this tribal system. Although the abbots were generally not ordained, the leadership and power in the Celtic church, lay with the abbots of the monasteries.
Not unlike Native Americans of the indigenous Africans or Australians, Celtic people had little concept of land ownership or taxes, or tithes and little liking for cities, all of which were introduced into the Celtic lands by the Romans and further established by the Normans.
The Celtic approach to evangelism was a peaceful process without bloodshed. As Christianity was spread in the Celtic countries by converted Celtic Christians, who were usually monks, martyrdom for the Christian faith was almost unknown.
http://www.st-cuthberts.net/jpgs/knot.gif **5th and 6th Centuries **
The fifth and sixth centuries were marked by large-scale conversions to Christianity in Ireland and Britain, as the Celtic mission continued its emphasis on the image of God at the heart of the human, and its conviction of the essential goodness of creation. Since the Celtic mission had no central organising force, consequently there was considerable variation in liturgical practises and monastic rules. By the beginning of the sixth century, Celtic Christianity was wholly monastic in its structure.
Roman and Celtic missions did not meet again until the Roman mission to Britain in 597, under Augustine of Canterbury, when there was considerable disagreement. At one level the conflicts appeared superficial such as the dating of Easter, or the style of clerical tonsure, but at a deeper level it was due to their radically different ways of seeing.
S
SIA
Guest
The Apostles and the Early Church comprised of the Apostles that Jesus founded.
S
SIA
Guest
In seeing and knowing much of the rich culture and worship of the Celtics let alone what history tells us about the Celtics, I would have to say that Rome was not involved.
J
jesusluv
Guest
Missionaries to the world probably did NOT originally come from Rome, I don’t care how much some of you wish that they did. The Apostles and original disciples came out of Israel and according to the book of Acts, went in totally different directions. Missionaries to the British Isles, quite frankly, could have come from anywhere. One traditional story was that Joseph of Arimathea owned a shipping business, which would explain his wealth and his ships or maybe even he himself went there to trade and that is how it started. There is no way to prove that Rome went there first with the Roman flavor of Christianity. There is, however, at least evidence that supports a different version of Christianity once Rome officially came there.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
They came largely from Roman nobility who resided in Britain during Roman occupation.
Of course, that wouldn’t have been the only source of mission work to Britain.
I
ibkc
Guest
Rome ruled and occupied Britain for several hundred years from the time of Claudius on. It is possible that Christianity came to Britain via multiple routes, but since Britain was part of the Roman Empire, and Christianity was popular among Roman soliders from about the second century on, it is highly likely (and AFAIK, generally accepted) that the spread of Christianity in Britain was largely due to the Roman occupation. The Celts did retain their own culture and that included the development of their own expression of Christianity.
I think what these knee-jerk anti-Catholic people like SIA get hung up on is the idea of the Roman church having absolute control over places like Britain in ancient times. But, it isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition, you see. If Christianity came to Britain from Rome, it still doesn’t necessarily follow that Rome had a lot of power over British Christianity or that Rome was responsible for the development of the unique expression of Christianity in Britain. It’s only the people consumed with hate for anything “Catholic” that can’t conceive of any good coming from “Rome.”
G
GKC
Guest
Aw shucks.He’s great, isn’t he?
Britain was something of a backwater, and the Christianized parts were forced away from the eastern areas and further up into the wilderness, by the invaders. Augustine really did’;t know what to expect.
But the point really is that Augustine was sent not so much to establish the Faith, but to reorganise it, and get it moving, in Britain.
GKC
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I agree with your sentiments here, generally. Good points. I think generally what people forget is that Rome essentially ruled the world at this point in history. It’s only logical that the largest number of missionaries would’ve been from that region.
G
GKC
Guest
Concur.
Coincidentally, the brother of one of my friends (deceased) was one of the leading academicians on the subject of the early Church in Britian, Roman times specifically.
Never met him, but I have a couple of his books.
GKC
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I did find these juicy tidbits from a historical website devoted to British history:
63 A.D. - Joseph of Arimathea came to Glastonbury on the first Christian mission to Britain.
167 A.D. - At the request of King Lucius, the missionaries, Phagan and Deruvian,were said to have been sent by Pope Eleutherius to convert the Britons to Christianity. This is, perhaps, the most widely believed of the legends of the founding of Christianity in Britain.
209 A.D. - St. Alban, first British martyr, was killed for his faith in one of the few persecutions of Christians ever to take place on the island, during the governorship of Gaius Junius Faustinus Postumianus (there is controversy about the date of Alban’s martyrdom. Some believe it occurred during the persecutions of Diocletian, in the next century, although we opt for the earlier dating).
M
MagicKirk
Guest
It may be that Joseph of Arimathea went to Britain. If memory serves me correctly, however, that is one of the “truths” that Dan Brown of the DaVinci Code and the book Holy Blood Holy Grail pushed. That in itself makes me somewhat skeptical. However, I am by no means an expert…
G
GKC
Guest
The belief in Josph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, and the related stories about Mary and several Apostles coming to England, are not widely accepted, save as pious myth.
GKC
J
jesusluv
Guest
Pious myth, I love it, lol.
C
Contarini
Guest
The problem is that you are defining “the Church of England” as “a body not in union with Rome.” To many Anglicans, this seems like an incidental characteristic of the Church of England for the past five centuries.
One of the most misleading ideas Catholics have about non-Catholics is that we are all obsessed with being non-Catholic–i.e., not in communion with Rome. This is true of fundamentalists and of some ultra-conservative confessional Protestants. Since these are the Protestants most likely to behave obnoxiously to Catholics, and since conversions to Catholicism also tend to come disproportionately from those sections of Protestantism (and when they come from other sections, they by definition involve a period of deep concern with the question of union with Rome), it’s understandable that Catholics on boards like this would believe this. But it simply isn’t true. Most Protestants, and certainly most Anglicans, don’t see their relationship to the See of Rome (or lack thereof) as key to their identity.
The plain historical fact is that the See of Canterbury was founded by St. Augustine, and that the current Archbishop is the successor of St. Augustine. For Christians in communion with Rome, it’s natural to see the break with Rome as marking a radical break in the identity of Christians associated with the See of Canterbury. For Anglicans this is less significant. Anglicans believe that after the break with Rome, as before it, the Church of England was part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
Not on this point I’m not. I bow.A further point: union with Rome does not in itself explain why there is union with Rome: UWR based on
What this means in practice is that
- belief that it is necessary by Divine Law for a Church (e.g. that in England) to be in UWR,
is not the same thing as- belief in such a necessity for purely human reasons.
As for the issue of perpetuity in unity of faith, the unity in faith between RCs in 2008 & our Catholic forefathers of the 1530s (or any other date) does not require that Catholics in 1530 should say & believe precisely what Catholics in 2008 say & believe - it does seem to require that we in 2008 should believe the same dogmas (however expressed) as they did in 1530, even if we also believe as dogmas things not dogmatised then. In that sense, we hold the very same Faith as they. What we can’t do, is say that because we hold the Immaculate Conception as dogma, so must they have: they did not, & that in no way injures unity of Faith. Had they done so, & were we to deny a dogma they held, then there would be a problem.
- if UWR is of Divine institution, no part of the Church Universal can separate itself from Rome, no matter how pressing the reasons for such a course may be.
whereas- UWR based on a lesser reason, such as the legislation of the Church, allows for the possibility that separation from Rome may be necessary
The ecclesiology of the 1530s was more fluid in some ways than that of (say) the 1870s, or the 1990s. Issues no RC may freely dispute now, were not all settled then: knowledge of this is one reason some people stay, or become, “non-RC”.
GKC is far better at explaining things - sorry
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
- Status