Anglican's "Celtic Church" history idea

[defenderoftruth]

Has anyone ever heard of this? That the Anglican church is the descendant of the early Celtic Church and was not Roman before Augustine of Canturbury was sent by Pope Gregory the Great?

This idea (I’ve read contrary so I’m going to attempt to be “nice”) has been passed along by the Anglican priest at the church I HAVE to attend with my husband. (I’m only a little resentful )

I read something very compelling from Fr. Dwight Longenecker about this “idea”…

dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/CelticCopticAnglicanismNew.asp

My husband buys the “henry just gave us back our independence that Rome bullied out of us” hook line and sinker because of the council of Arles in 314 A.D. (I believe that’s the correct date) Anyone have any other good links or info contrary to this “idea”?

DoT

 

[Ridgerunner]

Has anyone ever heard of this? That the Anglican church is the descendant of the early Celtic Church and was not Roman before Augustine of Canturbury was sent by Pope Gregory the Great?

This idea (I’ve read contrary so I’m going to attempt to be “nice”) has been passed along by the Anglican priest at the church I HAVE to attend with my husband. (I’m only a little resentful )

I read something very compelling from Fr. Dwight Longenecker about this “idea”…

dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/CelticCopticAnglicanismNew.asp

My husband buys the “henry just gave us back our independence that Rome bullied out of us” hook line and sinker because of the council of Arles in 314 A.D. (I believe that’s the correct date) Anyone have any other good links or info contrary to this “idea”?

DoT

I’m no historian, but maybe I’ll do until one comes along.

It has to be remembered that Romans occupied England during the Christianizing period. There is no reason to believe they would have somehow adopted a Celtic tradition like that which later developed in Ireland, though there were probably minor adaptations. There is absolutely no reason to believe that somehow Eastern Orthodoxy found its way to Britain before Constantinople even existed, and before Eastern Orthodoxy existed.

True, there was a Celtic tradition for a time in Ireland. They had their own liturgies and traditions to an extent. But they were never separated from “Roman” Catholicism, and later adapted to a more “Continental” liturgy and tradition. St. Patrick himself was a “Roman”; a Continental from Gaul. Irish traditions and liturgies were their own thing; Catholicism with a sort of mystic overlay that was entirly Celtic, owing nothing to Eastern Orthodoxy. The “Celtic Church” was, in any case, peculiar to Ireland, not England.

Interestingly, Henry VIII himself decreed that Catholicism should be the religion of England in every respect, notwithstanding his usurpation in declaring himself its “head”. It was Elizabeth who truly protestantized England, not Henry.

Now, I will grant that in declaring himself the head of the Church in England, Henry did somewhat echo the “Caesaropapism” with which Eastern Orthodoxy was long afflicted. But the Catholic Church was somewhat subject to it too, though not willingly. But to my understanding, Eastern Orthodoxy does not embrace Caesaropapism today, and probably did so only grudgingly in its earlier years.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps I should have added:

Though Coptic Christians and Eastern Orthodox would dispute it, it seems fairly certain that Coptic Christianity is an offshoot of Eastern Orthodoxy. The two split after a Church Council (I no longer remember which one). But that was long after Christianity came to England.

 

[Nine_Two]

There was a native Christian community in the British isles which was not under the control of Rome until the time of William the Conquerer, however the Anglican Communion must certainly traces its heritage through Rome and there is nothing to suggest it has any connection with the earlier Church, which was simply brought under Rome. The problem with the argument these people are putting forward is that even at the time of the Reformation the sovereign exercised a great deal of control over their national church, Philip of Spain for example, the son of Charles V and a contemporary of the Reformation, asserted his control over the Spanish church on a number of occasions, yet was fully Catholic.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Among the very greatest of British historians is the venerable Bede, who wrote “A History of the English Church and People” in the year A.D. 731. Any historian would be hard-pressed to find a more reliable source for the early history of England than Bede. I have a copy of this work, and in Chapter 4 Bede writes the following:

In the year of our Lord’s Incarnation 156, Marcus Antoninus Verus, fourteenth after Augustus, became co-Emperor with his brother Aurelius Commodus. During their reign, and while the holy Eleutherius ruled the Roman Church, Lucius, a British king, sent him a letter, asking to be made a Christian. This pious request was quickly granted, and the Britons held the Faith which they received in all its purity and fulness until the time of the Emperor Diocletian.

Now, this when Britain was under Roman control, and a good 4 centuries BEFORE the Angles and Saxons settled into Briton (from northern Germany). It should also be noted that Lucius was NOT the only British king at that time. There were literally dozens of kings throughout Britain then. Nevertheless, its a very good indication that by the MID-SECOND CENTURY the Church of Rome was ALREADY being recognized as the ONE CHURCH. This is long, long before Pope Gregory sent his Mission to England in A.D. 596, the year most protestants quote as the “beginning” of Roman Catholicism in Britain.

Now, having said that… this still leaves the possibility that earlier Christians had come to settle into (and evangelize) Britain prior to this time (A.D. 156). Some no doubt did, and local churches were established among the celtic Britons. There are TWO problems with getting carried away with this idea:

1. Any such church is pre-historic in the strictest sense of the word, that is no WRITTEN records of such churches exist. For instance, the fable of King Arthur usually has his Camelot embracing a Celtic Church outside of the influence of the Bishop of Rome. Also, there is an old Anglican hymn about CHRIST and MARY themselves coming to Britain before the crucifixion! It’s called “Jerusalem” and begins “And did those feet in ancient time. Walk upon England’s mountains green? And was the Holy Lamb of God On England’s pleasant pastures seen?” Emerson, Lake and Palmer recorded it (man, am I ever dating myself with that comment!).
2. Even if such an early English church (or churches) existed, they STILL legally conceded (along with all the other Celtic churches) their authority to Rome at the Synod of Whitby in A.D. 664. So the Church was ONE in England for almost 900 years BEFORE the Reformation.

 

[Nine_Two]

First you’re confusing the Roman state with the Church based out of the city of Rome, second, you’ll have to show a source on the Synod of Whitby, because a quick look at Wikipedia says it was just the King of Northumbria (one of many Saxon Kingdoms) saying he would calculate Easter and conduct tonsuring according to the rites of Rome rather than that of Iona, an island in the Hebrides famous for its monastic traditions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wikipedia is not the greatest touchstone of theological and historical truth

First you’re confusing the Roman state with the Church based out of the city of Rome, second, you’ll have to show a source on the Synod of Whitby, because a quick look at Wikipedia says it was just the King of Northumbria (one of many Saxon Kingdoms) saying he would calculate Easter and conduct tonsuring according to the rites of Rome rather than that of Iona, an island in the Hebrides famous for its monastic traditions.

 

[Nine_Two]

Wikipedia is not the greatest touchstone of theological and historical truth

It is horrible for looking up theology but it is excellent for getting quick historical summaries. Obviously it is only slightly better at complex histories than it is at theology, which is why I asked for a source which said otherwise, rather than just accepting it as gospel.

While writing that I decided to see what Catholic Encyclopedia, a notoriously pro-Catholic source says, sure enough it agrees with Wikipedia.

I’m not arguing that this Celtic Church operated along protestant lines, but it was certainly autocephalus.

 

[jfoges]

I’m no historian, but maybe I’ll do until one comes along.

It has to be remembered that Romans occupied England during the Christianizing period. There is no reason to believe they would have somehow adopted a Celtic tradition like that which later developed in Ireland, though there were probably minor adaptations. There is absolutely no reason to believe that somehow Eastern Orthodoxy found its way to Britain before Constantinople even existed, and before Eastern Orthodoxy existed. .

First the Romans occupied Britain and spread Christianity there. Then later on, the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain, established “england”, and wiped out Christianity. Then, missionaries from Ireland and Scotland the “celtics”, came to england and started to establish the faith for a second time. At the same time, missionaries from Rome were being sent to England and doing the same thing. St. Augustine of Canterbury is recognized as the prime missionary to England, and he came from Rome.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

That’s right, jfoges… new pagan immigrants came to the British Isles in waves between the time of first Christianization (under the Roman Empire) and the final, complete establishment of Britain as a “Christian” nation. Even after the Angles and Saxons were converted to Christianity by the missionaries from Rome (in the 6th and 7th centuries), the Viking “Danes” arrived in the 800’s and plundered and re-paganized most of England. Wessex was the only hold-out under Alfred the Great…

But the point is, was there a Christian Church established in Britain PRIOR TO ANY FORMAL RECOGNITION OF THE BISHOP OF ROME AS PATRIARCH OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. And the only answer I can give is: ONLY IN LEGEND or MYTH, but NOT IN DOCUMENTED FACT. It may just be a case of early, distant missions losing touch with the main body of the Church (still mostly in the Mediterranean at that time) for a few decades.

(As for the Synod of Whitby, it must be understood that the isle of Britain was under the rulership of a number of kings at that time. King Oswiu of Northumbria presided over the Synod, but it is clearly recorded by the venerable Bede that HE INVITED CHURCHMEN FROM ALL OVER BRITAIN who were there in attendance. At this synod, the ROMAN practice of calculating the date of Easter was ESTABLISHED AS THE NORM.)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m just kiddin’ with ya, Nine

It is horrible for looking up theology but it is excellent for getting quick historical summaries. Obviously it is only slightly better at complex histories than it is at theology, which is why I asked for a source which said otherwise, rather than just accepting it as gospel.

While writing that I decided to see what Catholic Encyclopedia, a notoriously pro-Catholic source says, sure enough it agrees with Wikipedia.

I’m not arguing that this Celtic Church operated along protestant lines, but it was certainly autocephalus.

 

[StevieD]

This idea (I’ve read contrary so I’m going to attempt to be “nice”) has been passed along by the Anglican priest at the church I HAVE to attend with my husband. (I’m only a little resentful )

You HAVE TO attend an Anglican church? Why do you have to? Would it be the end of the world if you went to the Catholic church and your husband continued to attend the Anglican church? I don’t understand.

 

[masuwerte]

Also, there is an old Anglican hymn about CHRIST and MARY themselves coming to Britain before the crucifixion! It’s called “Jerusalem” and begins “And did those feet in ancient time. Walk upon England’s mountains green? And was the Holy Lamb of God On England’s pleasant pastures seen?”

Indeed, although I don’t see a reference to Mary:

And did these feet in ancient times,
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bows of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land. - William Blake, c. 1808

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Yes, masuwerte, that’s the hymn! And you’re right, there appears to be no direct reference to Our Lady there…

I must have been thinking of something else I’d read. I was an Anglican myself until quite recently, and I once even belonged to a “British Israel” association. They sent me information all the time detailing the legend that **the British people are direct descendants of the ancient Hebrew tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. **According to these British-Israel groups, after the “lost tribes” were scattered following the invasion of Israel by the Assyrians, they went “into the wilderness” of Europe (then completely forested). The two tribes personally blessed by Jacob (Ephraim and Manasseh) continued westward all the way to the British Isles. Centuries later, when Christ appeared, He journeyed to Britain to live (for a time) among His people. That’s how and why the Anglo-American establishment eneded up colonizing and “civilizing” the entire globe. That’s how the FABLE/MYTH/LEGEND goes anyway. Personally, even though I am of British extraction, I find the whole idea more than a little arrogant and snobbish.

The FACT is, without the See of Peter there would be little unity at all in Christendom. Despite the fact that Christ Himself prayed to the Father for our UNITY (John 17), the British have done NOTHING to encourage this, and in fact EVERYTHING to DISCOURAGE IT. More so-called Christian “denominations” have come out of the English-speaking world than any other. This is one of the greatest sources of our WEAKNESS. As Pope Benedict XVI recently stated, we can “no longer” properly use the term “Anglican Communion” for the wide variety of beliefs under this banner have little or nothing in common with each other. Some accept female “priests”, others do not. Some “marry” homosexual “couples”, while others do not. Some insist on the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist, while others do not, etc., etc. Division. That’s what British Pride has brought to Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! Division!

If there were, in the first few centuries of the Christian era, some stray churches in England still not in direct harmony with the See of Peter, the march of history has made it plain that they ALL eventually became so. Certainly this was the case by the end of the seventh century when any remaining disparity in rites and practices (such as the calculation for Easter) disappeared.

And, I think, that’s my last word on the matter.

 

[Nine_Two]

But the point is, was there a Christian Church established in Britain PRIOR TO ANY FORMAL RECOGNITION OF THE BISHOP OF ROME AS PATRIARCH OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. And the only answer I can give is: ONLY IN LEGEND or MYTH, but NOT IN DOCUMENTED FACT. It may just be a case of early, distant missions losing touch with the main body of the Church (still mostly in the Mediterranean at that time) for a few decades.

The problem with that idea is that only those under Rome have ever recognized Rome as THE patriarch of the Christian Church, which makes it a circular argument. They were certainly in Communion with Rome but they were not under Rome.

(As for the Synod of Whitby, it must be understood that the isle of Britain was under the rulership of a number of kings at that time. King Oswiu of Northumbria presided over the Synod, but it is clearly recorded by the venerable Bede that HE INVITED CHURCHMEN FROM ALL OVER BRITAIN who were there in attendance. At this synod, the ROMAN practice of calculating the date of Easter was ESTABLISHED AS THE NORM.)

He may have invited them from all over but the Synod was only to establish the date of Easter in his realm, and from what I read on the Synod he was only asking the advice of the gathered clergy, as King Oswiu himself made the final decision, in breaking with normal policy on the operation of Synods and Councils, which seems to further the idea that the Church in Northumbria was Autocephalus.

I’m just kiddin’ with ya, Nine

Just wanted to make sure the precedent was there that Wikipedia is a quick reference and nothing more.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m not arguing that this Celtic Church operated along protestant lines, but it was certainly autocephalus.

That is true.

It also pretty much died with the Saxon invasions, at least in the region we know as England today. Saint Patrick’s missions did spread this earlier church across the Irish Sea, and they later went north and east with it into what is now Scotland and northern England.

First the Romans occupied Britain and spread Christianity there. Then later on, the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain, established “england”, and wiped out Christianity. Then, missionaries from Ireland and Scotland the “celtics”, came to england and started to establish the faith for a second time. At the same time, missionaries from Rome were being sent to England and doing the same thing. St. Augustine of Canterbury is recognized as the prime missionary to England, and he came from Rome.

It certainly would be difficult to prove that there were Christians before Claudius conquered the territory. Possible, but not provable, I think.

The Church of England truly does date from the missions of Augustine, which was “international” in scope because the Saxons, Jutes and whomever were not a united people. This goes a long way to explaining how the Latin rite church in the ‘Angle lands’ developed as a mission territory of the Roman church, and was actually more dependent upon Rome than Gaul was. As a mission church that’s quite reasonable, but when the church was long in the tooth and England had become a united country it was *still *more dependent upon Rome than the churches in France, the Holy Roman (German) empire or Spain.

What doesn’t bend may break. The strain was quite evident long before king Henry VII (a devout Catholic, although quite the sinner in his day) came upon the scene.

 

[jfoges]

Yes, masuwerte, that’s the hymn! And you’re right, there appears to be no direct reference to Our Lady there…

I must have been thinking of something else I’d read. I was an Anglican myself until quite recently, and I once even belonged to a “British Israel” association. They sent me information all the time detailing the legend that **the British people are direct descendants of the ancient Hebrew tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. **According to these British-Israel groups, after the “lost tribes” were scattered following the invasion of Israel by the Assyrians, they went “into the wilderness” of Europe (then completely forested). The two tribes personally blessed by Jacob (Ephraim and Manasseh) continued westward all the way to the British Isles. Centuries later, when Christ appeared, He journeyed to Britain to live (for a time) among His people. That’s how and why the Anglo-American establishment eneded up colonizing and “civilizing” the entire globe. That’s how the FABLE/MYTH/LEGEND goes anyway. Personally, even though I am of British extraction, I find the whole idea more than a little arrogant and snobbish.

The FACT is, without the See of Peter there would be little unity at all in Christendom. Despite the fact that Christ Himself prayed to the Father for our UNITY (John 17), the British have done NOTHING to encourage this, and in fact EVERYTHING to DISCOURAGE IT. More so-called Christian “denominations” have come out of the English-speaking world than any other. This is one of the greatest sources of our WEAKNESS. As Pope Benedict XVI recently stated, we can “no longer” properly use the term “Anglican Communion” for the wide variety of beliefs under this banner have little or nothing in common with each other. Some accept female “priests”, others do not. Some “marry” homosexual “couples”, while others do not. Some insist on the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist, while others do not, etc., etc. Division. That’s what British Pride has brought to Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! Division!

If there were, in the first few centuries of the Christian era, some stray churches in England still not in direct harmony with the See of Peter, the march of history has made it plain that they ALL eventually became so. Certainly this was the case by the end of the seventh century when any remaining disparity in rites and practices (such as the calculation for Easter) disappeared.

And, I think, that’s my last word on the matter.

I’m curious, are you Anglican or are you Catholic?

 

[AngloCatholic1]

jfoges,

It’s a long story, and a long journey of faith, but it’s worth repeating so I’ll TRY be brief. My parents were raised in Baptist families here in Canada, but neither of them were ever baptised. My father drifted into an agnostic/atheist of sorts, and about the closest he ever came to religion was joining the FreeMasons. My mother drifted into Unitarianism of a very loose variety, and I think as a child I picked up alot of my religious views from her. It was my Grade 2 public school teracher who first showed me a Bible and introduced me to Jesus Christ…and, believe it or not, that stuck with me for the rest of my life. She sewed a seed in my heart that time continued to water.

I read the Bible on my own quite regularly in the years that followed, and became, by default, a non-denominational unbaptised Christian. As a teenager I attended services in a baptist church a few times with a friend who invited me. Later, when I met the girl who would become my wife, she introduced me to Anglicanism. We were married in the Anglican church when I was still unbaptized. Over the next few years I suddenly felt the need for a Church and started pursuing a keene interest in Anglicanism. We started attending regularly and then, after the birth of our second child, I got baptized along with our two kids!

But before much longer, I began to realize that the books that sold me on Anglicanism were “dreadfully out of date!” (they were published in the 1950’s). Soon, our church had a female priest. The next year a retired Bishop came to our service to discuss the need to accept homosexuality within the church. My wife and I soon began to feel like strangers in our own church. We eventually ended up leaving the Anglican Church of Canada and joining a very small parish of the “Anglican Catholic Church of Canada” which was VERY conservative and traditional. We were Confirmed after about 6 months of attendance. We learned about the importance of the Real Presence, the Rosary, making the sign of the cross and many other “new” things. We soon fell in love with the Catholic elements in traditional Christian worship.

The problem was the fact that our Mass took place in a rented hall, there were only about 8 or 9 regular attendees, and ALL of them were senior citizens. Our kids were missing out on active church life with others their own age. We told the priest about our “situation” but he said that there was little he could do change things overnight. We prayed about it for months. At one point we actually considered going to services at the mainstream Anglican church twice a months but NOT COMMUNICATE, just so we could mingle with other Anglicans with young families. Then our priest had a heart-to-heart with us one Sunday afternoon and quietly pointed us in the direction of the Roman Catholic Church down the street. It was a huge parish with loads of families and activities for all.

We went through RCIA and were Confirmed at the Easter Vigil last year, and the rest is history. So the answer is I’M A ROMAN CATHOLIC with a deep love for all things traditionally Anglican!

The reason my handle reads “AngloCatholic1” is because I joined this forum before I became Roman Catholic, and I didn’t want to change my identity on the forum. Make sense?

 

[defenderoftruth]

Yes I HAVE TO attend an Anglo-catholic church unless I want to be screamed out by my husband on a daily basis for being a divider of the household which he says is worse than divorce. He HATES the Papacy. (notice the all caps hates that’s his passion)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You hate where you are religiously and you hate your location due to weather. What a downer! LOL

Yes I HAVE TO attend an Anglo-catholic church unless I want to be screamed out by my husband on a daily basis for being a divider of the household which he says is worse than divorce. He HATES the Papacy. (notice the all caps hates that’s his passion)