Celtic Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriousM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CuriousM

Guest
In the last year I have come across some sites that claim to Celtic Christian.
Here are a couple sources:
english.glendale.cc.ca.us/christ.html
members.aol.com./stciarans/index.html

And this one, though as far as I can tell it does not explicitly say so. However, that is the impression I got.

advancenet.net/~jscole/gscc/dobhran.htm

I am curious what your take is on this.

From what I can gather, this is a religion that seeks to combine their faith in Jesus and their love for creation.
I am wondering if any out there know more about this, and also what is the general take on this religion.
 
CuriousM said:
In the last year I have come across some sites that claim to Celtic Christian.
Here are a couple sources:
english.glendale.cc.ca.us/christ.html
members.aol.com./stciarans/index.html

And this one, though as far as I can tell it does not explicitly say so. However, that is the impression I got.

advancenet.net/~jscole/gscc/dobhran.htm

I am curious what your take is on this.

From what I can gather, this is a religion that seeks to combine their faith in Jesus and their love for creation.
I am wondering if any out there know more about this, and also what is the general take on this religion.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Jews for Jesus but for Pagans.
I mean the first two follow the nicene creed and are considered Catholic, but the last one is more of a meld between Pagan and Christian.
Personally I don’t see a problem with it, but I’m sure there are a few here that would disagree…
Rayne
 
having been at one time involved with this…

There is a great interest in and vogue for what they call “Celtic Christianity” in the US and in Canada, mainly in Episc Churches; also new small Churches…

There is no pagan element in most of these, but there is a great pre-occupation with the faith as it was in Ireland and Scotland way back in the early centuries, before the Roman Catholic Church arrived there in force.

With so many US folk having Irish and Scottish ancestors, the appeal is easily understood…

There were indeed huge cultural and social differences between faith then.

And there was and still is a great connection seen between Orthodoxy and Celtic Chrisianity; Fr Ambrose is the person to ask about that aspect.

It was a fascinating and deeply spiritual era, with a deep love of the creation. But not worship of it as such although a few small groups went too far in modern times.

And the raw natural surroundings the ancient Celtic Christians lived in and which engendered their tough faith cannot of course be reproduced now. So it has become diluted and sentimentalised.

There are a few new third orders even of that tradition.

If you want web sites, please ask; it was a subject I studied in great detail.
 
Sounds like Jews for Jesus but for Pagans.
I mean the first two follow the nicene creed and are considered Catholic, but the last one is more of a meld between Pagan and Christian.
Personally I don’t see a problem with it, but I’m sure there are a few here that would disagree…
Click to expand...
Rayne, this is a very interesting point. I am not real clear on how Jews for Jesus differ from Christianity. I have been told that there Is a difference though. So, yes, in the same manner, I wondered about the Celtic Christianity “movement” (for lack of better words).

Hermitcrab:
Whatever links you would have available, I would love to look at.
One of the problems with the internet, is that since anyone can have a website, the information you get on Any topic May or May NOT be accurate. So, that’s why I threw the ones out there that I did.

One of the things that has confused me about Celtic Christianity is how they view Jesus. It took me awhile to realize that they do accept Jesus in the orthodox tradition (the trinity).
Past this, what really sets them apart from Catholics.
Why don’t they just associate themselves with the Church?
Does the Church recognize them as a Christian church, in the same manner that they might recognize them as a Protestant Church?
Are they considered Protestants even?

I hope that isn’t too many questions 😃
I’ve just been wondering about that for awhile.

Thank you!
 
Just a noote as the time zones are different here of course

I didn’t explain very well; most are mainstream Epsic or small “breakaway” denoms… catholic but not Roman etc.

So Jesus is simply Jesus. Nothing different…

As in pre-RC Ireland etc.

The Episc groups thus attend their Episc Churches…A comparison might be trying to phrase this!! Like a Carmelite or Poor Clare Order in the RCC… with a different flavour but still RCC.

Many are seeking a (diluted) form of monastic life. Trying to be more than Third Orders…

It has become very complicated out there!!!

Some set up new Churches though… yet so like the Episc etc. Same hierarchy etc.

I will send some sites in the morning…

A couple to be going on with…

united-church.ca/worship/liturgy/celtic.shtm

lyon.edu/webdata/users/jchiaromonte/anamcharacelticchurch.htm

I will never criticise anyone’s road to Jesus; there are some very beautiful folk and some lovely and meaningful liturgies here… Being of the UK with Celtic traditons dear to my heart, the carmina gadalica has been a growing in the past.

Sorry if this is badly expressed…

Hermitcrab:
Whatever links you would have available, I would love to look at.
One of the problems with the internet, is that since anyone can have a website, the information you get on Any topic May or May NOT be accurate. So, that’s why I threw the ones out there that I did.

One of the things that has confused me about Celtic Christianity is how they view Jesus. It took me awhile to realize that they do accept Jesus in the orthodox tradition (the trinity).
Past this, what really sets them apart from Catholics.
Why don’t they just associate themselves with the Church?
Does the Church recognize them as a Christian church, in the same manner that they might recognize them as a Protestant Church?
Are they considered Protestants even?

I hope that isn’t too many questions 😃
I’ve just been wondering about that for awhile.

Thank you!
 
I didn’t explain very well; most are mainstream Epsic or small “breakaway” denoms… catholic but not Roman etc.
Click to expand...
So Jesus is simply Jesus. Nothing different…
Click to expand...
As in pre-RC Ireland etc.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhhh I see.
Thank you for clarifying that.
The Episc groups thus attend their Episc Churches…A comparison might be trying to phrase this!!
Click to expand...
Ok, I get the Episc reference but…
Like a Carmelite or Poor Clare Order in the RCC… with a different flavour but still RCC
Click to expand...
what the hey is a Poor Clare Order? I have heard the term Carmelite and found a few interesting podcasts that have meditations or something like that from a Carmelite something. You can see I’m well schooled in this 😃
But over all I Think I get your drift.
I will never criticise anyone’s road to Jesus; there are some very beautiful folk and some lovely and meaningful liturgies here… Being of the UK with Celtic traditons dear to my heart, the carmina gadalica has been a growing in the past.
Click to expand...
Sorry if this is badly expressed…
Click to expand...
Nope you said that so beautifully!!

Some several months ago I had a friend expressing some views towards non Christians. And I said this:
Everyone has a path, a journey they Have to take to get to God. Maybe they wander through atheism for a bit, they touch base with Buddhism, eventually they get there.
And I don’t think we can critisize anyone’s journey, because we don’t really know where they or we will end up.
So, let’s just trust God and Holy Spirit to lead us to where we have to go.
Despite my differences in views with Orthodox Christians, I still very firmly believe this.

Thank you for the links I really appreciate them!!
Blessings
meagan
 
CuriousM said:
In the last year I have come across some sites that claim to Celtic Christian.
Click to expand...
The Celts who were Christian had a form of Christianity that was not in-line with the Catholic Church (which called for a meeting - the Synod of Whitby - to bring that church into sync with the Roman church).

Orthodox Christians often recognise this church as ‘Orthodox’.
 
According to actual history, not someone’s fancy, the only real difference between so-called “Celtic Christianity” and “Roman Christianity” was the calculation of the celebration of Easter.

The Roman Church didn’t particularly care for the Celtic Church to be feasting while they were still fasting for Lent, as the Celtic Easter was almost ALWAYS earlier than Roman Easter.

To rectify the situation, a local synod was called, and everyone but a few rebels decided to celebrate Easter with the Romans.

Eventually these rebels decided their silliness just wasn’t worth it, and started celebrating Easter withe Roman Church.

End of story. No “big bad wolf” or millions of dead Celts due to Roman persecution of the little Celtic Church or anything like that. Just local Christians getting together and deciding that the Bishop of Rome had a valid point.
 
Joseph_Mary said:
According to actual history, not someone’s fancy, the only real difference between so-called “Celtic Christianity” and “Roman Christianity” was the calculation of the celebration of Easter.
Click to expand...
I’ve left myself open to your half-truth* by raising Whitby itself.

The Celtic church was long accused of all manner of immoral innovations.

The Synod of Whitby brought the Celtic church fully into line with Rome.

Note the distinctive traditions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_church#Distinctive_Traditions
this itself is not an exhaustive list. It actually understates an important thing, the emphasis of the Celtic church on monastic life.

The chapter above this notes that the Celts saw themselves as distinctive - because their communities were self-governing.

*-half truth because whilst Whitby met ostensibly over Easter the Celtic church had been long seen as heretical.
 
Shaking my head smiling… this is a very simplified and skewed version.

What has become termed “Celtic Christianity” was all that Ireland and much of Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and indeed many Mediterranean lands, knew before Roman Catholicism standardised faith practices.

Far richer and more diverse that simply the date of Easter - which was held in common with Orthodoxy of course.

This vibrant tradition was all that was known in Ireland until the Synod of Whitby in 664.

These were not rebels in any shape or form; they were converted to Christianity by Saint Patrick, who was wise enough to se and respect the tribal nature of Irish life and know that it would be madness to impose the Roman diocesan structure on what was a violent land… see C.E.L.T. , the Annals of the Four Masters for this.

There had been an earlier attempt to take Christianity to Ireland by a less wise Roman Catholic bishop; he made a few converts and a chalice and other artefacts were found in a cave in Co Leitirim which pre-dated St Patrick. That Bishop was run out of Irleland.

It is to the Celtic Christian tradition that we owe eg the Book of Kells. and the fact that Ireland became a missionary nation.

Deeply faithful to Jesus within a local traditon so closely linked to Orthodoxy. Many martyrs; many holy monks and bishops. Including Patrick, Brigit, Columba , Aidan.
Joseph_Mary said:
According to actual history, not someone’s fancy, the only real difference between so-called “Celtic Christianity” and “Roman Christianity” was the calculation of the celebration of Easter.

The Roman Church didn’t particularly care for the Celtic Church to be feasting while they were still fasting for Lent, as the Celtic Easter was almost ALWAYS earlier than Roman Easter.

To rectify the situation, a local synod was called, and everyone but a few rebels decided to celebrate Easter with the Romans.

Eventually these rebels decided their silliness just wasn’t worth it, and started celebrating Easter withe Roman Church.

End of story. No “big bad wolf” or millions of dead Celts due to Roman persecution of the little Celtic Church or anything like that. Just local Christians getting together and deciding that the Bishop of Rome had a valid point.
Click to expand...
 
You people can go about prancing around, pretending that “Celtic Christianity” was really all that different than the “Roman” version, but in the meantime people such as myself will laugh at you and your fancifulness.

When it all boils down, the Bishop of Rome wanted Christian unity, and that’s what everyone else wanted, and there really was no argument - it was a good idea that the Body of Christ be united, and if a plurality of people wanted to follow the Bishop of Rome, then that’s what the vast majority did. Remember, this wasn’t your secular society of the 21st century, it was something that is entirely alien to you, and don’t ever forget that.
 
???

I don’t see anyone laughing… do you? Or any prancing! 🙂 😃 :eek:

You want to see it like that, fine…
Joseph_Mary said:
You people can go about prancing around, pretending that “Celtic Christianity” was really all that different than the “Roman” version, but in the meantime people such as myself will laugh at you and your fancifulness.

When it all boils down, the Bishop of Rome wanted Christian unity, and that’s what everyone else wanted, and there really was no argument - it was a good idea that the Body of Christ be united, and if a plurality of people wanted to follow the Bishop of Rome, then that’s what the vast majority did. Remember, this wasn’t your secular society of the 21st century, it was something that is entirely alien to you, and don’t ever forget that.
Click to expand...
 
Immoral innovations? Such as?

New one to me…

Interesting…

The Celtic monks as you say had a huge impact on monasticism… but the whole structure was not diocesan, which conflicted with Rome of course. A political not a spiritual matter.

The Abbots were humble men.

And it took several centuries for that great and rich tradition to die out.Thankfully

This US site will exemplify much
faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/medieval/glendalough/glendalough.shtml

I can see that to Roman Catholic eyes this will seen heretical!!
Matters nto for the purpose of this thread, which was not, I repeat NOT to vilify or ridicule

I have asked Fr Ambrose, Hieromonk. of the Eastern religion board to read this thread and maybe comment
Montalban said:
I’ve left myself open to your half-truth* by raising Whitby itself.

The Celtic church was long accused of all manner of immoral innovations.

The Synod of Whitby brought the Celtic church fully into line with Rome.

Note the distinctive traditions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_church#Distinctive_Traditions
this itself is not an exhaustive list. It actually understates an important thing, the emphasis of the Celtic church on monastic life.

The chapter above this notes that the Celts saw themselves as distinctive - because their communities were self-governing.

*-half truth because whilst Whitby met ostensibly over Easter the Celtic church had been long seen as heretical.
Click to expand...
 
hermitcrab said:
Immoral innovations? Such as?

New one to me…

Interesting…

The Celtic monks as you say had a huge impact on monasticism… but the whole structure was not diocesan, which conflicted with Rome of course. A political not a spiritual matter.

The Abbots were humble men.

And it took several centuries for that great and rich tradition to die out.Thankfully

This US site will exemplify much
faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/medieval/glendalough/glendalough.shtml

I can see that to Roman Catholic eyes this will seen heretical!!
Matters nto for the purpose of this thread, which was not, I repeat NOT to vilify or ridicule

I have asked Fr Ambrose, Hieromonk. of the Eastern religion board to read this thread and maybe comment
Click to expand...
Your response to the previous poster, who happens to be on your side, is just more proof that you are looking for a fight - you completely misunderstood his post, and being that he is on YOUR side, how can I even assume you would understand mine?

Just keep prancing and I’ll keep laughing, that is, between my praying for the souls undergoing purification before seeing the glory of God…
 
There are no sides here… simply a seeking for accurate information and mutual enlightenment in quietude and in the love of Jesus Christ.

We are all here to learn…

If you want to think else, that is your privilege and choice.

No one else is fighting.

Peace and grace to you in Christ
Joseph_Mary said:
Your response to the previous poster, who happens to be on your side, is just more proof that you are looking for a fight - you completely misunderstood his post, and being that he is on YOUR side, how can I even assume you would understand mine?

Just keep prancing and I’ll keep laughing, that is, between my praying for the souls undergoing purification before seeing the glory of God…
Click to expand...
 
hermitcrab said:
No one…is fighting.

Peace and grace to you in Christ
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, then why not accept the decisions of a local council 1,300+ years ago?

Accept that the so-called “Celts” agreed with the so-called “Romans”, and decided to celebrate the Resurrection at the same time.

There was no great “conspiracy”, there was no great “ethnic cleansing”, there wasn’t even a real argument - it came down to the Bishop of Rome’s representatives saying “let’s have it this way”, and the local, multi-ethnic population around them saying “yeah, good idea”.

However, I get the feeling that many people want to make the Bishop of Rome into this kind of “monster”.
 
Culture Clash: Roman and Celtic Christianities square off at the Synod of Whitby

by Louise Elaine Burton

In a.d. 603, Celtic Christians of the British Isles had a vexing
problem. Augustine, a Christian missionary, had recently arrived on their shores from Rome and not only condemned some of their Christian practices but demanded they submit to his authority…

This was definitely a low point in the history of cross-cultural communication, and it illustrates a gap that existed between the Celtic and Roman churches.

The missionary, later known as Augustine of Canterbury (not to be confused with the more famous Augustine of Hippo) had
been sent by Pope Gregory I in 596 to convert the pagan Angle and Saxon invaders of Britain. Augustine was prepared for pagans but not for other Christians.

Two centuries earlier, while Goths and Visigoths sacked the continent, Angles and Saxons overran Britain and nearly wiped out the Celtic church in what is now England. Christians were slaughtered, enslaved, or driven to the edges of the British Isles. Communication between the Celts and the rest of the world was broken. The church that remained, primarily in Ireland and Wales, learned to function on its own.

For the rest of the article go to
ctlibrary.com/4321

If you prefer not to sign up as a member there, I can send you the rest of the article if you send me your e-mail address.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Augustine was prepared for pagans but not for other Christians.

Good point. I can see how an ill informed mission would end up appearing to be in conflict with an unexpected ally.

Nevertheless, I still do not see the “Celtic” and the “Romans” as enemies, only perhaps as rivals, and the “Celts” agreed that the Bishop of Rome had a point, and unity was better (especially against other potential invaders) than not.

Did some Roman priests ever cheat at some dice game? You bet’cha! Did some Romans ever “cook the books” to relieve “Celtic” monasteries of their treasure? SURE! But, hey, none of that’s the end of the world, and BOY HOWDY are we ever glad we got the idea of private confession from those “Celtic” Christians from the west!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top