St. Patrick not Catholic Part III

  • Thread starter Thread starter montanaman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

montanaman

Guest
Okay, I’ve got a guy at the Protest Warrior forum (Protestant Warrior, as I think of it), who just can’t let it go. He’s getting more sophisticated with his attacks, and now he’s going so far as to assert a vast non-Catholic Christian Church in Ireland complete with a vibrant monastic culture. Naturally, he offers no positive evidence. Rather, he chips away at the Catholicism of St. Patrick with a lot of conjecture and logic leaps.

Here’s one of his latest posts on the topic. Maybe I’m giving him too much credit, but I could use a little help right now.

Thanks,
MM

You prove Patrick is catholic I have made the case that he wasnt…

In Doctrine and in church government that there is no link.

You have yet to provide any sort of writes stating there are.

You just blabber like a mad man…

Why does the Celtic Church matter?

The Celtic Church was founded by Patrick.

Doctrinal

First, modern Roman Catholicism has beliefs that differ from those of the Celtic churches. Here are some Roman Catholic ideas which the Celtic churches did not share:
  1. Roman Catholicism preaches that we are guilty of the sin of Adam;
  2. the Pope can define doctrine;
  3. the ever Virgin Mary the Birthgiver of God was conceived without ancestral sin;
  4. that the Holy Spirit originated with the Father and the Son and not the Father alone;
  5. the infallibility of the Church abides in only one Bishop.
  6. Worship occurs on Saturday, not Sunday.
Church government.

RCC Christianity

Monasteries:
To escape from church corruption
Objective: Save, cultivate their own souls
Location: Isolated, remote
Occupation: Primarily ascetics
Male dominated
Lifestyle: prayer and silence
Focus: narrow
Individual
Writings: theologies
Reason
Theology in words
Christianity is a doctrine

Celtic Christianity

Monasteries: Extend the church’s mission
Objective: Save their own and other’s souls
Location: Near roads and sea lanes
Occupation: Ascetics, teachers, scholars, artisans
Both males and females lead
Lifestyle: Worship, prayer, study, work
Focus: Holistic
Communal
Writings: Biographies
Creativity
Theology in the arts, ritual, feasts, dance, songs
Christianity is a way of life

Now then you twit… I listed my sources for the conclusions.
You take it up with the sources.
 
Here are three reasons why Patrick of Ireland could not have been Roman Catholic. "
  1. Early Catholic historians and popes avoided mentioning Patrick or his work; until later legendary histories represented him as a Catholic Saint.
  2. When papal missionaries arrived in Britain, 596 A.D., the leaders of the original Celtic Church refused to accept their doctrines, or to acknowledge the papal authority, and would not dine with them. They ‘acted towards the Roman party exactly as if they had been pagans.’ - Ecclesiastical Records, by Richard Hart. pp. viii, xiv.
  3. The doctrines of the Celtic Church of Patrick’s day differed so widely from those of the Roman Church, that the latter could not have accepted it as ‘Catholic.’" Christian Edwardson, Facts of Faith, p.137.
The first reason mentioned above happens quite a bit!

For example, there is a story about Brian Boru, the king of Ireland around 941-1014 A.D., being the strongest man that ever lived. It was said that he was so strong that he could lift himself off the ground so that no part of him touched the ground!

This is impossible and is misinformation!

The same thing happened to Patrick by the Catholic Church.

“Centuries were to pass before the papacy discovered that his (Patrick’s) merits were too firmly established to be overlooked. It (the Catholic Church) labored to gather Patrick into its fold by inventing all kinds of history and fables to make him a papal hero.”

Elder Benjamin Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, p. 93.

There is another fact that proves that Patrick was not Roman Catholic. He worshipped on a different day than what the Roman Catholics worship on!

“It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labor. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week.”

Professor James C. Moffat, The Church in Scotland, p. 140.

“We seem to see here an allusion to the custom, observed in the early monastic Church of Ireland, of keeping the day of rest on Saturday.”

Blair’s, History of the Church in Scotland, Vol. 1, p. 86. (This quote is found in a footnote of Blair’s translaton of the Catholic historian, Bellesheim).

The Catholic historian, Bellesheim, also states the sentiments of Queen Margaret, for he wrote,

“The queen further protested against the prevailing abuse of Sunday desecration. ‘Let us’ she said, ‘venerate the Lord’s day, inasmuch as upon it our Saviour rose from the dead: let us do no servile work on that day’…The Scots in this matter had no doubt kept up the traditional practice of the ancient monastic Church of Ireland, which observed Saturday rather than Sunday as a day of rest.”

Bellesheim, History of the Catholic Church of Scotland, vol. 1, pp. 249,250.

“Her next point was that they did not duly reverence the Lord’s day, but in this latter instance they seem to have followed a custom of which we find traces in the early monastic Church of Ireland, by which they held Saturday to be the Sabbath on which they rested from all their labors.”

William F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, vol. II, p. 349. (1877)
 
Bump.

Even a little perspective would help. If I’m crazy in thinking there’s the slightest bit of a point here, I’d like to know it.
 
Re. Ancient Irish Monasteries being established near roads etc (good in his eyes) versus RCC ones being isolated (bad) - ask him to explain the location of the monastery on Skellig Michael (a very big rock in the atlantic that was almost impossible to get to before motor boats & that only had monks on it) and St. Patricks Purgatory (an island on Lough Derg) - there are ruins of many other ‘isolated’ monasteries in Ireland.

Some Irish monasteries were isolated and some were seats of learning, as also happened on the Continent.
 
The fact that the only Church in the West of that time was the Roman Catholic Church, is enough to debunk this guy’s claims. At the time all Christians were Catholic. St. Patrick was a Catholic Bishop who set out to convert the celts in Ireland. The Celtic Church there, later way after his death might have started establishing its own beliefs, culture, ways of worship, and so on while isolated from Rome. Remember that there was horrible communication and travel back then. If there are celtic Churches in schism or heresy from Rome, which I’m sure there are, it is because they refused to accept the Pope and the primacy of the Roman Church, which was St. Patrick’s original Mother Church.
 
Peace be with you!

These same people try to say that the Catholic Church canonized a Celtic goddess. What they fail to realize is that St. Brigid was an actual person who happened to share the name of an old Celtic goddess, just as someone named Erin does.

Ask him how St. Patrick could not have been Catholic, seeing as how the Eastern Orthodox Church did not even exist yet at that point in time. Ask him why every Irish Christian was Catholic until the Plantation of Ulster. Ask him why St. Patrick was sent to Ireland to convert the island (who sent him?–the pope). The burdon of proof is not on you to prove that St. Patrick was Catholic…volumes of Irish and Church history, as well as his being a canonized saint, speak for themselves. The Church is not in the habit of ordaining non-Catholics as bishops and then canonizing them.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Good response, RA!!
The Celtic Church there, later way after his death might have started establishing its own beliefs, culture, ways of worship, and so on while isolated from Rome. Remember that there was horrible communication and travel back then.
Click to expand...
Divergence because of geographical isolation, especially in early Christianity, is not any kind of heresy or schism. Catholicism must adapt to the culture of the people who embrace it.
 
I would advise caution in this discussion. Protestants, in their insatiable quest to estanlish a counter-apostolic succession love to sieze upon any rite that differed from Roman usage. I’ve heard the most radical (and utterly untenable) claims concerning the “true worship” of the Celtic churches, some of which contradicts other claims. Sabbathkeepers espcially love to sieze upon the Celtic churches because it is known that they observed a rest on the Sabbath day, as did many Eastern churches. There were also other Judaizing pactices asscoaited with the hurch: britam.org/traditions16.html (a perhapsquestionable source, but we’ll include it for a few references contained therein that might be of worth).

The Celtic churches did eventually alter their Pascha (Easter) date, and changed a few more customs under pressure from Rome. Rome, as the only Apostolic See of the Western church, exercised its legitmate authorty as Metropolitan to correct heretical practices, or in other points bring those churches in line with more universal custom. Was the Celtic church free from heresy? Those who claim some of the beliefs that were later abandoned might not think so. The rest of the Church did. Was this persecution? No. It was the respect of a younger ecclesiastical territory to its See., and the rightful authority of bishop of Rome to confirm the faithful.

Also, one has to ask ccnernign a few other details: are these differences simply unique elements of a particular rite/tradition of the Church? Remember, the Church has never been universally “ROMAN” Catholic, but it certainly has been Catholic. If the Celtic monastic tradition differed from the Roman one – who cares? There are at least 8 major monastic traditions in the Latin rite alone, each with distinct emphases and lifestyles. And to be honest, the description of the Latin monastic tradition that individual gave you is a negative charicature. Furthermore, at least a few details more closely resemble the Eastern monastic tradition than those that existed (or would later exist) in the West. Many other practices listed are no more Roman Catholic than Melkite Catholic or Coptic Catholic practices are Roman Catholic. Leave it to a Protestant to color Church history and culture towards their own ends.
 
P.S. I apologize about that last sentence. As a Protestant converting to Catholcism, I have seen my share of people trying to twist Church history to their own ends, without ever entering the Church fathers and understanding the finer points of Catholic history. I apologize if I have offended any Protestants, but as one, I am quite frustrated with such individuals or beliefs.
 
It was the respect of a younger ecclesiastical territory to its See, and the rightful authority of bishop of Rome to confirm the faithful.
Click to expand...
That bears repeating.

People will always tend to color history to match their goals.
 
Rand Al'Thor:
Peace be with you!

These same people try to say that the Catholic Church canonized a Celtic goddess. What they fail to realize is that St. Brigid was an actual person who happened to share the name of an old Celtic goddess, just as someone named Erin does.

Ask him how St. Patrick could not have been Catholic, seeing as how the Eastern Orthodox Church did not even exist yet at that point in time. Ask him why every Irish Christian was Catholic until the Plantation of Ulster. Ask him why St. Patrick was sent to Ireland to convert the island (who sent him?–the pope). The burdon of proof is not on you to prove that St. Patrick was Catholic…volumes of Irish and Church history, as well as his being a canonized saint, speak for themselves. The Church is not in the habit of ordaining non-Catholics as bishops and then canonizing them.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
I’ve given up. He’s simply not a rational human being. Among his other assertions: abortion is fine because “soul life” isn’t infused until birth (first breath) and the only sin is fighting sin. (Naturally he’s an OSAS guy). Doing good works of any kind merely help to build Satan’s Kingdom, and the only thing a Christian should be concerned about is “spiritual growth” which in his world means only “reading the Bible.”

His main arguments against Patrick being Catholic hang on what I cited above, but also the fact that Patrick never wrote anything he sees as specifically Catholic–no transubstantiation, no Mary, etc. He then builds this edifice of assumptions on negative evidence.

His “strongest” argument is that he showed up in Ireland before Paladius, therefore, how could he take over for him? I’m a little confused by that point, but he seems to think that because the dates are in question, then a whole sequence of papal lies and subjugation hid the truth. :rolleyes:

The main problem is that this guy literally cannot distinguish between an assertion and an argument. He loses his mind when I ask him to “prove it” because he thinks by virtue of writing the main proposition, he HAS.

Example: “St. Patrick wasn’t Catholic because the date he arrived contradicts the papal account.”

That’s it.

Even though the exact date is in question according to several sources (though the substance of Patrick traditions aren’t), the idea that the date that works for his argument might be off literally doesn’t occur to him. Literally–it’s incomprehensible to him.

And forget what a weak argument he was making…

Anyway, I’m just frustrated. Occasionally you come across someone so persistant you HAVE TO answer them. This is particularly true in message boards. And occasionally, the hatred these people have removes them completely from reason.
 
40.png
montanaman:
I’ve given up. He’s simply not a rational human being.
Click to expand...
Please don’t give up - even if you quit dialoging, at least pray for them. Let the Holy Spirit do the heavy lifting!
40.png
montanaman:
Among his other assertions: abortion is fine because “soul life” isn’t infused until birth (first breath) and the only sin is fighting sin.
Click to expand...
You may ask him if John the Baptist had a soul when he leaped for joy in his mother’s womb.
40.png
montanaman:
Doing good works of any kind merely help to build Satan’s Kingdom, and the only thing a Christian should be concerned about is “spiritual growth” which in his world means only “reading the Bible.”
Click to expand...
You may remind them that “loving God” is a work. It is a human response to the Divine - it is something done by us (albeit, throught the grace of God). You may ask them if Christians should be concerned about the “work” of loving God. From there, you may ask them how love works in human terms. Is it enough just to say that you love your spouse? If you never showed it in any way, but rather mistreated your spouse (analogical parallel: mistreat God through sin), should the spouse believe you?

God bless, and may the Holy Spirit guide your work,
RyanL
 
40.png
montanaman:
I’ve given up. He’s simply not a rational human being. Among his other assertions: abortion is fine because “soul life” isn’t infused until birth (first breath) and the only sin is fighting sin. (Naturally he’s an OSAS guy). Doing good works of any kind merely help to build Satan’s Kingdom, and the only thing a Christian should be concerned about is “spiritual growth” which in his world means only “reading the Bible.”

His main arguments against Patrick being Catholic hang on what I cited above, but also the fact that Patrick never wrote anything he sees as specifically Catholic–no transubstantiation, no Mary, etc. He then builds this edifice of assumptions on negative evidence.

His “strongest” argument is that he showed up in Ireland before Paladius, therefore, how could he take over for him? I’m a little confused by that point, but he seems to think that because the dates are in question, then a whole sequence of papal lies and subjugation hid the truth. :rolleyes:

The main problem is that this guy literally cannot distinguish between an assertion and an argument. He loses his mind when I ask him to “prove it” because he thinks by virtue of writing the main proposition, he HAS.

Example: “St. Patrick wasn’t Catholic because the date he arrived contradicts the papal account.”

That’s it.

Even though the exact date is in question according to several sources (though the substance of Patrick traditions aren’t), the idea that the date that works for his argument might be off literally doesn’t occur to him. Literally–it’s incomprehensible to him.

And forget what a weak argument he was making…

Anyway, I’m just frustrated. Occasionally you come across someone so persistant you HAVE TO answer them. This is particularly true in message boards. And occasionally, the hatred these people have removes them completely from reason.
Click to expand...
Amen! Don’t feel bad, there will always be heretics out there. They won’t reason, they let their fear of change and pride get in the way of reason. Also, the very language this guy uses (name calling etc.) makes him lose credibility and shows him as being stubborn and arrogant. No matter how you explain it to them, no matter how convincing and persuasive your arguement is, there will always be someone who will reject it. Jesus himself has experienced this with his own disciples and the pharisees. Continue doing apologetics, when the person starts tap dancing, then stop and go to someone else because it’ll be a waist of time.

:blessyou:
 
40.png
montanaman:
I’ve given up. He’s simply not a rational human being. Among his other assertions: abortion is fine because “soul life” isn’t infused until birth (first breath) and the only sin is fighting sin. (Naturally he’s an OSAS guy). Doing good works of any kind merely help to build Satan’s Kingdom, and the only thing a Christian should be concerned about is “spiritual growth” which in his world means only “reading the Bible.”

His main arguments against Patrick being Catholic hang on what I cited above, but also the fact that Patrick never wrote anything he sees as specifically Catholic–no transubstantiation, no Mary, etc. He then builds this edifice of assumptions on negative evidence.

His “strongest” argument is that he showed up in Ireland before Paladius, therefore, how could he take over for him? I’m a little confused by that point, but he seems to think that because the dates are in question, then a whole sequence of papal lies and subjugation hid the truth. :rolleyes:

The main problem is that this guy literally cannot distinguish between an assertion and an argument. He loses his mind when I ask him to “prove it” because he thinks by virtue of writing the main proposition, he HAS.

Example: “St. Patrick wasn’t Catholic because the date he arrived contradicts the papal account.”

That’s it.

Even though the exact date is in question according to several sources (though the substance of Patrick traditions aren’t), the idea that the date that works for his argument might be off literally doesn’t occur to him. Literally–it’s incomprehensible to him.

And forget what a weak argument he was making…

Anyway, I’m just frustrated. Occasionally you come across someone so persistant you HAVE TO answer them. This is particularly true in message boards. And occasionally, the hatred these people have removes them completely from reason.
Click to expand...
Peace be with you!

I understand how you feel. I’ve been debating someone online for several months and just when I thought I was starting to make some headway, he doesn’t respond to any of my posts for about a month and then comes back with a renewed sense of anti-Catholicism. I agree–there is just no reasoning with some people; they simply refuse to believe anything that contradicts their personal interpretation of Scripture. Keep on praying, though.
I do wonder, if good works only help bring on Satan’s kingdom, was St. James working for him? Because his entire epistle is talking about the necessity of good works. That is one point I’ve found that most Protestants like to sidestep every time I ask them about it.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top