From: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,)
Subject: Re: Celts-Christianity-Catholicism
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:29:46 GMT

Note: this posting is not from me. It is from Laura Downey, since her
news reader is inoperable at the moment.


From DOWNEY@ENH.NIST.GOV Mon Oct 12 19:16:28 1992
Subject: Celts-Christianity-Catholicism
To: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
X-Envelope-To: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
X-Vms-To: IN%"walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu"

I wrote earlier in response to Matthew:
>Well, if you are referring to the "Celtic Church" before the coming
>of Christianity, I say it definitely existed - What about the
>Druids?  If I have misunderstood and you are talking about
>the "Celtic Church" after the introduction of Christianity, then
>I would say it was a "different" kind - a sort of mingling of
>the old and the new - pagan + Christianity.  This is termed
>"Celtic Christianity" and in fact there is a book by that name.
>
  Excuse me all, the name of the book is "Celtic Fire," and it
  talks about the mingling of rituals and beliefs between
  "Celtic" religion and Christianity.
	   
frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney) writes:
>>Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you're wrong in both
>>cases, at least to some degree as far as the Catholic Church
>>in Ireland is concerned. The Irish Church has a long history
>>of organizational and doctrinal independence from the See of
>>Rome. According to Giraldus Cambrensis, Pope Hadrian IV (the
>> . . . . [some deleted]

 Are you saying I'm wrong in my reference to a "Celtic" church
 before the coming of Christianity?  I'm just using the term
 as a catch-all for the rituals/beliefs, etc. that existed
 before the coming of Christianity.  As to the second case,
 see my statements above.  I'm talking about "in the
 beginning," when Christianity was first introduced. Certainly
 there was a transition period before the development of
 a full-blown Irish Catholic Church.

>>Henry landed 4000 men near Waterford in 1171 and quickly
>>received the support of the Irish clergy. A synod of Irish
>>prelates declared their full submission to the Pope, and
>>decreed that thereafter the ritual of the Irish Church
>>should conform to that of England and Rome. Of course, that
>>was far from the end of the political story, but it was the
>>end of a distinctive Irish Church.

 So, whatever distinctions were left, they were eradicated
 at this point?
							

>> . . . [more deleted]
>>However, the
>>Christianity of Ireland in the fifth century was modeled on
>>the episcopal model of the Gallic church. But after
>>Patrick's death the Irish Church became monastic and
>>discrete, to use Chadwick's phrase.
>> . . . [more deleted] . . .   especially in
>>reference to the Church rituals, had been borrowed in a
>>British form already by the fourth, or early fifth century.
>> . . . [more deleted] 
>>"The Patrician diocesan organization quickly
>>proved incapable of adaptation to the tribal system of
>>Ireland. "Its place was therefore taken in the sixth and
>>seventh centuries by the 'Celtic' Church, in which the
>>dioceses gave way to the federation of monastic communities,
>>each with its _paruchia_ under the supreme jurisdiction of
>>the 'heir' (conarb) of the founder-saint." Patrick's heir

  Well, even if I'm wrong about the "nature" of the Celtic
  Church, my point is made, that there was a Celtic Church.
  This was my point to Matthew.

>> . . . [more deleted] 
>>This lack of centrist organization led to great
>>vigor but it made the Irish Church doomed to defeat against
>>the organized strength of Rome.

  Once again, we see the power of the Vatican.  Take note here,
  Matthew, didn't you make some comment regarding the "non-power"
  of the Pope?  If I misunderstood you, I apologize in advance.
		 
>> . . . [more deleted] 
>>In the
>>beginning of the sixth century the Church in Ireland, Wales,
>>Britain, was wholly monastic. The monasteries were
>>independent offshoots of mother houses; there were also the
>>very isolated hermits. The masses and orders of service were
>>not uniform. Theologically, the Irish church was completely
>>orthodox, but otherwise it was practically independent of
>>Rome.

  This is somewhat confusing, considering some of the above
  statements.  First you tell me I am wrong because the
  Irish Church has a long history of independence from the
  See of Rome, then you give us historical evidence that 
  the year 1171 marked the end of a distinctive Irish Church.
  Here we see some evidence that in the sixth century, the
  Irish Church was "practically independent of Rome," but of
  course that is before 1171.  I'm starting to lose
  lose the thread here.   What exactly am I wrong about?
				 
>>Irish asceticism evolved into the peregrinatio, a love of
>>wandering, passing from the familiar and familial to search
>>for the place of one's resurrection. 

  This sounds quite Celtic to me as opposed to the standard
  Christian and/or Catholic concept.  I think this perhaps
  supports some of my earlier statements.

>>These early saints were
>>not missionaries, traveling to Christian communities, even
>>as far afield as Iceland, as well as to Britain and the
>>continent. These Culdees (from C\eli D\e, Companions of God)
>>developed into an organized body in the eighth century, a
>>highly intellectual order, like the Desert Fathers of
>>Egypt.

  Again, this is further support.  Rather than "spreading the
  word" these early saints chose to pursue intellectual
  activities.  Let's see, wasn't intellect an important
  part of ancient Celtic culture, i.e. the bard or historian
  of a group?  And, ancient Celtic culture is classified as
  pagan not Christian.  I'm trying to illustrate an integration
  here, rather than a replacement.
									  
>>The Easter Controversy got underway in the seventh century.
>>At issue was the formula for determining the date of Easter.
>>This was the casus belli but in fact the real problem was
>>the deep-seated conservatism of the Celtic Church, as well
>>its pride in own intellectual powers. One direct result was
>>the sudden outpouring of written literature from the Celtic
>>Church supporting, explaining, and justifying its traditions
>>and practices. The writings mostly took the form of
>>matyrologies, hagiographies, and rules and penitentials. The
>>influence of the Eastern Church shows in these writings, and
>>of course the rivalry of Eastern and Western Churches is
>>part of the desire of Rome to impose its Unitas Catholica on
>>Celtic regions. The Irish celebrated Easter according to a
>>reckoning practiced by the early Church but abandoned by
>>Rome in 343. St. Columban rejected the new Roman method,
>>saying "The Irish are better astronomers than you Romans."
>>He asked Pope Gregory the Great to accept the Irish mode of
>>calculation or be "looked upon as a heretic and repudiated
>>with scorn by the churches of the West." Indeed, the whole
>>of ritual and calendar, even the kind of music, was at
>>issue, with the Celtic Church preserving usages that were
>>obsolete in Roman practice. The controversy was
>>superficially settled at the Synod of Whitby in 664, but the
>>spirit of independence persisted for centuries.
 
  Would that this "spirit of independence" were practiced by
  more people, both in Ireland and in other countries including
  America.  I think we should all continue to question and
  challenge the current ruling institutions.  They must be made
  to change and adapt with the times instead of remaining rooted
  in archaic tenets and beliefs.  The Easter Controversy was an
  interesting story.  Thanks for sharing it.

>>Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
>>    "Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda

  Frank, thanks for responding with all this information.  I only
  cut some in the interest of space. :-)

  Laura


Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic