Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Feb 22, '12, 5:30 pm
WJL WJL is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Posts: 248
Religion: Catholic
Default The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

A popular claims among Protestants, particularly Scottish and Ulster Scots Presbyterians, is that the Irish Church prior to arrival of the Normans in 1171-1172 wasn't Catholic but, a separate, non-Catholic church which didn't acknowledge the papacy and, allegedly, had "many differences" from the Roman Church. One site which promotes this idea makes the following claims

Quote:
"How The Popes Gave Ireland To England"

When King Henry II of England landed with an army of 4,000 at Waterford in October 1171, he came at the Pope's behest and carrying as his authority the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, by which the Roman Pontiff claimed the right to bestow Ireland as a gift to the English King on condition that he suppressed the ancient Celtic or Culdee Church, and brought the island and its people into submission to Rome. Pope Adrian's successor Alexander III wrote to the Bishops of Ireland calling on them to submit to King Henry:

"Understanding that our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England stirred by divine inspiration and with his united forces has subjected to his dominion, that people a barbarous one, uncivilized and ignorant of the Divine Law - we command and enjoin upon you that you will diligently and manfully assist the above said King to maintain and preserve that land and to extirpate the filthiness of such great abominations. And if any of the Kings, Princes or persons of the land shall rashly attempt to go against his due oath and fealty pledged to the said King you shall lay ecclesiastical censure on such a one."

In a similar vein Pope Alexander addressed these words to the Princes of Ireland:

"Whereas you have received our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England as your king and Lord and have sworn fealty to him ... we ward and admonish your noble order to strive to preserve the fealty which by solemn oath you have made."

The same Roman Pontiff in a letter congratulating Henry on his conquest of Ireland wrote:

"We have been assured how you have wonderfully triumphed over the people of Ireland and over a Kingdom which the Roman Emperors, the conquerors of the world left untouched, and you have extended the power of your majesty over the same people, a race uncivilized and undisciplined. We understand that you, collecting your splendid naval and land forces have set your mind upon subjugating that people ... so we exhort and beseech your majesty and enjoin upon you that you will even more intently and strenuously continue ... and earnestly enjoin upon your majesty that you will carefully seek to preserve the rights of the See of St. Peter."

This was indeed what King Henry did and one of his first acts was to call the Council of Cashel in 1172 at which the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland was brought into submission to Rome. As for the Papal insults that the Irish were a rude, ignorant, uncivilized people, had not the missionaries of Patrick's Celtic Church brought the Gospel not only to the rest of the British Isles but to Europe? Was it a savage people who produced such beautifully illuminated Christian manuscripts as the Book of Kells, and who preserved the primitive Christian faith in their communities even under Viking attack, whilst Papal Rome was sunk in the depths of vice?

The Roman Catholic writer, John O'Driscoll, Esq., admits:

"The Christian Church of Ireland was founded by St. Patrick, existed for many centuries free and unshackled ... and differed on many points from Rome. From the days of Patrick to the Council of Cashel was a bright and glorious career for Ireland. From the sitting of that Council to our own times the lot of Ireland has been unmixed evil and all her history a tale of woe." Views of Ireland: Moral, Political, and Religious, Vol. 2, Page 84.

It was only when the rest of the British Isles and the British Monarchy embraced Protestantism at the Reformation, that the Papacy changed its policy and began to pose as the champion of Irish freedom.
Continued...
  #2  
Old Feb 22, '12, 5:32 pm
WJL WJL is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Posts: 248
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

Regarding the supposed differences:

Quote:
Difference Between the Celtic, Culdee or British Church and the Roman or Latin Church

There were differences between the Celtic Church and Rome. Let us now examine the main disparities which were to be such a 'bone of contention'. It is argued that Rome looked to Simon Bar-Jonah, Christ's disciple, who was nicknamed 'The Rock' (cephas in Greek and petrus in Latin), and is more popularly known today as Peter, as the founder of the Church after Christ. The Celts, however, cited the authority of John, son of Zebedee and brother of James. Jesus confided his mother to John's care, a fact which appealed to the mother goddess orientated Celts, and tradition was that John was the unnamed disciple whom Jesus loved. This was the argument also put forward by the theologians of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

One visible difference between the Celtic clergy and Roman clergy at this stage was that while the Romans adopted what they described as the tonsure of St Peter, shaving the head on the crown as symbolic of the crown of thoms, the Celts used what they called the tonsure of St John, shaving a line from ear to ear. The Roman argument was that this was merely a Druidic practice which had been maintained, and it was thus regarded as 'barbaric' by Rome.

The Celtic sabbath ('day of repose') was celebrated on a Saturday, the last day of the week and Hebrew holy day. The Romans had now begun to observe Sunday, the first day of the week as their sabbath, it being symbolic of the Resurrection.

More often than not, until the seventh and eighth centuries, the services were conducted in Greek, not Latin, by the Celtic clergy. Greek was, of course, the original language of the Christian movement after its break from Judaism. Greek was the language of the Byzantine rites of the Eastern Church. In fact, the Celtic services had much more in common with Orthodox services than with Rome.

The Eucharist, bread and wine, was given by the celebrant who stood facing the altar, not behind it. The wine was given by a deacon. When the blessing was given, the Celtic priest raised the first, third and fourth fingers to represent the Trinity.The Roman priest held up thumb, first and second finger. The blessing in the Celtic Church was given before communion and the breaking of bread was at the end of the service. As in the Orthodox Church, the Celtic bishops celebrated the mass, so called by Rome from the Latin missa (dismissal) but called the 'offering' in the Celtic and Eastern Churches.

The Celtic Church emphasized active participation in the worship by the people; while the deacon led the congregation in prayers, the people would respond with psalms and hymns. The deacon fulfilled an important link between priest and people. Celtic bishops were under the authority of abbots. The clergy could, of course, marry but this was not unique because it was only in the eleventh century that Rome expressly forbade its clergy to marry. Pope Leo IX (1002-1054) launched a programme of clerical reform, discouraging priests from marrying. The institution of celibacy of the priesthood meant the chuch properties came under the ownership of Rome which became very wealthy overnight. In the Celtic world there were mixed monasteries in which the religieux of both sexes lived and worked. Of course, in the Eastern Church today, the clergy can still marry. Confession was not obligatory but voluntary and could be made in public or to a chosen 'soul friend'. Absolution did not follow immediately, and sometimes a penance could last some years.
Continued...
  #3  
Old Feb 22, '12, 5:32 pm
WJL WJL is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Posts: 248
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

Continued...

Quote:
The most famous difference between the Celtic Church and Rome was the dating of Easter. The rules governing the Christian calendar were originally agreed at Nicaea in AD 325 with the years reckoned from the year of the birth of Christ. Rome altered its computations during the time of Pope Leo I (AD 440-461) when the 'Alexandrian computation' was adopted in AD 444. Amendments were added by Victorius of Aquitaine during the time of Pope Hilary (AD 461-468) and more were adopted following proposals by Dionysius Exiguus during the pontificate of Felix III (IV) in AD 527. The last time Rome seriously altered the calendrical system, which now affects the entire Christian calendar, was in 1581 when Pope Gregory XIII ordained that ten days be dropped and the years ending in hundreds be leap years only if divisible by 400. The Gregorian Calendar was eventually adopted throughout the Christian world, by England in 1752, and by the Eastern Orthodox world this century.

The Celts saw the early amendments taking them further from the original dates and rendering the commemorative ceremonies and anniversaries arbitrary and without meaning. Celtic computations remained those inherited from the early Council of Arles in AD 314, attended by four British Celtic bishops, and were based on the Hebrew lunar calendar which allowed Easter to fall, as did the Passover, in the month of Nisan. This was the seventh and spring month of the Hebrew calendar (March/April) in which the Passover fell at the full moon. Under this method, the first Easter had been on the fourteenth day of Nisan. Using this calculation, the Celts celebrated the festival on whatever Sunday fell between the fourteenth and twentieth days after the first full moon following the spring equinox. They would do this even if Easter then fell on the same day as the Passover.

The early Christians adopted the name of the Passover festival as the name for the commemoration of the death of Christ because he had been executed at that time. Paul, in his first epistle or letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:7), had referred to Christ as their 'Passover lamb' or sacrifice. So the Christians celebrated the Hebrew Passover in memory of Christ's execution and called it, in the Latin calendar, Pasca from the Hebrew Pesach (Passover). To the Celts, it became a little nonsensical when, in AD 325, the Council of Nicaea declared it unlawful to celebrate a Christian festival on the same day as a Hebrew one. After all, Jesus, a Hebrew, was known to have been executed during that particular Hebrew feast. The Christian Easter then became an arbitrary date for the commemoration and not one with any relevance to the actual anniversary. Seen from this point in time, it could well be argued that the Celtic dating of Easter was far more accurate than the later reformed calculations.

If we argue that the Celts became imbued with the same ideas as the Eastern Orthodox Church, simply because these were, in fact, the original concepts of the Christian movement before the decisions of the Council of Nicaea, in AD 325, began to change the attitude of Rome, then we must also take into account another aspect - intercourse with another Celtic country which was clearly part of Eastern Orthodoxy. Galatia stood on the central plains of Asia Minor in what is today modern Turkey. The Celts at the time of their eastern expansion in the third century BC, had established their 'Commonwealth of Galatians' and been recognized by the surrounding Hellenized kingdoms. Indeed, their state presents us with our first information on how a Celtic state was governed. In 25 BC Galatia had eventually been conquered and became a Roman province.

But Galatia was not cut off from the rest of the Celtic world. In Ancyra, capital of Trocmi, one of the three Celtic tribes to settle Galatia, stood a monument from
around AD 14 which mentions the names of two British Celtic kings. St. Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymous, c. A.D. 342-420) visited Ancyra (Ankara) at the beginning of the fifth century and was able to report that while educated Galatians used Greek to communicate with the surrounding Hellenistic world, among themselves they still spoke Celtic and, moreover, he likened their Celtic language to that spoken by the Treveri (of Trier) in northem Gaul. Jerome knew what he was talking about, for he had lived in Trier. The Gaulish Celtic language was mutually understandable with British Celtic.

The Galatians were the first Celts to be converted to Christianity, sometime between AD 40 and 50 when Paul of Tarsus visited Pessinus the chief city of the Tolistoboii, a city in Cilicia bordering on Galatia. The Galatians received a permanent place in Christian history through Paul's famous letter to them in which he reveals the reasons for his argument with Christ's disciple Peter. The Galatians subsequently developed, at least outwardly, as part of the Eastern Church; however, because of the close relationship between all parts of the Celtic world, no matter how far removed from one another, it is more than likely that travelers from Galatia were in contact with western Celts, in Gaul and in Britain, reinforcing their differences with Rome. Pelagius was certainly in that part of the world during his later travels.

The argument that these differences with Rome came about through the isolation of the Celtic Church in Britain and Ireland is no longer tenable.
What's the truth about this? How should these claims be answered or addressed?
  #4  
Old Feb 22, '12, 6:21 pm
Swiss Guy's Avatar
Swiss Guy Swiss Guy is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: May 14, 2011
Posts: 4,004
Religion: Christian in the Holy Catholic Church
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

No truth that it wasn't in communion in Rome. the Latin Church developed private confession because of the Irish (I think at least). The Irish reconverted a lot of Western and Central Europe in the Middle Ages. St. Patrick was a (Roman?) Catholic who was sent to convert the Irish. Yet even though St. Patrick was Catholic, he didn't convert the Irish Catholic??? It doesn't make sense. I suppose it's possible that there was some more freedom with discipline with the Irish since they were on an island with England, but the Faith was the same.
__________________




*I converted to Catholicism on the Easter Vigil on 3/30/13. Some posts may contain information that I believe is incorrect or was poorly understood from a Catholic viewpoint.
  #5  
Old Feb 22, '12, 6:32 pm
The_Scott's Avatar
The_Scott The_Scott is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: July 9, 2010
Posts: 1,341
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

I've taken many classes on medieval history, and have NEVER heard Celtic Christianity called non-Catholic. The only big differences between Celtic and Roman Christianity was purely regarding discipline, such as liturgy, shape of the tonsures, and who leads the local community (bishop in Roman, abbot in Celtic). But there were no doctrinal differences.
__________________
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Scott
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...


  #6  
Old Feb 22, '12, 6:34 pm
The_Scott's Avatar
The_Scott The_Scott is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: July 9, 2010
Posts: 1,341
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

PS: St. Columba was the one who founded Christianity in Scotlamd; notice that he is called SAINT Columba
__________________
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Scott
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...


  #7  
Old Feb 22, '12, 6:42 pm
Trishie's Avatar
Trishie Trishie is offline
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: April 28, 2008
Posts: 32,834
Religion: joyfully Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

The words of St Patrick:
Saint Patrick's Catholicity speaks for itself in his extant writings

http://www.archive.org/stream/writin...ge/46/mode/2up
The link shows the beginning of his writings, pages following, including a letter.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	St Patrick wrote.GIF
Views:	94
Size:	92.1 KB
ID:	13104   Click image for larger version

Name:	St Patrick wrote2.gif
Views:	77
Size:	39.3 KB
ID:	13105  
__________________
JESUS who died once for all persons
who gives Yourself wholly in Communion to billions throughout time
please pray in me for every person
as if each person is the only loved one.
JESUS please welcome each person with love, healing, and great joy!
Thank You JESUS


Mother Mary at the wedding feast of Cana (John 2:1-12)
though JESUS protested it was not yet time for miracles
you successfully interceded with Him for a family's temporal need
please now intercede with your divine Son
for each person's temporal and spiritual needs.
Thank you Mother


JESUS please grant our prayer for this person


Catechism of the Catholic Church http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Last edited by Trishie; Feb 22, '12 at 7:02 pm.
  #8  
Old Feb 22, '12, 7:07 pm
Hesychios Hesychios is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 11,826
Religion: Olde fashioned Christian
Smile Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

Quote:
Originally Posted by WJL View Post

What's the truth about this? How should these claims be answered or addressed?
I didn't read the quotes, but I have some comments. It seems like some people are bent on revising history.

But that goes both ways.

It is true that the Irish church did not originally follow the Latin rite, it's tradition derives from Gaul and Britain before the Gallo-Roman rite was imposed in those places. Monasticism reached Ireland very early (long before St Benedict wrote his rule that came to dominate western monasticism). In fact it really is possible that a monk or monks of the earliest monastic ttraditions from Egypt accompanied either St Patrick or St Palladius to Eire. That is not to say that we know it to be the case for sure, but it is quite possible.

Anyway, the Papacy was not developed like it is today, so it did not do all of the kind of things it does now in places like France and Ireland. However, it is certain the Irish church was always in communion with Rome from the beginning and also in communion with the Orthodox Eastern Catholic churches to the east from it's beginning. An interesting detail: since the first inklings of the Irish church were in the early fifth century they were in communion with the churches that would later be known to us as non-Chalcedonians too, the Council of Chalcedon happened in 451AD.

It isn't correct to confuse the fact that churches were using different liturgies (they were) and were more independent in the beginning (they were) with the idea that they may have not been in communion with Rome. It does not follow.
  #9  
Old Feb 22, '12, 7:09 pm
christosdavid christosdavid is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2011
Posts: 318
Religion: Christian
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

Patrick wasn't Catholic???? I need a drink!!!!
  #10  
Old Feb 23, '12, 6:38 pm
EricFilmer's Avatar
EricFilmer EricFilmer is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2010
Posts: 3,209
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

Quote:
Originally Posted by WJL View Post
What's the truth about this? How should these claims be answered or addressed?
Basically, the article in question points out distinctions between early Celtic Christianity and Latin Christianity, but these distinctions are not doctrinal, but rather involve liturgical norms and Church disciplines. The article states that such distinctions indicate that the Celtic Church had more in keeping with Eastern Orthodox Churches. Apparently the author concludes that Celtic Christianity was more of a kind of Orthodox Church and not really a part of the Catholic Church.

Here are two points that refute the author's position:

1) Using this same line of reasoning, a person could conclude that the Byzantine Rite Catholics are not really a part of the Catholic Church. After all, there is a big distinction between the Byzantine Rites and the Latin Rite in terms of liturgical norms and Church disciplines (i.e., the same sorts of things the author points out). But, of course, suggesting that Byzantine Rite Catholics are not truly a part of the Catholic Church would be absurd. Therefore, I can look at the points the author made and simply say that they illustrate the distinctions between an early Celtic Rite and the Latin Rite, but they were still rites within the same Church.

2) The big mistake of the author is presuming that Irish Celtic Christianity was confined to the island of Ireland (and therefore all the Irish Christians were subjected to the actions of King Henry II). This was hardly the case. Early Irish Celtic Christians heavily engaged in missionary activity throughout Europe and other parts of the world. The Christian communities they founded were Catholic, not some kind of separate Celtic Orthodox Church. The author gives a theory about how the English put an end to the alleged "Celtic Orthodox Church" in Ireland (making it conform to Latin Catholicism), but how does he explain the non-existence of this "Celtic Orthodox Church" in all the hundreds of Christian communities founded by Irish missionaries throughout the known world? Did Henry II invade all those other places too? Or did all the various world leaders get on board with the mission of Henry II, without a single instance of one of these communities resisting it and preserving their original "Celtic Orthodox Church"?

The simplest explanation why there is no "Celtic Orthodox Church" today is because there never was one to begin with. The early Irish Celtic Church was still part of the Catholic Church. Whatever Henry II did in Ireland, it was not transforming Celtic Christianity from an independent Church into the Catholic Church.
__________________
(disclaimer)
  #11  
Old Feb 23, '12, 7:15 pm
Farsight001 Farsight001 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 10, 2009
Posts: 2,456
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

As always, when none is provided, your response should be "where's the evidence?"
  #12  
Old Feb 24, '12, 7:53 am
AmbroseSJ's Avatar
AmbroseSJ AmbroseSJ is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2008
Posts: 2,548
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

I have a book on St. Patrick from 1866 that devotes many pages to refuting this ridiculous notion. For centuries after the Reformation in England, the Catholic Irish were oppressed to the point that these silly Protestant claims could go unanswered, and actually seemed to be true, based on endless repetition, even to some Catholic Irish. But it was all politically motivated rubbish.
__________________


“Reflect, Gentlemen, how many disputes you must have listened to, which were interminable, because neither party understood either his opponent or himself” --John Henry Newman
  #13  
Old Feb 25, '12, 6:41 am
WJL WJL is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Posts: 248
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

Thanks for the helpful responses, everyone.

I still have a few questions on how I should address some of these anti-Catholic claims and allegations that were recently predicated to me. The way in which these ideas that Celtic Church weren't Catholic and that the English put an end to this alleged "Celtic Culdee Church" in Ireland and made it conform to Latin Catholicism, was recently presented to me in the following way:

I was having an online discussion with an someone on a private forum about the High Kingship of Ireland which had existed prior to the Norman invasion of Ireland in the 1100's. The subject of a possible restoration of a form of traditional Irish monarchy (rather than a republic) came up, which was an idea which we both had an interest in.

I, myself, have an interest in Catholic political philosophy and an interest in (restoration) Monarchism--as Monarchy has been endorsed by numerous popes and saints. For example, Pope Pius VI, who, in his allocution on the execution of King Louis XVI of France by Freemasonic republicans, Pourquoi Notre Voix, declared that Monarchy is "the best of all governments" and St. Thomas Aquinas who taught that "the kingdom [or monarchy] is the best form of government as long as it is not corrupt" (Summa Theologiae, I.II. q. 105, answer).

Being that Ireland is a traditionally Catholic nation, the majority of Irish people are Catholics, and that (a form of) monarchy is the traditional Irish form of government, in addition to the above information, I had said that if the Irish were (ideally) to re-establish an independent Catholic monarchy (which, yes, I realize is unlikely any time soon however, ideally if they were to do so and in principle, based on Catholic political philosophy and social teaching) that it would be only suitable for Ireland to have a Catholic monarch.

This individual whom I was having this conversation objected that:

Quote:
Being a Catholic cannot be a precondition to be a High-King of Ireland. The majority of Irish High-Kings were Pagan, with many of them practicing in the profession of Druidry.
I responded:

Quote:
That was only in pre-Christian Ireland before the introduction of Christianity by St. Patrick in the 5th century and its completion in the 6th century. Christianity defeated paganism / Druidism in Ireland. The last pagan High King was Lugaid mac Lóegairi who reigned from 479-503. The first Christian (Catholic) High King of Ireland was Muirchertach mac Muiredaig who reigned from 504-527. Since then Ireland has been a Catholic nation.
He then responded:

Quote:
Nonsense. If that was the argument one would argue that because the protestants beat the Catholics then they were entitled to the kingship. It was Catholic chieftains that agreed to the surrender and regrant system under foreign monarchs. The poets and brehons who were still the ethos of the Druidic order were the only ones who opposed this and claimed that the land was vested by ancient rights to people of their craft. Irish Catholic lords abandoned the Irish kingship as did the Catholic Church who have always been England's ally, not Ireland's. A pagan Druid has every right to be a high king as an Irish catholic. No Irish king can be under compliment to any foreign institution. Lets also remember that most of the Irish Christian high kings were of the Celtic church and not the Roman one.
In summary, he is ultimately trying to say that the Catholic Church and the Catholic Irish chieftains and lords "betrayed", "sold-out," and "abandoned" Ireland and its High Kingship by submitting to Henry II and that the Catholic Church--whom he claims has always been England's ally, not Ireland's--and Irish Catholics, themselves, are supposedly "responsible" for England's occupation of Ireland and its persecution of the Irish throughout history, while he claims that it was only the "ethos of the Druidic order," the poets and brehons, who opposed this and "claimed that the land was vested by ancient rights to people of their craft." This individual's comments imply that he is a neo-pagan "Druid." So, he is implying that it was only pagan Druids (or what remained of their "ethos") who opposed the English subjugation of Ireland, while the Irish Catholics supposedly "betrayed their homeland by agreeing to the surrender and regrant system under foreign monarchs," and that the Catholic Church "betrayed" and "abandoned" Ireland and its High King in favor of Henry II of England.

In other words, he's trying to paint the pagan Druids as "patriotic Irishmen" who opposed the English while painting the Irish Catholic kings, chieftains and lords as "cowards," "sell-outs" and "traitors" who meekly submitted to a foreign king, and that the actions of Pope Adrian IV and his bull Laudibilter constitutes the Catholic Church, itself, "selling-out" the Irish Catholics to the English (who were also Catholic at the time). He also implies that Christianity / Catholicism is "foreign" to Ireland and the Irish people, and that the Irish should "return to Druidry" (or rather convert to neo-paganism / neo-Druidism), since (according to him) the Catholic Church "sold-out" Ireland to the English.

How should I respond to these allegations? I would really appreciate any help that any one can offer in tackling / addressing / answering these particular claims.

Thanks in advance.

Last edited by WJL; Feb 25, '12 at 6:51 am.
  #14  
Old Feb 25, '12, 8:04 am
Swiss Guy's Avatar
Swiss Guy Swiss Guy is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: May 14, 2011
Posts: 4,004
Religion: Christian in the Holy Catholic Church
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

Quote:
Originally Posted by WJL View Post
In summary, he is ultimately trying to say that the Catholic Church and the Catholic Irish chieftains and lords "betrayed", "sold-out," and "abandoned" Ireland and its High Kingship by submitting to Henry II and that the Catholic Church--whom he claims has always been England's ally, not Ireland's--and Irish Catholics, themselves, are supposedly "responsible" for England's occupation of Ireland and its persecution of the Irish throughout history, while he claims that it was only the "ethos of the Druidic order," the poets and brehons, who opposed this and "claimed that the land was vested by ancient rights to people of their craft." This individual's comments imply that he is a neo-pagan "Druid." So, he is implying that it was only pagan Druids (or what remained of their "ethos") who opposed the English subjugation of Ireland, while the Irish Catholics supposedly "betrayed their homeland by agreeing to the surrender and regrant system under foreign monarchs," and that the Catholic Church "betrayed" and "abandoned" Ireland and its High King in favor of Henry II of England.

In other words, he's trying to paint the pagan Druids as "patriotic Irishmen" who opposed the English while painting the Irish Catholic kings, chieftains and lords as "cowards," "sell-outs" and "traitors" who meekly submitted to a foreign king, and that the actions of Pope Adrian IV and his bull Laudibilter constitutes the Catholic Church, itself, "selling-out" the Irish Catholics to the English (who were also Catholic at the time). He also implies that Christianity / Catholicism is "foreign" to Ireland and the Irish people, and that the Irish should "return to Druidry" (or rather convert to neo-paganism / neo-Druidism), since (according to him) the Catholic Church "sold-out" Ireland to the English.

How should I respond to these allegations? I would really appreciate any help that any one can offer in tackling / addressing / answering these particular claims.

Thanks in advance.
Well, I'd like to believe that the Catholic Church has always been England's ally since I'm part English (just a little, but still ), he's trying to reinvent history. He sounds kind of like Otto von Bismarck and the Kulturkampf about how Catholicism was foreign to the Germans (later claimed to be necessary because of Polish people). This probably isn't much help, but I'd just encourage him to look up history and figure out why St. Patrick is so widely considered to have converted the Irish.
__________________




*I converted to Catholicism on the Easter Vigil on 3/30/13. Some posts may contain information that I believe is incorrect or was poorly understood from a Catholic viewpoint.
  #15  
Old Feb 25, '12, 9:03 pm
EricFilmer's Avatar
EricFilmer EricFilmer is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2010
Posts: 3,209
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Claim that St. Patrick & the Celtic Church Weren't Catholic

Quote:
Originally Posted by WJL View Post
In summary, he is ultimately trying to say that the Catholic Church and the Catholic Irish chieftains and lords "betrayed", "sold-out," and "abandoned" Ireland and its High Kingship by submitting to Henry II and that the Catholic Church--whom he claims has always been England's ally, not Ireland's--and Irish Catholics, themselves, are supposedly "responsible" for England's occupation of Ireland...
First of all, he is referencing an alleged papal bull known as the Laudabiliter whose authenticity is heavily disputed among historians. But even if it is authentic, it does not prove that Christianity in Ireland was not the Catholic Church prior to King Henry II.

Secondly, walking around in certain parts of Ireland saying that the Catholic Church "has always been England's ally" and that "Irish Catholics themselves are responsible for England's occupation of Ireland" could seriously get one killed! If Irish Catholics are so "Best Friends Forever" with the English then how does he explain such things as the Battle of Glenmalure, the Irish Rebellion of 1798,
the Bloody Sunday Massacre and the Easter Rising? These things happened after King Henry II's invasion of Ireland.

And exactly what did the Irish Catholics receive in return for this alleged alliance with the English? Centuries of anti-Catholic persecution? Some deal all that was for this supposed compliance! Has this guy never heard of the Penal Laws of Ireland, which were also known as "The Laws in Ireland for the Suppression of Popery"?

In Irish folk songs, there is an entire genre of music called "Rebel Songs" which are songs written by Irish Catholics in protest against the English!!! Just off the top of my head...

"Boolavogue"
(This commemorates a Catholic priest named Fr. John Murphy who led his Catholic parishioners in battle against English troops in the Irish Rebellion of 1798.
I guess they never got the memo that they were supposed to be "BFF" with England.)


"Grace"
(based on a true story and one of the saddest songs ever written; click on the link for a brief explanation of the story behind the song and then a performance of it)

"The Wearing of the Green"
(The Irish song just about everyone has heard, about the repression leading up to the Irish Rebellion of 1798)

"The Rising of the Moon"
(about the Irish Rebellion of 1798)

"Follow Me Up to Carlow"
(about the Battle of of Glenmalure)

"Four Green Fields"

"The Foggy Dew"
(about the Easter Rising)

"Down By the Glenside (The Bold Fenian Men)"
(also about the Easter Rising)

"Kevin Barry"
(about a member of the "Forgotten Ten" of the I.R.A., hanged in 1920. Incidentally, I initially learned all these songs hanging out in Kevin Barry's Irish Pub in Savannah, Georgia)
__________________
(disclaimer)

Last edited by EricFilmer; Feb 25, '12 at 9:22 pm.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8569Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5241CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4436Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3893Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3876SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3461Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3318Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3237Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3170For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:29 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.