Celtic Christianity

[Elvendon]

I don't know if this is the right place for a thread about Celtic Christianity, but since I couldn't see any subforums concerning it, I thought this was better than anywhere

I've always loved my Christian faith - it completes my worldview and helped me out of a time when I was really depressed. However, brought up a non-practicing Anglican (i.e. we go to Church on High days and holidays, but not every Sunday) I couldn't help feeling like I needed something more. Don't get more wrong, Anglicanism is fantastic, I just felt it didn't quite complete me. So I asked around and my local priest pointed me in the direction of Celtic Christianity - he recognised by neo-pagan and tree-huggerish leanings and saw that I might do well to explore this ancient form of British Christianity.

I've read several books on the subject, and I am no means an expert, but I think if I can record some of my beliefs and practices it might help other people who were in my situation, or who are merely curious.

1) Church - What flavour of Christian?: Unfortunately, there is no single Culdee (Celtic Christian) church. Nor was their ever. If you asked the majority of Christians living in the UK before the coming of Saint Augustine of Canterbury (and there were plenty, whatever you might have heard ) they would not have considered themselves anything other than part of the apostolic and Catholic church. There is much debate as to whether they had any true autonomy at all - it was, however, unique in many of it's techniques and practices. Ever since the Synod of Whitby in the seventh century, which lead to the widespread accept of the Roman (as opposed to Celtic) rule in the United Kingdom, the ancient uniqueness of British, Irish and Breton Christianity has been covered up and forgotten about - not due to conspiracy, but more due to neglect.
So, the readoption of *some* Celtic traditions has been trans-denominational, usually as the personal desires of individual priests and Christians dictate. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland has become very Celtic in it's flavour, and Irish Catholicism is definately catching up. The Churches of Wales and England are a little slower off the mark, but I feel that the mood is changing. The current Archbishop of Canterbury was initiated into the Gorsedd of Bards, a secular druidry organisation. I have heard of some Celtic Orthodox Churches, but they are far away from where I live, and I am still sticking with Anglicanism for now I am still very respectful of the Pope and the Catholic church (I recently went on a pilgrimage to Rome, which was great) but I do not recognise him as infallable.

2) Interfaith: Celtic Christianity existed at a time when people of many different faiths were living together in reasonably close proximity - Christians, Celtic Pagans, Anglo-Saxon Pagans, Roman Pagans... all lived together, and somehow had to get along. The history of evangelism in Rome and around the Med is, in many ways, drenched in blood; both of Christians and of those who refused to convert when the worm turned. The Culdees had no such violent experiences during their evangelisation of the UK. The lack of matyrs was actually a cause of embarassment for many Celts (how could they look the Romans in the face if none of their number had died for the faith as the Romans had done?) and so they invented different forms of matyrdom in addition to the conventional sort - "green" matyrdom which involved strict asceticism and "white" matyrdom which involved engaging in permanent pilgrimage and leaving one's homeland for good.
The lack of matyrs indicates how, though not entirely without incident, the Celtic model was remarkably (for it's time) tolerant of other faiths. Saint Patrick threatened to excommunicate anyone who persecuted a witch, and Saint Columba was known for calling Christ "my druid." Many of the Celtic saints were amalgamated with stories of the Old Gods - Saint Bride was associated with the goddess Brigid and was known as the nursemaid of Christ. Simply put, Celtic Christianity could cope with being surrounded with other faiths and baptised ideas as well as people into it's being.

3) Provenance: The origins of English Christianity are downright mysterious. It was widely believed by Celts that the Church was brought to England either by Joseph of Aramathea (who buried the grail at Glastonbury Tor), the apostles at Jesus' behest or Jesus himself, who according to some traditions travelled with Joseph of Aramathea to England on a business trip and once there began to teach the druids. I personally believe there to be something in these accounts - namely that Christianity spread to England very quickly after or even before the death of Jesus.

4) A love of nature: I love nature - I hug trees, I volunteer for conservation work, I pray and meditate outside whenever I can. This tempted more towards neopaganism, as I believe that God truly can be found within the world around us and that everything has a life and a spirit of it's own. However, there is a similar set of beliefs within (at least modern) Celtic Christianity, which teaches that God and his Word can be found in the natural world. I like to think of God writing three books of Law; the Bible, the Human Mind and the Natural World. I love the idea that I can experience the essences of natural things while I worship my God.

5) Community and Evangelism: For Celtic Christians, Evangelism and the Community were intimately linked. While elsewhere people were threatened with eternal damnation, then thrown the life-aid of conversion and then ministered and helped, the Celts offered ministry and aid, presented their teachings and only then did they ask people to convert. Of course, this was not the universal model, but it was frequently used. This model, I believe, would revitalise Christian ministry around the world, as it is non-judgemental and respects the intelligence of the prospective convert to make their mind up themselves.
Furthermore, the community was at the heart of the Celtic world. Rather than a hierachical system of priests, canons and bishops, those figures only had ceremonial roles - the Abbots held the principal authority. As monastaries (in Ireland especially) were centers for trade and learning, they soon grew into towns and prospered. As the monks were comitted to asceticism as part of their rule, being in a position of power only rarely was a cause for corruption.

6) Women: Women were often in positions of significant power within the church - as the monastic leaders governed the church rather than the priesthood - it meant that Abbesses could rise to the top. They could not be ordained as priests, but they did have much more power than was normal for women for Christianity of the day. The Abbess Brigid had two bishops reporting to her!

That's enough for now. There are other aspects of Celtic Christianity that did not draw me to it or that I disagree with, but I felt it best to stick to just what I like for starters.

Trinity Bless you all

Elvendon

 

[James the Persian]

How do you see the difference (if any) between Celtic Christianity and Orthodoxy. I don't want to downplay the regional differences in expression of faith (but we still have those - just compare the Romanians to the Greeks and you'll see what I mean) which certainly produced some uniquely Celtic characteristics, but a lot of what you say you like about the Celtic Church sounds identical to my own, particularly the place of maonastics, including women, in the Church. Is there anything in particular you see as different or do you see it, as I do, as a regional interpretation of the Orthodox faith much as my own church follows a tradition that is a Romanian regional interpretation of that same common faith?

James

 

[michel]

As a most definitely 'displaced and non-comformist' Christian, I will certaily go with the tree hugging.

Thank you for sharing that.

 

[Elvendon]

How do you see the difference (if any) between Celtic Christianity and Orthodoxy. I don't want to downplay the regional differences in expression of faith (but we still have those - just compare the Romanians to the Greeks and you'll see what I mean) which certainly produced some uniquely Celtic characteristics, but a lot of what you say you like about the Celtic Church sounds identical to my own, particularly the place of maonastics, including women, in the Church. Is there anything in particular you see as different or do you see it, as I do, as a regional interpretation of the Orthodox faith much as my own church follows a tradition that is a Romanian regional interpretation of that same common faith?

James

I'm not sure there is. Do you have a good link that summarises Orthodox teachings or is wikipedia accurate (as ever)

As a most definitely 'displaced and non-comformist' Christian, I will certaily go with the tree hugging.

Thank you for sharing that.

It's nice to share

Bless you both

Elvendon

 

[James the Persian]

I'm not sure there is. Do you have a good link that summarises Orthodox teachings or is wikipedia accurate (as ever)

The wikipedia article's not bad. The numbers were rather low (how they come up with 215 million when there are 200 million Russian Orthodox and 20 million Romanian - the two largest churches - is beyond me), but that's a tiny and inconsequential detail. There is an Orthodox wiki that you might like to look at, perhaps, also, especially if there are any specific topics you're interested at looking at in a bit more depth. You can find it here:

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page

I hope this is useful.

James

 

[Elvendon]

Cheers James! I'll get busy browsing that...

 

[Elvendon]

To answer your question "What is different..." between Celtic and Orthodox models of ministry JamesThePersian: there are one or two bits. I'll post it here for the record, but since we've discussed things at length, it's more for the benefit of casual readers than yourself

1) The filioque clause: The preeminent split between east and west I would suggest would have been upheld by the ancient Culdees. I would assume that they followed RC guidance in this regard, I have never read anything claiming they didn't.

2) Tonsure: The Celtic monks appear to have taken their fashion of tonsure from the ancient druids themselves - so that rather than use the southern style of a bald crown with hair grown a short length on the sides of the head, the Celts shaved their heads from ear to ear with the front being bald and the back being left to grow. This differs from Eastern Orthodox monks.

3) The dating of easter: The differences were quite complicated (I have never been able to master it) but the Celts celebrated Easter at a different time to the continental church. Easter was always celebrated on the Vernal Equinox. This differs from all other Christian denominations.

4) Original Sin: The Celts held that certain figures in Christian history (inc. Joshua) were pure of original sin, in addition to the figures of Jesus and Mary as accepted by The Roman Church. Eastern Orthodoxy would disagree with both views, of course, as the Orthodox church holds that original sin is not inherited guilt.

5) Marian Doctrines: In contrast to the Orthodox view, Celts believed in both the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary.

6) Infant Baptism: Celts only baptised their children at special services four times a year. The Orthodox practice I am not certain of, but I expect it is different.

7) Authority of Bishops: The Celts had their Abbots and Abbesses as the heads of the church, with Bishops having only a ceremonial role. This is very different to the Orthodox and Catholic models.

8) Witches: The Celts opposed any persecution of witches, mainly because they felt giving credence to such superstitions was dangerous and silly. I'm not sure what the Orthodox view is, but Catholics certainly differed in their view of witchcraft.

That's about it. Hope that was enlightening

 

[James the Persian]

To answer your question "What is different..." between Celtic and Orthodox models of ministry JamesThePersian: there are one or two bits. I'll post it here for the record, but since we've discussed things at length, it's more for the benefit of casual readers than yourself

1) The filioque clause: The preeminent split between east and west I would suggest would have been upheld by the ancient Culdees. I would assume that they followed RC guidance in this regard, I have never read anything claiming they didn't.

I seriously doubt this. Prior to the Synod of Whitby, Rome had very little influence in Britain. Even afterwards the influence was not anywhere near so pronounced as it would have been after the Norman invasion. There were very strong ties between the Anglo-Saxon royal house and both Russia (one of he founders of Moscow was a descendant of Harold Godwinson) and the Eastern Empire. When the Normans conquered Ireland they found the Christians there were still commemorating the eastern Emperor in their Liturgy. The filioque made very little progress into Britain and some of the other areas nominally under Rome until the 11th century, primarily because Rome had condemned it (from the reinstatement of St. Photios until the Great Schism, the council that condemned the addition was considered ecumenical by by both sides).

2) Tonsure: The Celtic monks appear to have taken their fashion of tonsure from the ancient druids themselves - so that rather than use the southern style of a bald crown with hair grown a short length on the sides of the head, the Celts shaved their heads from ear to ear with the front being bald and the back being left to grow. This differs from Eastern Orthodox monks.

This does differ, but I'm pretty sure hat we'd see it as a perfectly acceptable local tradition. Tonsures are not dogma. Orthodox monks are tonsured in an invisible way (as are all Orthodox at baptism) by removing some hair in the shape of a cross. This is very different from the western practice but predates the Schism and seems to have not caused any issues.

3) The dating of easter: The differences were quite complicated (I have never been able to master it) but the Celts celebrated Easter at a different time to the continental church. Easter was always celebrated on the Vernal Equinox. This differs from all other Christian denominations.

This is again true but seems an artifact of Britain's isolation once the legions left. There were similar dating controversies in the east which were settled by council. The Celts don't seem to have had a problem with this as they adopted the date used elsewhere at the Synod of Whitby.

4) Original Sin: The Celts held that certain figures in Christian history (inc. Joshua) were pure of original sin, in addition to the figures of Jesus and Mary as accepted by The Roman Church. Eastern Orthodoxy would disagree with both views, of course, as the Orthodox church holds that original sin is not inherited guilt.

I've never heard this. Do you have any sources so I might read up on it? I have a suspicion that such an idea must constitute a different (and perhaps rather more Orthodox) understanding of what Original Sin means. Some Orthodox, for instance, hold that John the Baptist was sinless, though this is not required. For Orthodox, though, to believe that anyone was born free of the effects of Original Sin would be equivalent to believing they were immortal.

5) Marian Doctrines: In contrast to the Orthodox view, Celts believed in both the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary.

On the first point, though we call it the Dormition, this is not in contradiction to Orthodox belief. We do believe that the Theotokos was assumed bodily into heaven after her death. The issue we have with Roman Catholic belief is that it seems to imply that she may have been assumed before death, which contradicts Holy Tradition. And the fact that they dogmatised it. We don't have Marian dogmas. I can't see, however, how the Celts could possibly have believed in the Immaculate Conception as this is a 19th century RC dogma. Could you explain?

6) Infant Baptism: Celts only baptised their children at special services four times a year. The Orthodox practice I am not certain of, but I expect it is different.

That's a difference in praxis but not a major one. Usually infants are (and always were) baptised shortly after birth but it isn't all that uncommon for baptisms to be made to coincide with some important feast either.

7) Authority of Bishops: The Celts had their Abbots and Abbesses as the heads of the church, with Bishops having only a ceremonial role. This is very different to the Orthodox and Catholic models.

I don't think this is quite as major as you make out. All our bishops are monks and it's not that uncommon to have a cathedral which is actually a monastery church (thus making the abbot and the bishop one and the same). It seems, if anything, just to be an exaggeration of the situation in the east, presumably due to the heavy Thebaid influence on Celtic monasticism.

8) Witches: The Celts opposed any persecution of witches, mainly because they felt giving credence to such superstitions was dangerous and silly. I'm not sure what the Orthodox view is, but Catholics certainly differed in their view of witchcraft.

I don't recall any Orthodox persecution of witches and such people do still exist in the east. The only reaction I have seen to them (and they're a big 'problem' in rural Romania, for instance) is an exhortation by priests not to go to them. The Orthodox attitude sounds little different to what you describe as the Celtic one.

James

 

[Elvendon]

I seriously doubt this. Prior to the Synod of Whitby, Rome had very little influence in Britain. Even afterwards the influence was not anywhere near so pronounced as it would have been after the Norman invasion. There were very strong ties between the Anglo-Saxon royal house and both Russia (one of he founders of Moscow was a descendant of Harold Godwinson) and the Eastern Empire. When the Normans conquered Ireland they found the Christians there were still commemorating the eastern Emperor in their Liturgy. The filioque made very little progress into Britain and some of the other areas nominally under Rome until the 11th century, primarily because Rome had condemned it (from the reinstatement of St. Photios until the Great Schism, the council that condemned the addition was considered ecumenical by by both sides).

Well that is certainly very interesting. I defer to your greater knowledge on this specific subject. I have never read anything either way, so you are probably right.

This does differ, but I'm pretty sure hat we'd see it as a perfectly acceptable local tradition. Tonsures are not dogma. Orthodox monks are tonsured in an invisible way (as are all Orthodox at baptism) by removing some hair in the shape of a cross. This is very different from the western practice but predates the Schism and seems to have not caused any issues.

This is good then. I've always thought tonsure as symbolic of the pre-christian tradition you draw upon for inspiration in non-dogmatic issues. If Orthodoxy does not involve total adoption of Eastern Practices such as this, I'm much more comfortable with it than I would be with Catholicism

This is again true but seems an artifact of Britain's isolation once the legions left. There were similar dating controversies in the east which were settled by council. The Celts don't seem to have had a problem with this as they adopted the date used elsewhere at the Synod of Whitby.

Hmm, I don't much like that Synod. Killed much of my tradition stone dead you might say. Well, though I think celebrating Easter on the equinox has a certain poetry to it, I'd far prefer to celebrate at the same time as other Christians (I suspect the Celts thought so too, going on what you said.)

I've never heard this. Do you have any sources so I might read up on it? I have a suspicion that such an idea must constitute a different (and perhaps rather more Orthodox) understanding of what Original Sin means. Some Orthodox, for instance, hold that John the Baptist was sinless, though this is not required. For Orthodox, though, to believe that anyone was born free of the effects of Original Sin would be equivalent to believing they were immortal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

This is my prime source, although there was also a conflicting view that was based on the teachings of Pelagius, which in some respects is more similar to Orthodoxy (in that it denies Original Sin) but in other ways very distinct (humans don't need grace.) This was not particularly prevalent among later Culdees however.

On the first point, though we call it the Dormition, this is not in contradiction to Orthodox belief. We do believe that the Theotokos was assumed bodily into heaven after her death. The issue we have with Roman Catholic belief is that it seems to imply that she may have been assumed before death, which contradicts Holy Tradition. And the fact that they dogmatised it. We don't have Marian dogmas. I can't see, however, how the Celts could possibly have believed in the Immaculate Conception as this is a 19th century RC dogma. Could you explain?

Though the Immaculate Conception became Catholic dogma in the 19th century, the core idea (that Mary was not stained by original sin from the moment of her conception) was widely present in the Celtic Church - and remained present in the Christian conscience of England until it was suppressed by the Normans.

That's a difference in praxis but not a major one. Usually infants are (and always were) baptised shortly after birth but it isn't all that uncommon for baptisms to be made to coincide with some important feast either.

Well that's fair enough.

I don't think this is quite as major as you make out. All our bishops are monks and it's not that uncommon to have a cathedral which is actually a monastery church (thus making the abbot and the bishop one and the same). It seems, if anything, just to be an exaggeration of the situation in the east, presumably due to the heavy Thebaid influence on Celtic monasticism.

Ah. Interestingly, the situation of Abbot and Bishop being one and the same was the situation just after the Synod of Whitby - the Celts just made all their Abbots bishops. However, soon the power moved away from the monasteries and into the city Cathedrals and diocese. Shame really, having a monk as a spiritual and ecclesiastical leader is a damn good idea - it prevents power hungry characters from being attracted by the job.

I don't recall any Orthodox persecution of witches and such people do still exist in the east. The only reaction I have seen to them (and they're a big 'problem' in rural Romania, for instance) is an exhortation by priests not to go to them. The Orthodox attitude sounds little different to what you describe as the Celtic one.

Damn sensible if you ask me. The idea we have to persecute witches is rather rediculous imo - the realm of the spiritual policing is firmly under God's authority in my view.

 

[James the Persian]

Thanks for the answers. I'd just like to pick up on your comments about Pelagius. I don't believe that he ever actually taught Pelagianism but rather that some of his followers exaggerated his teachings at a later time. What I do know of Pelagius is that his teachings appear to have been what the RCs call semi-Pelagian. That is, they were Orthodox. Pelagius was vehemently opposed by Bl. Augustine due to the fact that he had a rather predestinatory idea of irresitible grace. Augustine was in turn staunchly opposed by St. John Cassian who argued for a synergy between man and God's grace, this being the ancient teaching (hardly surprising given that he was an easterner - from modern Romania - who was a monk in both Egypt and the Holy Land before settling in the west). For this reason the Roman see accused him of heresy. It's interesting to note that whilst Pelagius was condemned at Rome he was exonerated later in the east. By this period the theologies of the eastern and western churches had already begun to drift apart and the situation with Pelagius, Cassian and Augustine is a good indicator of this.

I'd have to see, though, a much fuller description of Celtic belief on Original Sin before I could say which (if any) other tradition it most fits with. The idea of inherited guilt is peculiarly western and, indeed, Augustinian, so I honestly find it difficult to believe that the Celts held to it in the first place, though I can't rule this out.

James

 

[Elvendon]

Thanks for the answers. I'd just like to pick up on your comments about Pelagius. I don't believe that he ever actually taught Pelagianism but rather that some of his followers exaggerated his teachings at a later time. What I do know of Pelagius is that his teachings appear to have been what the RCs call semi-Pelagian. That is, they were Orthodox. Pelagius was vehemently opposed by Bl. Augustine due to the fact that he had a rather predestinatory idea of irresitible grace. Augustine was in turn staunchly opposed by St. John Cassian who argued for a synergy between man and God's grace, this being the ancient teaching (hardly surprising given that he was an easterner - from modern Romania - who was a monk in both Egypt and the Holy Land before settling in the west). For this reason the Roman see accused him of heresy. It's interesting to note that whilst Pelagius was condemned at Rome he was exonerated later in the east. By this period the theologies of the eastern and western churches had already begun to drift apart and the situation with Pelagius, Cassian and Augustine is a good indicator of this.

This is very interesting. I have read some modern (and, I hate to say, rather un-academic) Celtic revivalist books that posit a highly (semi)pelagian worldview, though whether this reflects the attitude of the original Culdees I'm not yet sure.

However, it is absolutely clear that modern Celtic Christian enthusiasts adhere to Pelagius' teachings vehemently - with other early scholars such as Eriugena (sp?) being cited as backing him up. Karl Barth claimed that Britain and British people were "incurably pelagian" - citing how as a population we are not avid church-goers, but many English people who call themselves Christians instead work to look after those that surround them - human, animal or plant.

With this in mind, I certainly understand why the Anglican church is failing to do so well. It still, I believe, holds on to the OS doctrine, which the British people appear to have rejected :rainbow1:

I'd have to see, though, a much fuller description of Celtic belief on Original Sin before I could say which (if any) other tradition it most fits with. The idea of inherited guilt is peculiarly western and, indeed, Augustinian, so I honestly find it difficult to believe that the Celts held to it in the first place, though I can't rule this out.

James

I'm really not sure either. The wikipedia article claims that the official view was of a weakened level of Original sin (i.e. many righteous people in Biblical history were exempt) but most of the Celtic Christian literature and websites I have looked at seem to eschew any Augustinian influence. I will look this up, it's an issue I hold as very important.

Elvendon